When was a Humanist book last in the Observer’s list of top selling non-fiction books for over 20 weeks? And it has yet to come out in paperback. Maybe this is the most important Humanist book since The Origin of the Species!

In my little council area of Stirling (pop. approx. 80,000) there are 8 copies listed in the library catalogue and they were all out when I looked! It is undoubtedly making an impact on the UK public who read non-fiction books. It was prominently displayed in Borders in Buchanan Street, Glasgow where I bought it.

There have been 2 television programmes where Dawkins bravely took on militant theists on their home ground: in the Bible belt of the USA and in the Middle East. (We in the Edinburgh Group watched both programmes, then discussed them.)

But has this - by Humanist standards – massive publicity resulted in a great increase of interest in our movement and in joining us? Our executive will be able to answer for Scotland. If there has been it is no thanks to Dawkins who fails to include us in his list of Humanism organisations in the English–speaking world. Typical English person!

He does give contacts for the BHA etc., but that is not really his point. He is not really interested in organised Humanism or in establishing groups where fellow Humanists can meet.

I don’t think he is writing for us, the convinced Humanists. He is writing for that massive proportion of the educated British public who classify themselves as agnostics or sit on the fence. These are the people who don’t want to regard themselves as Humanists or atheists in case there is something in religion for them after all. For this audience Dawkins argues very powerfully. If he wins the argument this makes it all the more tragic that he doesn’t try to lure them into our movement. His book could have been the best thing for Humanism since the egalitarian movement of the 1960’s.

He argues an intellectual case against a personal God and in favour of scientifically–based wonder. His belief system draws heavily on Albert Einstein who is also my greatest Humanist hero. I agree with him, but why doesn’t he go further and argue for Humanism?

Much of the book is an argument for the non-existence of God. He offers a devastating critique of the idiocies of organised religion in general and Christianity in particular. Don’t miss the section on the Old Testament. For once he actually shows some humour here.

He provides a devastating intellectual critique of these religions, right up to the current conflict in Iraq. Dawkins correctly points out that what we see on our television sets every day is NOT ethnic cleansing , but an attempt at mutual religious cleansing by the Shiites and the Sunnis. He is equally powerful in his analysis of the negative role of religion is the dreadful situation in Northern Ireland over the past 30 plus years.

In his chapter on morality he counters the common religious argument that atheism equates with amorality. He cites empirical evidence which shows that there are no significant differences between non-religious and religious people. However it is interesting that even such a distinguished academic as Dawkins is limited in his knowledge to his own subject i.e. biology. He cites the work of Hauser who is only replicating the work which Kohlberg did in the 1970’s on moral dilemmas; although Hauser does use new dilemmas.

Dawkins fails to cater sufficiently for our feelings and for the need of most of us to relate to other people. These are the trump cards of organised religion. In particular he is not going to win over many women to our cause with his purely intellectual arguments.

Dawkins writes very well and very clearly - as befits a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. He also argues cogently. However it is a great lost opportunity for us that he – the best known person in our movement in the UK and a Vice–President of the BHA - did not use this wonderful platform to lead his reading public towards Humanism, rather than just away from God. He seems to enjoy his reputation as a militant atheist, rather than being a “human” Humanist who could attract people away from organised religion.

He discusses the awkward issue for atheists of Stalin and the Communist U.S.S.R. This was an atheist state, but was it a desirable state for Humanists? I would argue: No. There was no freedom of expression and that this is essential for Humanism. However Dawkins gets into far murkier water of regarding Stalin as a crypto-Russian Orthodox supporter since he was brought up in this faith and his mother wanted him to be a Russian Orthodox priest.

However this is a book review for Humanists. I do recommend this book. It is a good read. However I have found it a book to dip into, rather than to read from cover to cover.

Peter Sutherland