Craig Gaunt
11/20/09
Theology 1
#1204
After reading Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion, it became starkly apparent that the deity whose existence Dawkins denies is certainly not the God the Christian faith worships. There are several flaws in Dawkins’ numerous arguments; most of all the recurring equation he tries to build of taking good science, mediocre rhetoric, and plain slander of religion in an attempt to say that no sensible individual would believe in God, especially after reading his book. The best way I can go about engaging The God Delusion is to go through it systematically, chapter by chapter and critique Dawkins’ mistakes, and by no means are my critiques an exhaustive list. At the forefront, throughout my reading of this work that has caused much fear in the religious community, I could not help but feel a sense of compassion for this man and his many angry tirades and straw men arguments. Dawkins gives the sense of superiority by saying his consciousness has been “raised by natural selection” and rejects the post-modern idea of being tolerant toward religion. Having modernity in mind, Dawkins is a walking contradiction because one cannot be as hateful against religion as he is and still claim complete objectivity, but Dawkins tries.
In chapter one, Dawkins rightly observes that the structure and discipline that religion may bring to a person’s life does not provide a basis for determining its truthfulness.[1] However, the rest of the chapter reveals Dawkins’ attempt to filter all theological questions (even those that science itself is not designed to address) through an extremely narrow scientific worldview. After trying to justify that the question of God’s existence is a scientific one, he then sets forth a pattern that continues throughout the remainder of the book: selecting specific incidents when religion was used wrongly and then painting all religions in very broad brush strokes based on the events. He quotes an earlier article that he wrote in which he said, “The whole point of religious faith, its strength and chief glory, is that it does not depend on rational justification.”[2] This would depend on a person’s worldview. Two ideas that Dawkins has either failed to contemplate or has refused to do so are the ideas that not only have atheists in power committed acts not based on rational justification (Mao’s and Poll Pot’s communist revolutions as well as Stalin’s regime, not to mention Nietzsche’s and Darwins ideas [as well as church ideas] being hijacked by Hitler to further nationalist and racially superior ideas), but also that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam claim belief based on events that happened in history.
Chapter two has Dawkins presenting us with his “God Hypothesis”. He maintains that if a deity created all the complexity in nature that we see around us, that entity must have itself evolved from simple to complex. Allister McGrath says it better, calling it “an expansion of the ‘who made God then’ argument.[3] Dawkins will not acknowledge that every worldview has a set of presumptions in place in order to interpret the world, and these presumptions cannot be proved or disproved scientifically because this would result in an infinite regression. In other words, one must know something before one can know anything. For the theist, the ultimate reality where all presuppositions come from is God, and for Dawkins it is reason. He wants to subject God to science but is unwilling to do the same with reason because he has apparently raised his reason through natural selection so it is now the ultimate judge, above reproof, and does not need to be subjected to scientific inquery.
Regardless, the “god who evolved” was never the One that any of the monotheistic faiths he criticizes claims to worship anyway. Judaism and Christianity have always believed in a transcendent God who is above and beyond space-time and is Himself immortal and all-powerful, existing even before time began. God is self-existing, self-sustaining, and self-defining. It is this “evolving god” Dawkins wants because he can then put this being under a microscope to study it. The god Dawkins is referring to is in no way the God of the Bible. The remainder of chapter two contains prejudices against not only religious believers but even against atheists who tolerate religious believers because they are a part of the “Neville Chamberlain” group of appeasing atheists. McGrath points out how grossly offensive this is because it is then comparing religious believers with Hitler.[4] I will go one step further in saying this analogy would place Dawkins on the same level as the great leader Winston Churchill because both are willing to fight their enemies to the death rather than “make nice” with them. Again, this is an indicator of Dawkins’ militant atheism, and the fact that he feels that to be a true scientist, one must be an atheist.[5]
Chapter three begins with Dawkins trying to deflate previous historical, theological, and philosophical arguments for God’s existence (i.e. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs). There is not enough space to address the many problems with Dawkins’ critique. However, his worldview does share one thing in common with many theological ones: ontology precedes epistemology. Dawkins likes this when it works in his favor as when he says he has a “deep suspicion of any line of reasoning that reached a significant conclusion without feeding in a single piece of data from the real world.”[6] I wonder then, how would Dawkins react when presented with evidence for the Resurrection? There is factual data, but Dawkins would still outright reject the most likely conclusion because his ontology does not include the possibility of the miraculous. It is part of his preconceptions that only naturalistic explanations be entertained. He then cites others who have tried to use proofs for God’s non-existence, but these are highly subjective and not as scientific as believed. Next, Dawkins criticizes, demonizes, and then excludes arguments from God based on experience and Scripture. To do this when it comes to dealing with others’ personal experience is in keeping with Dawkins’ natural preconceptions. However, it is evident at how little he knows about Scripture. He notes that Jesus did not claim divinity, which shows that Dawkins has not read the gospels and/or not understood the various ways that Jesus spoke of his divine nature even when He did not explicitly utter the words “I am God”.[7] He recycles old skeptical arguments that have long come into question such as the rejection of the census taken by Caesar in Luke’s gospel.[8] Another criticism is the long-thought idea that Christianity “borrowed” elements from other Near Eastern cults that already existed.[9] Not only are there numerous credible biblical scholars and even secular historians out there who refute this idea, but a common hypothesis is that it was actually the other way around; it was the cults who borrowed rituals from the church. Dawkins finally tries to question credibility by citing difficulties that the church has known about for millennia and have explained them thoroughly such as the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.[10] Furthermore, he tries to attack the process of canonization, saying that church authorities only included the gospels that were slightly embarrassing in terms of fantasy, but they omitted those more embarrassing.[11] He has no idea that both the early and modern church had logical criteria with which they determine which are historical gospels and which are not. This means that they included gospels very embarassing towards the early church leaders, showing that the authors highlighted the flaws of the early fathers. Finally, Dawkins’ idea of Jesus being a true Jew to the point of exclusion and hostility to outsiders show once again a lack of biblical knowledge. There are several actions, parables, and stories in the gospels that show one of the core aspects of Jesus message: it is meant for all people everywhere in the world.
A word needs to be said here in regards to how Dawkins treats the Bible, specifically the Old Testament, in the remainder of his book, especially in chapter seven. He attempts to portray God as an unloving “bully” and, Dawkins picks out portions of Scripture found mostly in the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Judges that are more violent in order to prove his point. Sadly, he deliberately ignores the rest of the Torah that speaks of justice, mercy, and freedom. He also disregards the Wisdom literature but especially the Prophetic books. McGrath makes an excellent statement along these lines when he says that the Bible’s prophetic tradition offers a critique of the priestly cult and monarch of Israel, especially when both have wondered away from God and His true intention of the use of the Law.[12] The Bible offers its own systems of checks and balances against ritual and moral corruption, so an outside critique of biblical faith (especially from one as little-informed as Dawkins) is not necessary. In chapter seven he also states that, “For good people to do evil things, it takes religion”.[13] I would agree…if “religion” simply means something or someone that a human being worships and builds their actions around. It does not take one long to see that many atrocities were committed in humanity’s existence because people had a religion that worshiped themselves, human government, or secular ideology (not to discount the legitimacy of Dawkins critiques that religion has been sadly responsible for much evil). So it is not only worship of God that can be abused, but Dawkins will not see this.
He establishes chapter four as the main point of his argument because he goes after those who believe that “irreducible complexity” proves God’s existence. Another way of saying this is promoting the “god of the gaps” idea or an argument from design. Again, Dawkins attempts to argue that for God to create something so complex, he must also have had to grow in complexity from something simple. This argument was addressed earlier. Dawkins also admits that he is trying to apply biological principles of Darwinian evolution to the realm of physics, which shows his desire to find every scientist’s true dream: an overarching theory of everything that unifies it all phenomenon and does not itself need an explanation. From his perspective, if a person sees complexity in nature then they should continue trying to find an explanation rather than just claim ignorance by saying “God did it”. By finding the solution to these gaps, human knowledge will increase and God will become smaller and smaller until He disappears entirely. Dawkins science is sound in this chapter, and I am not qualified to offer criticism only that his critique comes about two hundred years too late. The God Delusion builds on arguments from his earlier book, The Blind Watchmaker in which he argues against William Paley’s notion that design always implies designer. However, McGrath notes that this approach in Christian apologetics has been largely abandoned because many feared it would lead to the eventual triumph of atheism as the “gaps” got smaller.[14] True Christian theology, as McGrath notes does not look at the “gaps” and inserts God, but it looks at all of reality as a whole in an attempt to explain all of it through the lenses of God.[15] In this way, a Christian worldview encourages people to explore everything and use their God-given knowledge to do so. It harkens back to a passage in Genesis 2:11-12 that could be seen as God placing treasures around the world for people to explore and enjoy. Once more, the “god” that Dawkins is trying to disprove is entirely too small to worship and has never been one the Christian church claimed.
In chapter five, now that he has destroyed the idea of the “god of the gaps”, Dawkins tries to explain religious phenomenon from a naturalist perspective. His premise is that religious expression is a “misfiring” of some biological or psychological happenings in the brain. This misfiring starts in childhood when a person believes everything their parents and elders teach them, and they are the most susceptible to belief in the irrational. The conclusion is that most of the fervent religious people out there have “not grown up” out of that indoctrination so their brains continue to misfire. Here, Dawkins deliberately ignores many instances when adults turn to a different religion (or even religion at all) even when they were not raised that way. A prominent example is Anthony Flew who is now contemplating the idea of God (deism) after a lifelong journey of trumpeting atheism. Dawkins’ argument also is weak in another regard. Children who were raised in a religious home but then turn away could be seen by Dawkins as “breaking the brainwashing” cycle, and as for those who stay in their religious tradition, it is simply too late for them. However, let us say that Dawkins was to raise a child as an atheist or a skeptic and then, later in life, that child also turns to a religion. What explains this then? He would be forced into blaming himself that he did not promote his ideas as well as he could have to this child in order to prevent later brainwashing. The remainder of this chapter promotes that either the misfiring of brain synapses or that cultural memes are directly responsible for religious behavior. Without going into too much scientific detail, Dawkins does not provide much scientific evidence of either of these two possible theories and instead chooses to rely on example and rhetoric to prove his point.
This pattern continues into chapter seven in which Dawkins attempts to answer a typical theist objection: if there is no God then why be good? After making a somewhat-feeble attempt to try proving scientifically that morality has a Darwinian explanation, he attempts to turn the argument on its head by asking why people feel they need a God in order to be good. This is a legitimate question, but the Christian answer to it goes deeper than the simple question of “can an atheist or agnostic be good?” The message of Christ is that a person must be born of the spirit in order experience the Kingdom of God (John 3:3). Both an atheist and a theist can follow the right rules and still not experience spiritual regeneration, which is what is necessary. The essential truth of the Bible is that humanity, no matter how many rules it follows or how “good” it tries to be on its own strength, it is separated from God. However, God restored the relationship between Himself and humanity by Jesus’ death on the cross. It is not about being good in order to please God but about being born of God. Furthermore, can there be such a thing as a good atheist? Many Christian theologians would argue yes. However, can this atheist defend his behavior as being infinitely superior and morally right against another atheist who chooses to live a life of hedonism? The answer is soundly no because there is nothing transcendent to which they can appeal to for authority. However, Dawkins tries on page 264 with a new set of “commandments” for an atheist to live their life by, even though these are highly subjective and, when used wrongly, could produce results that even Dawkins would disagree with.
The remainder of his book simply contains Dawkins waxing poetic about the evils of religion in the world. He attacks everything that western religion (specifically Christianity) has been speaking out against in recent times, including the two “hot-button” political issues in America of homosexuality and abortion. He tries to not only demonize those out there who believe in absolute standards of right and wrong, but he also attempts to tug on heartstrings of the general public by continuing to bring up children in his conclusions and how they need to be freed of the religious bigotry of their parents. He supports nothing in the remainder of his book with scientific evidence. Dawkins works under a very naïve notion that once humanity is freed from religion, all the problems it faces will eradicate themselves, or at least be taking a step in the right direction. This is a common trend of the “new atheists” out there including Sam Harris, Christopher Hitches, Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett. The problem is that, while they criticize the notion of God in every aspect of society, they enjoy the luxury of those same societies who have even a hint of an overarching moral compass. This is what would cause them to lose respect in the eyes of 20th century atheists like Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sartre and Camus. These men knew that the destruction of God in the eyes of their culture entailed rethinking every aspect of daily life as well as a redefinition of absolutely everything. None of these “new atheists” want to contemplate what the ramifications would be if everything in their books were taken and put into practice. The militant atheistic scientist or philosopher may argue that they are not required to offer a replacement but simply call into doubt the current reality. However, the real world does not operate in a vacuum and the replacing of one macro-philosophy will be replaced by another. The Christian worldview is better equipped to answer the plaguing questions of life than the militant atheistic worldview promoted in The God Delusion. This can be seen in the strong reliance upon rhetoric and “religion-bashing” taken up by Dawkins. One must wonder if Dawkins has ever seriously contemplated that he may be wrong and he must therefore fight harder and shout louder to prove his point, and this is what the book is. It certainly contains good science at points on one hand (and I do not want to discredit that because I respect Dawkins as a microbiologist and am in no position to critique the sceince), but on the other it is a collection of rants by an angry man one cannot help but feel sorry for because of the burden of hate he has forced himself to carry.
[1] Dawkins, Richard The God Delusion, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company: 2006, pg. 14
[2] Dawkins, pg. 23
[3] McGrath, Alister & Joanna Collicutt McGrath The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2007 pg. 27
[4] McGrath, pg. 47
[5] Dawkins, pg. 152
[6] Ibid. pg. 82
[7] Dawkins, pg. 92
[8] Ibid. pg. 93
[9] Ibid. pg. 94
[10] Ibid. pg. 95
[11] Ibid. pg. 96
[12] McGrath pg. 88, 89
[13] Dawkins pg. 249
[14] McGrath pg. 24-25
[15] Ibid. pg. 30-31