The Dawkins Delusion
"I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation," declares Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and one of the world's leading skeptics concerning Christianity and belief in God.
by R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Christian Today Guest Columnist
Posted: Sunday, October 28, 2007, 16:13 (GMT)
Though The God Delusion is intended more as an attack upon theism than as a defense of evolutionary theory, the framework of evolution is never far from Dawkins' mind. In his opening chapter, he argues that most legitimate scientists - indeed all who really understand the issues at stake - are atheists of one sort or another. He defines the alternatives as between a stark atheism (such as that Dawkins himself represents) and a form of nonsupernatural religion, as illustrated by the case of Albert Einstein. "Great scientists of our time who sound religious usually turn out not to be so when you examine their beliefs more deeply," he explains. As examples, Dawkins offers not only Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking but also Martin Rees, currently Britain's Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society. According to Dawkins, Rees "goes to church as an 'unbelieving Anglican . . . out of loyalty to the tribe.'" As Dawkins explains, Rees "has no theistic beliefs, but shares the poetic naturalism that the cosmos provokes in the other scientists I have mentioned. He cites Einstein to the effect that he was a "deeply religious nonbeliever" - moved by the majesty of the cosmos but without any reference whatsoever to a supernatural being.
As Dawkins explains, real scientists are naturalists. As such, they eliminate entirely the question of a supernatural being's existence. "The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason."
As Dawkins then makes clear, his attack upon belief is explicitly and exclusively directed toward belief in supernatural gods. As he explains, "the most familiar" of these deities is Yahweh. Put simply, Dawkins holds no respect for those who believe in the God of the Bible, whom he describes as ruthless, cruel, selfish, and vindictive.
Accordingly, Dawkins does not understand why social etiquette requires respect for those who believe in God.
In one of the central chapters of his book, Dawkins attempts to accomplish two simultaneous purposes: to undermine the intellectual movement known as Intelligent Design and, in a twist of its logic, to suggest that belief in God is itself a refutation of the very notion of an intelligent design. As Dawkins sees it, "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." As he sets out his case, he denies that there could be any legitimate basis for belief in God. The very notion of a supernatural agent flies directly in the face of his presuppositional naturalism. Therefore, by definition, such a God cannot exist and those who believe in such a God prove their intellectual inadequacy or gullibility.
In accordance with his own evolutionary theory, Dawkins acknowledges that the universe displays appearances of design. Nevertheless, he suggests that these appearances are false, and that any example of apparent design is actually due to the Darwinian engine of natural selection. He considers the traditional proof for God's existence offered by the philosophers and rejects each out of hand. Finally, he considers the argument that the existence of God can be proved by Scripture - but then launches a broadside attack upon Scripture itself.
Have your say on this article
The comments below are readers' personal opinions and are in no way intended to reflect the editorial opinion of Christian Today.
Added: Wednesday, October 31, 2007, 20:40 (GMT)
John you are frank as are you all. I see just three replies. One says believe what you like im with G-d (maybe not so politely) and two who say you cant believe in G-d we say he dosent exist(not very politely). The two of you cant prove him wrong and he says believe what you like so why fight?
Next you will be looking for someone to blame for all the stress? Do you not feel bad for ganging up on someone you claim is of less intelligence. I Hope you all find some peace. Then consider physicist Robert Gentry and radio halos. At the same time Sumarian knowledge of a Great Year Dout many know what that is even now? Then How the moon gets futher from the earth all the time yet in the past never got sucked in by gravity? How does each cell in your body do masses of complicated functions all the time with no brain? Dont stress! cheers.
gaz , uk
Added: Wednesday, October 31, 2007, 18:18 (GMT)
Dawkins is a strident apologist for atheism. Interestingly, by any measure evolution his backbone, is a straw man, it does not hold up to rigorous science and my own view is that his world view is part of the collective amnesia and dismissal of God by some scientists (note some as some scientists are believers) and ultimately he in the words of Shakespeare: 'doth protest too much'. This vehemence might in fact have the opposite effect and actually make people curious about God and the Bible (shades of Saul and Paul maybe here?). Anyway let us pray God may heal him of his own delusion sometime soon.
Dave de Courcey, Littlehampton United Kingdom
Added: Monday, October 29, 2007, 18:16 (GMT)
Just to point out an important inaccuracy in your piece. Richard Dawkins, along with the vast vast vast majority of the scientific world believes in the the theory of evoloution. All the evidence points to this being the best explanation as to how life has unfolded on earth. However, by Mr Dawkins own admission, he does not hold this belief dogmatically, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
No, if there was a better explanation of things backed up by better evidence and equal academic rigour, he'd drop evoloution for the new explanation. He's a scientist, he bases things on facts, evidence and the observable. None of which religion concerns itself with much.
Perhaps I'm just a sexual deviant aswell am I Frank?
john etteridge, Beccles, UK
Added: Monday, October 29, 2007, 17:42 (GMT)
The book has been out for a year now, so not only is it rather late, but all you seem to do is offer a few quotes from, along with a few snide comments. Even though you obviously disagree with its premise you offer not a single refutation of any of its points.
Frank from Oregon, your previous commenter, however is plainly rather exited about it, claiming first that Dawkins is a sexual deviant, and then proceeding to some unintelligble gibberish about how it doesn't matter what he says because god doesn't believe in him. Quite bizarre! If thats the level of intelligence shown by the typical believer, no wonder they have gained a reputation for having such low intellects.
Mark, Nottingham, UK
Added: Sunday, October 28, 2007, 17:32 (GMT)
Mr. Dawkins is free to believe whatever he desires, especially since his whole argument is so basic to the rebellion of most who chose to invalidate God to validate their own sinfullness. Obviously, he is a sexual deviant and is offended by the moral precepts of God so he spens his life trying to validate his own sins which must weigh very heavy on his heart so in rebellion he attacks the faith that uncovers his sin and demands repentance and submission. Ultimately, I would say to Mr. Dawkins not to worry God does not believe in athiest either. And if Mr. Dawkins does not believe in God it does not really matter whether God or Jesus exist, it does not matter whether he is going to heaven or hell as these terms are based on Christianity so if God does not exist neither do these.
Frank, Oregon, US
