Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion Critique
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusiona critique by Tim MorganIntroductionThis essay started as a review of Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion for a bookclub in Orlando, Florida. I posted a small portion of it on Facebook which started adeep, engaging three week discussion with hundreds of comments. It seemed that Ihad some useful insight to contribute to the discussion, so I decided to post it here.I have not read Allister McGrath’s, The Dawkins Delusion, yet although I plan to andwould recommend it for a more in-depth analysis based on his other works. Isuspect Allister will make better points than me but I can at least offer my readerbrevity. For brevity’s sake, I have only responded to Dawkins’ points thatmeaningfully contribute to the Atheism/Theism debate. So, for example, when hespends an entire chapter justifying his open hostility toward religion, I don’t seehow this makes any meaningful contribution to the discussion so I leave ituntouched.This is not a critique of Atheism and should not be taken as either pro or antiAtheism. It is a review of Dawkins key points and a critique of his arguments. Attimes, Atheists may agree with me, for example, where Dawkins’ suggestion for anobjective system of morality differs from the mainline Atheistic view. At timesTheists may disagree with me, for example, when I argue for the Big Bang asevidence against one of Dawkins’ points.It is not my purpose to refute Atheism but rather to interact with Dawkins’ writingand, hopefully, generate meaningful dialogue.I have watched numerous Atheist vs. Theist debates like Richard Dawkins vs.William Lane Craig, Christopher Hitchens vs. Frank Turek, Sam Harris vs. WilliamLane Craig, etc. The unique thing about the Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennoxdebatei held in the Natural History Museum of Oxford University was that theyinterviewed people from the crowd afterwards. It was interesting that some peoplewho watched the same debate and heard the same evidence came to differentconclusions about the facts. Clearly there were factors influencing their conclusionsbeyond just the facts.What caused people in that crowd to draw different conclusions from the same setof facts? Aristotle said people form their beliefs by three factors: an intellectualfactor that he called logos, an emotional factor, pathos and a social factor, ethos. Theinfluence of their emotions and social context would explain the mixed reactions ofthe spectators to the same set of facts of the Richard Dawkins/John Lennox debate. Ithink Aristotle was correct that our emotional reaction to the facts and our socialcontext make the difference in how we conclude what is true.
The American legal system clearly understands the fact that facts don’t speak forthemselves. Attorneys on both sides are allowed to dismiss potential jurors whoexhibit pre-conceived notions. This step occurs before both sides present theirevidence. This would not be necessary if evidence alone can change people’s minds.Dawkins seems to agree with this when he cites anthropologist Lionel Tiger from hisbook Optimism: The Biology of Hope:There is a tendency for humans consciously to see what they wish to see. Theyliterally have difficulty seeing things with negative connotations while seeingwith increasing ease items that are positive. (p.218)If Aristotle and Tiger are correct, Dawkins’ objectivity is highly questionablebecause his disdain for religion is overflowing with such “negative connotations”that would make it very difficult for him to see it as true. Dawkins' loathing hatredof religion is obvious in comments like, "The God of the Old Testament is arguablythe most unpleasant character in all fiction." (p. 51) He describes religion as, "timeconsuming, hostility-provoking rituals, anti-factual, and counter-productive" (p.194). He delights in Thomas Jefferson describing God as "a being of terrificcharacter--cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust." (p.51) and Gore Vidal'scomments that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are "anti-human" and responsiblefor "the loathing of women for 2000 years in those countries afflicted by the skygod" (p. 58). Dawkins rails against suicide bombers, the Crusades, witch-hunts, theIsraeli/Palestinian wars, the Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, the trouble in NorthernIreland, honour killings, televangelists, and the Taliban yet he never onceacknowledges Christian hospitals, orphanages, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, thehumanitarian efforts of the Salvation Army, or how the Catholic church fundedscientific research in the middle ages.Dawkins writes, “I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it activelydebauches the scientific enterprise It subverts science and saps the intellect.”(p321). He goes on, “I am hostile to religion because of what it did to Kurt Wise [ascientist turned creationist]” (p323) and continues, “the Kurt Wise story is just plainpathetic –pathetic and contemptible.” (p.322). Dawkins even stoops to the level ofschoolyard bully name calling, repeatedly labeling religious people “faith-heads” (p.28, 348).Despite all this, Dawkins claims objectivity, saying he possesses "passion that canchange its mind" (p.18) and all he needs to give up Atheism is "Fossil rabbits in thePrecambrian." (p.19). However, it is all too convenient to conjure hypotheticalevidence instead of addressing the appropriateness of your response to theevidence which is there. If a potential juror wrote an entire chapter devoted to whatwas wrong with the defendant, calling him a “psychotic delinquent”ii, “cruel, patheticand contemptible”, hurling insults at the defendant and openly professing hostilitytoward him, then feigned objectivity about the case and promised their emotionswould not affect their judgment, they would immediately be tossed out the
courtroom as too biased to reach an objective verdict. Yet Dawkins rants for anentire chapter on the evils of religion then qualifies it with, “ but I could change mymind about it.” and expects us to believe he is objective.Particular details of his emotional bias are exposed in his comment, "I shall not beconcerned at all with other religions such as Buddhism or Confucianism. Indeed,there is something to be said for treating these not as religions at all but as ethicalsystems or philosophies of life." (p.59) It would be difficult, if not impossible, to findany book on comparative religion that does not label Buddhism a religion. Onewonders why Dawkins gives Buddhism a free pass from his vicious attacks onreligion. Its doctrine of an impersonal yet supernatural force conflicts withDawkins' view that "An Atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebodywho believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world." (p.35) butDawkins does not devote a single sentence to refuting a supernatural, impersonalgod. It seems that it is only the idea of a personal God that Dawkins finds offensive.It seems like Dawkins is not arguing against any God but rather the God of BiblicalTheism. This leaves the reader wondering whether Dawkins’ Atheism originates inhis scientific study or with his disdain of Yahweh Theology.In this case, it matters whether the chicken or the egg came first. It should be notedthat Dawkins, by his own account, rejected Christianity in his mid-teens before hebecame a scientist. Coming back to Tiger's comment that "we see what we wish tosee", if Dawkins starts with the rejection of Yahweh, it is unlikely anything in sciencewill convince him otherwise because, although some evidence is there, it wouldhave to be overwhelming and undeniable to win over someone with such strongpersonal prejudices. Otherwise, his scientific studies only enable him to make abetter argument for what he already believed in the first place.Dictionary.com defines objectivity as, “judgment based on observable phenomena anduninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.” It is certainly worth noting thatboth Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens espouse(d) extremely negativeemotional views of religion. If they felt more along the lines of the British Atheistgroup that bought bus ads saying, “God probably doesn’t exist. Now stop worryingand enjoy your life.”iii, people would find it easier to believe their assertions thatthey object to God for purely intellectual reasons, as they would have us believe.In sum, Dawkins case would be more convincing if it sounded like, “My scientificresearch has led me to conclude God most probably does not exist”, instead of how itcomes across which is “God doesn’t exist and I hate Him.”An Atheist may protest, “His motivation doesn’t matter as long as he arrives at theright conclusion.” This completely misses Aristotle and Tiger’s point that it may notbe possible to arrive at the right conclusion unless one has the right motivation.Science deals with observation but no one saw the universe emerge or witnessedthe origin of life. We can only scientifically look at individual facts that are likepieces of a giant puzzle and try to explain the big picture by analyzing the pieces.
Whether those pieces are seeing expansion in the universe or fossils in rock, at somepoint we must interpret how these individual puzzle pieces fit in the puzzle. Theproblem is every puzzle has two sides—a colorful side with an image and a grey,empty side. The puzzle of why we are here is an extremely complex one where noone has seen the box. If you don’t like colorful things and want the big picture tocome out grey and empty, you will have a different interpretation how the pieces fittogether than someone who thinks the big picture is a colorful image.Chapter 2 – The God HypothesisDawkins has a long section on “The Poverty of Agnosticism”. He writes, “There isnothing wrong with bring agnostic in cases where we lack evidence one way orthe other .How about the question of God? Should we be agnostic about him too?”(p. 69). He goes into a long discussion of TAP, Temporary Agnosticism in Practiceand PAP, Permanent Agnosticism in Practice. The principle can be succinctlysummarized as TAP is when there is an answer and you just haven’t assembled theevidence while PAP is when the answer may never be known because there isn’tenough evidence to make a case one way or the other. Dawkins claims, “theexistence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category” (p. 70) meaningthere is enough evidence to reach a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. He wouldhave us believe there is enough evidence to get off the fence and definitely concludethat “there almost certainly is no God.”Since he is British, I wonder if Dawkins is familiar with the American legal systemand what we require to “prove” someone guilty. Consider the standard of proof inAmerican criminal court verses civil court. OJ Simpson was found innocent ofmurder in criminal court because the standard there requires “proof beyond areasonable doubt”. However, he was found guilty in civil court because the standardthere requires, “a preponderance of evidence”. Dawkins decrees a criminal courtverdict again God’s existence even though he only provides civil court evidence atbest.At one point, Dawkins writes, “If he existed and chose to reveal it, God himself couldclinch the argument, noisily and unequivocally, in his favor.” (p.73) MichaelSherman has made similar remarks in more than one recorded debate suggestingTheist should all unite in prayer that God would grow back the arm of just onesolider wounded in combat defending our countryiv. This seems to be his version ofDawkins’ “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." (p.19). Every Atheist seems to havetheir own idea of what would constitute absolute convincing proof. I tried toimagine a proof that would be universally acceptable to all atheists and came up thishypothetical scenario. I acknowledge it may seem overly dramatic but I am nottrying to be. There is a logical point at the end if you will briefly indulge me.Imagine the hypothetic debate-to-end-all-debates with Richard Dawkins, MichaelSherman, and Sam Harris on one side debating William Lane Craig, John Lennox andFrank Turek. Imagine with this all-star cast, the debate was run by ABC live on
national television. Imagine the Atheist side was really cleaning the Theist’ clock,making them look downright stupid. Suppose at this moment God decided that wasall He was going to take and He appeared on national television bringingChristopher Hitchens with him back from the dead as a witness. Christopher pleadswith the Dawkins’ camp to reconsider saying he was drastically wrong. Sam Harrisconverts but Dawkins and Sherman insist it is some kind of illusion so God says,“Have it your way” and strikes them dead with lightning (I should note I would findthat very sad). Here is the point. The conversion rate among Atheists wouldprobably be about 99%. I speculate 99% and not 100% because of the glorious freewill God has given us that we can ultimately choose our own path even in the face ofimminent death.There is no doubt God could convert nearly 100% of humanity “noisily andunequivocally in his favor” but how coercive, how manipulative, how controllingwould that be? Consider, just hypothetically and for arguments sake, God did in factcreate us with free will, how utterly diabolical it would be to over-ride that free willwith absolute convincing proof of his existence such that even those that hated himwould serve him, not out of faith, but merely out of concern for their own wellbeing. It would be better to be created a robot without free will then to have thefree will to choose not to serve to God but be coerced into serving someone youhated.Dawkins wrote, "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasantcharacter in all fiction." (p. 51) Would he feel differently about God’s character if hefound the “"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" (p.19) or would he only feeldifferently about God’s existence? Dawkins spends nineteen pages (p. 269-288)discussing how offensive he finds the God described in the Bible. Finding a fossilrabbit would not rewrite the Bible, it would only convince Dawkins that thishorrible God exists. How awful would it be to be thoroughly convinced God existswhile also being thoroughly convinced he is “cruel, vindictive, capricious, andunjust” (p.51)? How horrible would it be to find convincing evidence that the Godyou call a “psychotic delinquent” does in fact exist? A close parallel would be themedieval peasant living under the reign of a mighty despot king, unable to deny hisexistence while, sadly, also knowing there is absolutely nothing the peasant can doabout it.Soren Kierkegaard suggested an excellent parable along those lines. There was agood king wielding absolute power over his realm. This king saw the most beautifulof women among his subjects. He wanted to approach her and see if she mightpossibly love him. But, as the king, he could never approach her and know for sureher love was genuine for his power was too great. Even if she despised him, shewould surely feign love for him from fear what he may do if she rejected him. Afterwrestling with this dilemma, the king realized he could only experience her lovefrom free will if he came to her in the form of an equal—as another servant. So hegave up his authority and took on the garments of a peasant and went to her as one
of her own. That, according to Kierkegaard (and Christian theology), is the story ofthe incarnation.Dawkins says, “Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say if he died and foundhimself confronted by God, demanding to know why Russell had not believed in him.‘Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence,’ was Russell’s (I almost saidimmortal) reply.” (p. 131) My question to Russell, or anyone who feels this waywould be, if God did exist, do you think He is more interested in people serving himor people loving him?Kierkegaard’s king was more interested in the maiden’s love than in her subservientservility. Thus, he approached her without overwhelming power and authority. Thekind of proof we have is the kind you would expect from a God who wants a lovingrelationship with his creation rather than coerced servility. If I had to guess God’sresponse to Russell, I think it would be, “That’s because I wanted to love youBertrand, not rule you.”We see God seeks a loving relationship in the Bible, “Because of his love God hadalready decided that through Jesus Christ he would make us his children—this washis pleasure and purpose” (Eph 1:5 TEV). Now I know it’s pointless to quote Bibleverses to people who don’t believe the Bible but this one contains a principle ofcommon sense that, hopefully, people can see regardless of their opinion ofscripture. That principle is if God hypothetically existed and he wanted a lovingrelationship with humanity we would expect a different kind of evidence than if hedemanded a ruling relationship over humanity.The king who wants the voluntary love of a maiden must show himself to her in avery different manner than the kind who wants subjects that serve him.So here would be my first talking point, put yourself in “God’s shoes”. Just imagine,momentarily and for the sake of argument, that you were all powerful God—sopowerful that people find your very existence threatening. You want to have aloving relationship with those people not a relationship of servility. How do youprove to them that you are real without that same proof manipulating them? I daresay no one could come up with a better solution than how God did it.Chapter 3 – Arguments for God’s ExistenceOne of Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs for God is the Cosmological Argument. It should benoted that Dawkins devotes six pages to refuting the Ontological Argument, sixpages to refuting Arguments from Personal Experience, seven pages to refutingArguments from Scripture, yet only offers two paragraphs on the CosmologicalArgument before quietly moving on. This is not surprising because Dawkinsapparently has no good answer to the Cosmological Argument. The two paragraphshe does offer aren’t even relevant to Aquinas’ argument. They are a Red Herringabout God’s omniscience which is unrelated to Aquinas’ argument.
Dawkins (well) summarizes the Cosmological Argument, “There must have been atime when no physical things existed [i.e. before the Big Bang]. But, since, physicalthings exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them intoexistence, and that something we call God.” (p. 101)Scientists universally accept matter and time sprang into existence at the Big Bang.Time, at least as we understand it, is based on planetary motion. A day is arevolution of the Earth around its access. A year is an orbit of the Earth around theSun. Months are based on lunar cycles. No physical matter and thus no time existedbefore the Big Bang. Many Theist accept the Big Bang and believe that God existedbefore it as an immaterial, timeless being that caused the Big Bang—the nonphysical thing Aquinas wrote of that brought physical things into existence.Dawkins offers no probable cause for the Big Bang. Perhaps he agrees with hisformer colleague Christopher Hitchens who espoused nothing caused the Big Bang,it just happenedv. This is such an incredibly unscientific answer for a scientist, it isnot surprising that Dawkins prefers to just remain silent. Dawkins offers noresponse to Aquinas’ Argument that the origin of the universe speaks of animmaterial, timeless, powerful Being that created it.Apparently, Dawkins remains silent because he cannot argue against the true God ofthe Theist. Dawkins entire argument throughout the book is against a Straw Manversion of God that he defines as “any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexityto design anything, [that] comes into existence only as the end product of anextended process of gradual evolution.” (p.52). He tries to depict the debate as afalse dichotomy between some kind of highly evolved intelligence and “asuperhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and cre
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion a critique by Tim Morgan Introduction This essay started as a review of Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion for a book club in Orlando, Florida. I posted a small portion of it on Facebook which started a deep, engaging three week discussion with hundreds of comments. It seemed that I
Dawkins’ God delusion Of course, this is only on side of the story. As I will argue in this essay, Dawkins also labours under a delusion. In fighting a delusory God among Christians, Dawkins may have fallen prey to the impression that this delusory God is the God intended by
Dawkins, Richard, 1941- God delusion. 2. Irreligion. 3. Atheism. 4. God. 5. Religion. 6. Apologetics. 7. Faith. . When I read The God Delusion I was both saddened and trou . RESPONDING TO DAWKINS It is clear that a response of some sort is needed to The God Delu .
The God Delusion Debate . Discussion Guide . 2 INTRODUCTION In 2006, world renowned atheist and scientist Professor Richard Dawkins published his world-wide best-seller !e God Delusion, an all-out assault on theistic religion in general and Chris-tianity in particular. In it, Dawkins asserts that
The probability of God: a response to Dawkins Nick Kastelein The use of probability in defence of atheism, specifically in Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion, is analyzed. A definition of probability consisting of five parts is used to review the key probability claims made by Dawkins, which relate
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
to Richard Dawkins’ new book, The God Delusion. This book attacks the idea ofGod and religion and, because ofits potential popular appeal, Dawkins was on The Colbert Report promoting the book. So far (I am in the midst of reading it), he takes a strong approach toward God being an utter delusion (as the title implies). Interestingly, he
development—year 1 (2012–13) FINAL PROJECT REPORT by Qing Shen, P.I.*; Peng Chen*; Peter Schmiedeskamp*; Alon Bassok*; Suzanne Childressy *University of Washington yPuget Sound Regional Council for Pacific Northwest Transportation Consortium (PacTrans) USDOT University Transportation Center for Federal Region 10 University of Washington More Hall 112, Box 352700 Seattle, WA 98195-2700 .
