Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion
Exposition
Richard Dawkins is one of the most outspoken of what is commonly called the new atheists. As one of the “Four Horsemen of the New Atheism” (along with Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett), Dawkins has been very influential as a critic of religion. The web-site for the Richard Dawkins Foundation (www.richarddawkins.net) gives this mission: “to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.” Many people would support the first part of his mission, the second part, at least in terms of religion, is more controversial.
In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to destroy what he sees as myth. Some of this is very accurate on his part. Dawkins exposes the misconceptions that Albert Einstein believed in a personal god or that the American Founding Fathers were as completely Christian as many believe. Dawkins also rightly attacks Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria), in which part of reality goes to science and part goes to religion. Science can say something about the existence of God, and it could be argued (but not by Dawkins) that religion has something to say about science. Dawkins is critical of agnosticism, suggesting that there is enough evidence against God’s existence that people need not withhold judgment. His spectrum of belief from strong theist to strong atheist would be very helpful in surveys of faith.
Instead of just insulting religion (which he does), Dawkins also tackles the various arguments for God’s existence. Evidences for God such as the ontological argument, beauty, experience, Scripture, testimony of religious scientists, Pascal’s Wager and Bayesian arguments are all examined and rejected. Although Dawkins overstates his case at times, he does make some good points and demonstrates the weaknesses of many of these arguments.
The most compelling arguments for the existence of God are the existence of a life-permitting universe and the existence of life, human and otherwise. For many theists, this is enough to believe there is something is out there, even if they are not sure what or who it is. As a scientist, Dawkins attempts to expose the fallacy of this argument. To do this, Dawkins relies heavily on the anthropic principle. Dawkins defines it in this way: “We exist here on Earth. Therefore Earth must be the kind of planet that is capable of generating and supporting us, however unusual, even unique, that kind of planet might be.” (p. 162) This argument works on the cosmological and biological level. It may be highly unlikely that a universe would have all the right constants to support life, but it happened and so it must be possible. We may not know exactly how the first life came about on this planet, but since we are able to discuss it, it must have happened. Once that (seemingly) fine-tuned universe and first life form came into being, Darwinist evolution explains the rest. According to Dawkins, before Darwin there was a conversation about the existence of God, after Darwin the case for theism was destroyed.
For Dawkins, God is not the problem (since he does not exist), religion is the problem. Religion is something that infests most of the world and only recently have larger numbers of people escaped its fetters. Why does religion exist in the first place? As a staunch Darwinist, Dawkins can find Darwinian solutions to almost any problem. It is possible that as humans evolved, those whose brains were such that they were obedient to fathers and other authority figures were more likely to survive. Religion could naturally form from this genetic mutation. Dawkins also looks to memes or “units of cultural inheritance” (p. 222) as an explanation for the origin of religion.
For some, even if religion is not necessary to explain human origins, religion is useful for developing and sustaining morality. Dawkins argues that religion is not the true source of morality. In fact, an examination of the Old and New Testaments show that the Bible provides more of an immoral example to people. The true origin of morality lies in Darwinism. Dawkins states: “genetic tendencies toward altruism would have been favoured in early humans.” (p. 252) There is a morality apart from religion, but it is not an absolute morality. Dawkins provides examples from history of how people considered to be on the cutting edge of liberalism in their day would be seen as intolerant and racist today.
For Richard Dawkins, this is not just an academic pursuit. In his preface, Dawkins explicitly states: “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.” (p. 28) Dawkins sees religion as dangerous, especially when presented to children. He rightly sees that children cannot be seen as being religious, but rather children of religious parents. However, religious teaching toward children actually should be seen as abuse. Dawkins states: “Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.” (p. 348) Dawkins seems to see religious teaching of children as being more harmful than the sexual abuse of children by priests or other adults. It is difficult to overstate Richard Dawkins‘ deep hatred for religion. Dawkins dreams of a world where there is tolerance and no hatred, except when it comes to religion.
Critique
There are many problems with The God Delusion. Some of Dawkins’ illustrations, such as the prayer experiment where the relationship between prayer and health were tested, were just distracting from the real issue. Dawkins also uses a double standard a number of times. For example, Dawkins confronts the claim that atheists such as Stalin or Hitler (he is not convinced that Hitler was an atheist) are relevant. Dawkins argues that acts by atheist individuals are not relevant to judging atheism. Yet, he cites examples such as Fred Phelps or Osama bin Laden, as if they were representative of religious people, and uses them to demonstrate the danger and evil of religion. Dawkins claims for atheism some respected thinkers of the past, suggesting they likely pretended to be Christian out of social pressure. The same claim could be used regarding scientists who may be secretly Christian but are afraid of the danger to their career if their faith became known. Dawkins also seems unable to distinguish biblical accounts of evil acts with its moral teachings.
Regarding the influence of Dawkins‘ brand of atheism in the Canadian context, there are some serious issues. Dawkins’ message is not just about an absence of God. Dawkins replaces the Christian story with a new meta-narrative called Darwinism. While many Canadians may accept a form of evolution in explaining the diversity of life, they may not be as willing to accept Darwinism as the answer to all of life’s questions. Younger generations, religious or not, are suspicious of meta-narratives and are not looking for a new story to replace Christianity. Although some may find Dawkins’ critique of absolute morality to be attractive, they will likely find his absolute condemnation of religious teaching of children to be distasteful. Finally, Dawkins‘ position requires the public to put tremendous amount of trust in the authority of scientists. Canadians do not seem eager to find new sources of authority, even if they replace clerical robes with white lab coats. Richard Dawkins may give voice to some skeptical people but his form of atheism does not hold great potential for redefining Canadian beliefs. The Christian story continues to be the most promising worldview for Canadians. Not only does Christianity have a place of heritage and tradition that atheism does not, its very nature gives its an advantage. If there is a meta-narrative that people are interested in, it is relationship. Jesus himself articulated the story as being about relationship, with God and people. (Matt. 22:37-39) This will remain more attractive to Canadians than simply cold hard science.
Happy shiny people. I can’t afford to buy one. I’m poor. God bless.
So much blathering. God has them in derision and simply says, “A fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God’.
Atheists, for the most part, do not say “there is no God”. They just don’t find sufficient reason to believe in one.
Good review. I’d kind of like to read it some time just so I know what I’m arguing against. I’ve read Ravi Zacharias’ reply to Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith” but I haven’t read Harris’ text. Zacharias mentions Dawkins’ text in that work (and many of his other works) but I’ve only read the replies to those works, not the works to which they’re replying.
It’s time to educate people about the wrongs of religion. It keeps too many in the dark.
I’m interested in your use of the word “wrongs”. You realise, that on atheistic naturalism, there is no “wrong”, there is just preference? Check out Michael Ruse, John Gray, Bertrand Russell, Friedrich Nietzsche or one of hundreds of other atheists (including Dawkins) who makes this point forcefully. Watch your language a bit more carefully—or folks might think you’re peddling an ideology 😉
Dawkins considered Hitler’s atheism (assuming he was an atheist) irrelevant because there IS no “atheist scripture” that told him to do what he did. Osama Bin Laden, on the other hand, did what he did following Allah’s commands. He even cited those Qur’anic quotes in some of his recordings.
“Heritage and tradition” give an advantage to religion in sheer dumb numbers, not in validity. Take it from someone who has suffered the consequences of “heritage and tradition,” they seldom do anyone any favors.
I grew up in Eastern Europe and suffered mightily under Communism heavy atheistic hand (and my word, those guys believed in ‘heritage and tradition’). By all means lob some bricks—but realise that you’re living in a glass house. Take a look at (atheist) John Gray’s book ‘Straw Dogs’ some time.
“Heavy atheistic hand” is a misnomer. Communism is as much atheistic as it is aunicornistic. The lack of belief in an ideology does not give you any information on what one does believe. You can concurrently be an atheist and almost anything else, except for theist. The glass house doesn’t exist in this case.
Atheist isn’t an ideology, but theism is, therefore theists are fair game to be criticized for carrying out actions based on their theism. By principle and definition you can’t attribute someone’s actions to atheism, rather what they do believe in, ie. communism in your case.
I think it’s about time you stopped using the word atheistic to detract from real arguments and points (neither of which were present in this post I’m replying to)
“In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to destroy what he sees as myth. ” And he would be right so to do. It is myth by definition 1:-
“a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.”ancient Celtic myths”
I’m interested in your use of the word “right”. You realise, that on atheistic naturalism, there is no “right”, there is just preference? Check out Michael Ruse, John Gray, Bertrand Russell, Friedrich Nietzsche or one of hundreds of other atheists (including Dawkins) who makes this point forcefully. Watch your language a bit more carefully—or folks might think you’re peddling an ideology 😉
OK….”correct to do so.”
Atheism has a longer tradition and heritage than Christianity. Its origins go as far back as Ancient Greece and surely at least as far back as Lucretius De Rerum Natura.
Cretphous, I don’t understand your reply. Are you trying to say that, because atheism is older than Christianity, it is more correct? That’s an interesting fallacy I don’t think I’ve ever heard named. Something like an appeal to history? Oh and by the way, Christianity comes from Judaism which is much older than the Greeks you mentioned. Being older doesn’t make a point of view right or wrong. Corresponding with reality and being consistent is what makes a view right or wrong.
No, I simply was saying that atheism is older. His comment is false and therefore should be amended .
I didn’t bother reading the rest of your comment because you started with a fallacious assumption as to what I meant. But thanks for trying.
The first Christians were called “atheists” because they denied the existence of the pantheon of gods. And now, today, we have atheist churches (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ezweehq0bd7nigq/TheScandinavianSkeptic%28OrWhyAtheismIsABeliefSystem%29.PDF) … isn’t the way that word use changes fascinating?
Atheism is not a belief system, for fuck sake, its a lack of belief. Hitchens famously said that because I don’t believe in Santa Claus that doesn’t make it a believe system, its not Santaclausim its just is. Don’t be ridiculous.
The difference is that both Hitler and Stalin did not do these things out of name of atheism, but out of respective communism and fascism.
In the US they’d rather have a homosexual black jew as a president than an atheist. So what do you think more likely. That in the past, when it sometimes was downright dangerous or at least social suicide to claim being an atheist (what it still is in some countries), or that present day scientist in for example the US are afraid to “come out” as a christian?
I don’t think Dawkins or Darwinism is giving answers. On the contrary, I think that there are no answers other than answers on questions like “why do humans in general do this or that”. On a personal level, this is quite a useless philisophy.
Interesting that all the comments so far agree with Dawkins. Your review was good but also very typical of a christian response.
“Not only does Christianity have a place of heritage and tradition that atheism does not, its very nature gives its an advantage”. I don’t even know what you mean by that? Heritage and Tradition? The Spanish Inquisition for example? One thing that never seems to come up in this debate is why exactly did “God” only appear or become known about a few thousand years ago and by one specific tribe in the middle east? So what happened to every human before that? Hell or Heaven, or did the fact that they had no idea that god even existed mean they were okay ( in the eyes of god ).
The thing that annoys me the most is the fact that this religion BS and the belief in a make believe god is such an accepted concept in modern society and we are supposed to respect this belief no matter how idiotic it is.
As a Canadian, Christianity is not more appealing to me than science in the slightest. Please don’t group all Canadians together. I do not believe in fairy tale religions, nor the cherry-picking hogwash you come up with in order to “feel good” about your existence. My existence has been full of trauma, thanks to your bullshit fear tactic nonsense. Religion ruins the only life we have.
Richard Dawkins posted a link to this article on his twitter page, and I agree that this article summarises many of the main points of the book. I really felt that the author of this article did a good job at actually acknowledging the points from the God Delusion.
However, I feel that the author did not address why these points should be rejected – the small section devoted to ‘critique’ did not address any of the main points from Dawkins’ book, and instead talked about what Canadians will feel more comfortable with, along with why we should feel offended? I would really liked to have read about the authors actual perspective on the really meaty points from the God Delusion…
Too many replies too little time.
Jemima,
I don’t want to speak for Stephen, but I’m sure that he’s not using the term “right” in the post modernist, ultra relativist sense that “right” simply means, “what I like.” I’m sure he’s using it in a more correspondent sense, something like, “right” is what corresponds to reality and rationality. It is objective. There are cases and time when subjectivity can be applied, like cultural nuances, but those are different cases entirely from what is being discussed here. Also, about Christians being called “atheists” again, though words change the idea remains. Christians aren’t atheists in the sense that they do not believe in ANY God, rather in the sense that they do not believe in the gods of the Greek/Roman pantheons. So what? That again has no bearing on the greater conversation here. About the link you posted, I haven’t had time to read the whole thing, but in general I agree with the conclusion that Atheism IS a belief system.
Derek,
Did you not read my reply(ies)? I completely disagree with everything Dawkins (and other “New Atheists”) have written, I’ve only read their works to see what types of arguments they try to use. Your tone bespeaks of a Dawkinsite, I don’t know if you’ve done the same amount of research he apparently did, but please do yourself a favor and really research something before throwing insults that don’t stick at it. You bring up the Spanish Inquisition, as an example of the history of Christianity, but you seem to ignore the thousands of years and millions of lives improved by Christian belief. I’m reading a great work soon to be released, “True Reason,” that offers real answers to the crap slung by “New Atheists.” The best example of your apparent infatuation with Dawkins comes in your final lines, “The thing that annoys me the most is the fact that this religion BS and the belief in a make believe god is such an accepted concept in modern society and we are supposed to respect this belief no matter how idiotic it is.” That annoys you? You calling something idiotic doesn’t make it so. I think it’s hilarious to hear Robin Williams joke about the layout of the human body, because at first glance it seems counterintuitive. BUT, let me see you (or anyone else for that matter) design something better. In the naturalist humanist world let me see random mutations and natural selection “design” something better. It can’t and neither can you. Last but certainly not least; you call it “religion BS” and yet it seems to matter so much that you took the time to respond here (and I’ve venture to guess elsewhere as well) to it? If it is TRULY worthless “BS” then it’ll die out on its own. You’d be well to mark these words of Gamaliel from Acts 5:35-39, “Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these [the apostles]. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.” So, if it really is nothing, as you claim, leave it alone and it’ll die out.
@Kate, Would you prefer the author of this critique tear apart every single page of the text? Honestly, he COULD have been much more critical. After my first comment, I did end up reading it and Stephen COULD have been much more critical. There were many more double standards and faulty uses of logic throughout the text. Stephen apparently wanted to keep this response simple/short and left out many failings in the text. Indeed entire books could and have been written about all the wrong that is in this text.
@Kohn,
Have you not cherry picked your own gripe? The fact that Stephen tries to give a voice to the believers that live in Canada has no bearing on how you feel. Did you even read the critique? It’s not about how ALL Canadians are Christians. It’s about how the book will affect Canadians in general; whether the book will or will not appeal to Canadians. If your life has been truly filled with trauma, I apologize if it was done by someone claiming to be Christian. That’s not the way Christians are SUPPOSED to act. You’ve been a victim of the worst kind of Christianity, if what you say is true, and I hope that your wounds can be healed. Don’t look to science for any healing though, the mind is nothing more than the brain and your brain probably more or less unharmed (assuming you haven’t suffered some physical injury).
@Sina,
Do you not seem to understand the difference between religion motivated mistreatment and anti-religion motivated mistreatment? Oh, wait, there really isn’t a difference as far as the pain it causes. Say, as is the case in many atheist, communist parts of the world, it is illegal to be a Christian. Now, the penalty for becoming a Christian varies place to place but say it’s death. Does that make it NOT religiously motivated? Technically, I guess because it’s the opposite, it’s anti-religious. In other places in the world it’s illegal to become ANY religion but the official state-sponsored religion. In those places one is right to say that the persecution is religiously motivated mistreatment. Either way, it’s mistreatment. I don’t think the point in calling this a double standard is coming through clearly. If I beat someone because they don’t believe in the same god I believe in, I’m JUST AS WRONG as the one who beats someone for claiming to believe in ANY god. Anti-religious persecution is just as wrong as religious persecution. Atheism has been used as an ideology. The GOAL might be to throw off the supposed shackles of whatever ideology one is rebelling against, but in reality it’s an ideology as well. Perhaps a better word would be “worldview” rather than ideology; because a worldview is all-encompassing, whereas an ideology is merely a way of thinking. But, only a blind, deaf, and mute fool would claim that one’s ideology can be completely divorced from one’s actions.
Sorry mistyped, “Do you not understand the difference…”
“…Dawkins confronts the claim that atheists such as Stalin or Hitler (he is not convinced that Hitler was an atheist) are relevant. Dawkins argues that acts by atheist individuals are not relevant to judging atheism. Yet, he cites examples such as Fred Phelps or Osama bin Laden, as if they were representative of religious people, and uses them to demonstrate the danger and evil of religion.”
The difference is that Bin Laden and Phelps both commit(ted) their most despicable acts in the name of religion, but neither Stalin nor Hitler acted in the name of atheism.
To make the point another way: the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian doesn’t in any way discredit vegetarians or vegetarianism in general.
@cretpheous
Ah, I find it humorous when a person’s argument falls apart and they have to resort to cursing/foul language to INSIST that they’re right. “Atheism is not a belief system, for fuck sake, its a lack of belief.” So, I did some searching, and found this:
-ism a suffix
1. forming nouns:
2. denoting an action or its result.
“baptism”
denoting a state or quality.
“barbarism”
3. denoting a system, principle, or ideological movement.
“Anglicanism” (here’s where Theism, and Atheism belong)
denoting a basis for prejudice or discrimination.
“racism”
4. denoting a peculiarity in language.
“colloquialism”
5. denoting a pathological condition.
“alcoholism”
Tell me again how it’s not a system of belief in the non-existence of a deity of any sort? Or is the definition just up to you? Are you the sole source of linguistic change and truth? It could be argued to be #1 but that leaves the word devoid of meaning. probably not #2 because it’s not an action. Could be #2b (state or quality) but that’s not the way it’s used, generally “atheistic” is used for state or quality. #3 is the only logical choice of definitions for how the word “atheism” is commonly used throughout the English language. I can and do accept alternative uses, and ideas for the sake of certain situations/discussion/arguments. But, in general, throughout English literature, this is the way the word is used. If you want to make a course change in language, I suggest you work with the rest of the English-speaking world to accept an alternate definition. Until such time as that is accepted, or a new word is used, this is what it means. Thank you for playing.
Oh and about you other rudeness “I didn’t bother reading the rest of your comment because you started with a fallacious assumption as to what I meant. But thanks for trying.” I didn’t start with any assumptions. I was asking. If someone asks you a question wherein they’re misunderstanding your intentions do you always immediately write them off like that? I hope you’re not an educator. I wanted to clarify your argument. If I assumed too much you only need say so. But, then you go off with “I didn’t bother …” well, if that’s the way you feel maybe you should make your position more clear when writing a comment. If people don’t understand what you’re saying because you’re being abstruse, it’s not the receiver that needs to change, it’s the producer.