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)
In the end, Richard Dawkins will surely fail in his quest to turn theists in to atheists. His book represents nothing fundamentally new - just the same old arguments repeated over and over again. Dawkins is quick to label his intellectual adversaries as fundamentalists, but he conveniently redefines the term so that it does not apply to his own position. He claims to live life solely on the basis of scientific evidence, but is so fundamentally committed to the theory of evolution that we cannot take his protestations to the contrary seriously.
The God Delusion is sure to garner significant attention in the media and in popular culture. Dawkins, along with the other fashionable skeptics and atheists of the day, makes for good television and creates an instant media sensation. In one sense, we should be thankful for the forthrightness with which he presents his arguments. This is not a man who minces words, and he never hides behind his own argument. Furthermore, at several points in the book he correctly identifies weaknesses in many of the arguments put forth by theists. As is so often the case, we learn from our intellectual enemies as well as from our allies.
The tone of the book is strident, the content of the book is bracing, and the attitude of the book is condescending. Nevertheless, Dawkins insists that his strident attack upon the faith is limited to words. "I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological disagreement," he insists. He even allows that "we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions" of organized religion, "and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals," he asserts. Nevertheless, all this must be done without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions." Further: "We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage." All this raises more questions than Dawkins answers. If belief in God is so intellectually abhorrent, why would anyone want to retain the traditions associated with these beliefs? Why does Dawkins acknowledge that all this amounts to "a treasured heritage?" It must be because, in the end, even Richard Dawkins is not as much of an atheist as he believes himself to be. If Dawkins is so certain that theism is dead, why would he devote so much of his time and energy to opposing it? A man who is genuinely certain that Christianity is passing away would feel no need to write a 400-page book in order to urge its passing.
________________________________________________
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com. Original Source: www.albertmohler.com.
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
