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)
When it comes to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, Dawkins displays absolute amazement that any intelligent person could even entertain the notion that such teachings might be true. Pointing back to the nineteenth century, Dawkins asserts that the Victorian era was "the last time when it was possible for an educated person to admit to believing in miracles like the virgin birth without embarrassment." He adds: "When pressed, many educated Christians today are too loyal to deny the virgin birth and the resurrection. But it embarrasses them because their rational minds know it is absurd, so they would much rather not be asked."
Since Dawkins considers the existence of God to be nothing more than a scientific hypothesis - just like any other - he presents his case that "the factual premise of religion - the God Hypothesis - is untenable." In other words, "God almost certainly does not exist."
So why do so many persons believe in Him? Consistent with his evolutionary worldview, Dawkins must offer a purely naturalistic interpretation for the origin and function of religion. He argues that religion must be, like all other human phenomena, a product of Darwinian evolution. Nevertheless, he understands that the existence of religious belief poses some interesting Darwinian questions. "Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant; and Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates waste," Dawkins explains. Therefore, there must be some fascinating Darwinian explanation for how religious belief emerged and survives. Citing his colleague Daniel Dennett, Dawkins suggests that religious belief is "time-consuming, energy-consuming" and "often as extravagantly ornate as the plumage of a bird of paradise." He sees no good in it at all. "Thousands of people have been tortured for their loyalty to a religion, persecuted by zealots for what is in many cases a scarcely distinguishable alternative faith. Religion devours resources, sometimes on a massive scale. A medieval cathedral could consume a hundred man centuries in its construction, yet it was never used as a dwelling, or for any recognizable useful purpose."
In his own twist, Dawkins argues that belief in God is simply a by-product of some other evolutionary mechanism. He suggests that one possible source of belief in God (understood in purely physicalist and natural terms) is the need for the brains of children to accept on faith the teachings of their elders. Thus, he argues that evolution may have "psychologically primed" the human brain for some form of belief in God. Nevertheless, whatever function this may have served the process of evolution in the past, Dawkins now believes that it has become a dangerous liability.
"I surmise that religions, like languages, evolved with sufficient randomness, from beginnings that are sufficiently arbitrary, to generate the bewildering - and sometimes dangerous - richness of diversity that we observe. At the same time, it is possible that a form of natural selection, coupled with the fundamental uniformity of human psychology, sees to it that the diverse religions share significant teachers in common." In the end, Dawkins sees all these forms as dangerous.
Along the way, Dawkins insists that morality is not based in absolute truth but in a consequentialist form of reasoning that is itself a monument of evolutionary development. He plays with categories and concepts - no doubt intentionally - in order to confuse the question. Christians do not argue that those who believe in God always act in a way that is morally superior to those who do not. Atheists may behave better than Christians. This is to our shame, but it does not pose an intellectual challenge to the validity of the Christian faith. The more urgent question has to do with how any form of moral absolute - including even a prohibition on murder or incest - can survive if all morality is merely a natural phenomenon of human evolution. Dawkins simply embraces the relativity of morality, arguing that this explains why Christians are so dangerous. Believing in moral absolutes, Christians are led to defend the sanctity of human life at every level and to believe that, of all things, the Creator actually has set forth moral commandments and expectations concerning our sexuality. Dawkins rejects these ideas altogether.
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
