Richard Dawkins Interviews/Debates Wendy Wright

This is one of the few times I will admit a clear win for Richard Dawkins. While I appreciate Wendy Wright's stance and can sympathize with many of her concerns, she just didn't know her position well enough (nor Dr. Dawkins') to get into the technicalities of evolution. In my opinion, Dawkins was overall polite and reasonable with his questions and objections. And while Miss Wright was polite, she not only refused to admit that her understanding of evolution was quite limited; but she regularly dodged direct questions.

For example, Miss Wright asked a number of times, "Where's the evidence?" And Dawkins would politely reply with several examples of so-called "transitional fossils." It was obvious that Miss Wright knew little to nothing about these fossils. Instead of admitting her ignorance and agreeing to look into these further, she pridefully dismissed Dawkins' attempt.

This does make me wonder why Dawkins would agree to interview someone like this who has no credentials in science. Wouldn't this had made for a much more useful exchange had he interviewed a creationist or ID proponent with a Ph.D in his or her respective field? Otherwise, what do interviews like these really accomplish except for an excessive number of facepalms to those viewing?

If you're going to discuss the technicalities of evolution with someone, here's a tip: know what you are talking about and/or be willing to look into something for which you are unfamiliar. Otherwise, you are causing more harm than good.

Richard Dawkins on the Flood

You can watch the whole thing, but the noteworthy statements begin around 4:30 on the video below.

Here, Richard Dawkins explains the complete tragedy of those 40 percent of Americans who believe the Bible. And i'm still completely and totally baffled at Dr. Dawkins for doing so. You can really tell that he is genuinely concerned for these people and wishes that they would jump on board with the rest of the world. But i'm sorry Dr. Dawkins, you are going about it the wrong way. You may convince some, but you are not going to reach the masses with your approach. And here's why.

The moment you publish a book or make an argument, you completely plug your ears and blindfold yourself so that there is no possible way you can listen to or read what the Creationists would have to say in response. As i've enunciated many times before, it is not all that impressive when the other side will write books about Creationists, fly around the world giving lectures about them, appear on major TV and radio outlets talking about them, but refuse to interact with them. In addition, Dr. Dawkins has given absolutely no indication that he has really taken the time to read what Creationists have to say.

Again, this isn't too impressive to us. So as long as this continues with Dr. Dawkins, we will continue to believe what we believe and be willing to interact with Dr. Dawkins when he is ready. I mean, we even write books in response to his. How many times has he acknowledged or spent some time attempting to refute them?

Not the best way to look confident in your position, Dr. Dawkins. And it sure isn't the best way to reach that 40 percent you are talking about. But keep trying. I'm sure you'll continue to earn the support of loyal atheists, as I know you love the praise of men. After all, since the Universe is nothing more than matter-in-motion, what will it matter in the end anyway?

Richard Dawkins on absolute morality

Its so easy to get away with such statements without debate or cross examination isn't it? Something that constantly amazes me about atheists are their repetitions of age-old canards. For instance,

"An absolute morality that a religious person might profess includes...stoning people for adultery? Death for apostasy? Punishment for breaking the sabbath?...I don't think I want an absolute morality."

It is quite unfortunate that Dr. Dawkins is unable to be corrected at the moment, due to the fact that his ears are filled with cement and refuses to debate anyone who might have the theological capacity to say, "um, Dr. Dawkins...did you know that the morality you mentioned was under a particular cultural and political context? Have you ever heard of Jesus and that thing he established called the New Covenant?" However, we all know how Dawkins might respond to such; "Oh, so you just pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible!" I would challenge Dawkins or anyone to even begin to formulate an exegesis which would lend any credibility to the idea that, given an objective reading of scripture, the old covenant administration can and should apply today in our modern, western, political/cultural context. But as we know, Dawkins probably doesn't even know what "exegesis" means, and probably doesn't care. But that's atheistic ethics! Since the universe is nothing but raw matter and energy, what in the world is "honesty" anyway? The universe doesn't care about honesty.

"I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, and discussed."

So...as long as "morality" follows this criteria, you'll agree with it? What if it is "thought out, reasoned, and discussed" that a particular race be wiped off the face of the earth? "No, no no, that would be wrong! That is causing harm to society!" Again, in a universe that is simply matter in motion, all you would be doing is wiping out complex bags of cells. The universe doesn't care!

"We don't believe in slavery anymore. We believe in equality of women. We believe in being gentle. We believe in being kind to animals...these are things that have very little basis in Biblical or Qu'ranic Scripture...We've grown out of [religious morality] because of secular moral philosophy and rational discussion."

Without the God of the Bible, you have no basis by which you can establish morality, other than "moral consensus." But Dawkins and other atheists don't really believe that. Why? Because there are entire societies out there with moral systems which the atheists find to be morally repulsive. But what happened to moral consensus? Those millions of globs of protoplasm in Islamic nations think that it is quite all right to imprison and kill apostates. What happens when they convince western nations to do the same? It sounds like Dawkins will be quite happy with the results, given that it would happen under "rational" discussion! But no, Dawkins and most atheists will reject such a consensus because they are made in the image of God and seek to borrow from the Christian worldview when push comes to shove.

(ht: Richard Dawkins.net)

Dawkins explains why he won't debate

Thanks to James White for POSTING THIS. I've always been amazed at the fact that the world's most popular and notorious atheist will not debate theists. In this short clip, Dawkins is asked why he will not debate someone like William Lane Craig, one of the world's leading theistic apologists. Not surprisingly, Dawkins dismisses Craig as a "professional debater" and that there "has to be more to it than that." Excuse me? Though I disagree with Craig in his apologetic methodologies, I respect him as an accomplished academian. And for Dawkins to dismiss Craig in the way that he did speaks volumes of the standard by which he operates in his atheistic apologetic.

For once, Dawkins sticks to his expertise

Amazingly, in THIS INTERVIEW, atheist Richard Dawkins refuses to give anything other than a "hunch" when asked to deal with issues that fall outside his field of expertise. Now, I have to commend Dawkins for this. As I WROTE a few days ago, you shouldn't argue something when you haven't done your homework. That is, stick to what you know. And when Dawkins is pressed to answer questions like, "what existed before the beginning of the universe," Dawkins rightfully refused to answer, since his field is in evolutionary biology. And since "Hunches aren't interesting, hunches aren't valuable. What's important is scientific evidence," it would have been futile for Dawkins to engage in issues that fall outside his field; at least not in public forums in front of thousands of viewers.

But what I don't understand is why Dawkins would write a book hundreds of pages long, namely, The God Delusion, dealing with arguments that he describes as "hunches." Sure, there is a substantial amount of information that falls within his field. But it would be no stretch to say that the bulk of the material falls completely outside his realm of expertise. Is Dawkins going to admit that the vast majority of his book is merely a "hunch?" I highly doubt anyone reading The God Delusion would ever get that impression. Instead, they will read the words of an author who is "almost certain" that his views are correct (in particular, his view on God's existence).

Let's put this into perspective with Dawkins' words in regards to "hunches," i.e. things that fall outside his field. And in this example, I will show what Dawkins is really implying when we substitute "the bulk of the material in The God Delusion" for "hunches":

"[Most of what I wrote in The God Delusion] isn't interesting, [Most of what I wrote in The God Delusion] isn't valuable. What's important is scientific evidence"

As I stated in my BOOK REVIEW of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins needs to be challenged to hold his arguments to a higher standard. And to be fair, i'm not suggesting that Dawkins cannot argue philosophical points unless he has a philosophy degree. If that were the case, then i'd be in trouble. But what I am suggesting is that if you are going to write a best-seller and appear on major TV and radio outlets in dealing with subjects that fall outside your field, then you should at least do your homework. That way, you wouldn't have to refer to areas outside your expertise as mere "hunches."

(ht: Ray Comfort)

Why Dawkins brings Ruse into Disrepute

This is certainly not the FIRST TIME atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse has expressed his feelings and sentiments towards the "new atheists." Recently, an ARTICLE appeared in The Guardian U.K. titled, "Dawkins et al brings us into disrepute," where Ruse explains in more detail why he believes that the "new atheists" are a "bloody disaster".

"There are several reasons why we atheists are squabbling – I will speak only for myself but I doubt I am atypical. First, non-believer though I may be, I do not think (as do the new atheists) that all religion is necessarily evil and corrupting."

I'm glad to finally hear an atheist admit that religion doesn't "poison everything." Its unfortunate that the "new atheists" give atheists like Ruse such a bad rap. While Ruse is hardly a friend to theism, its good to hear that he doesn't treat it like a disease.

"Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously."

It doesn't get more bold than that! And for the most part, Ruse is right on the money. Take "The God Delusion," for instance. How many times did Dawkins reference and interact with the likes of William Craig and other prominent theistic philosophers? I could probably name the number of references on one hand. Sure, Dawkins doesn't think their arguments are "worthy" of a response. But Aquinas was?

"I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery."

I realize that Dawkins might respond with, "Sure, people might think my arguments are simplistic, but they never explain why or offer a refutation." But Dawkins misses the boat completely. If you check out the more serious and scholarly responses to theistic arguments, you will notice one key difference from Dawkins: they actually interact with them. Dawkins, on the other hand, shows almost no evidence that he is even willing to read what the best of the other side has to say. In my opinion, Dawkins' arguments are just as lame as the Christian, "Goddidit" response.

"I don't have faith. I really don't. Rowan Williams does as do many of my fellow philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (a Protestant) and Ernan McMullin (a Catholic). I think they are wrong; they think I am wrong. But they are not stupid or bad or whatever. "

Ruse is right. The "New Atheists" need to clean up their act. As wrong as I think atheists are, I do not for a second think that they are dumb.

"I want evolution taught in the schools and I can think of no way better designed to make that impossible than to spout on about religion, from ignorance and with contempt."

Exactly. I'm convinced that the "new atheists" are doing far more harm than good for the cause of evolutionary education and atheism in general. Richard Dawkins, for instance, can't seem to talk about evolution without finding some way to bring religion into the mix.

"But don't worry. In the God Delusion, we have a message as simplistic as in The Genesis Flood."

While many of the scientific arguments in "The Genesis Flood" are probably out of date (i'm sure Ruse, or any other atheist would categorize all the arguments as false, but that's beside the point), I get what Ruse is saying. If you are an atheist and want to step into my shoes, then consider this: the manner in which you view a 50 year-old book like "The Genesis Flood" is the same manner in which I view a 2 year-old book like "The God Delusion."

Atheists: its time to step up your game and call each other to a higher standard. Don't settle for garbage. Read what we have to say and interact with us. Show us that you have a willingness to investigate our best arguments and respond to them. This will do much for your cause. I promise.

(ht: RichardDawkins.net)

Why won't Dawkins debate?

Maybe i'm being closed-minded? Or maybe i'm just not thinking clearly? But it just seems so incredibly strange to me that Richard Dawkins, the best-selling author of books like The God Delusion, will not debate Creationists or Intelligent Design advocates. Here's the indisputable facts:





1. Richard Dawkins is today's leading atheist (in popularity, not necessarily in quality of arguments)

2. Richard Dawkins has impeccable credentials in his field

3. Richard Dawkins has been publishing books on evolution and atheism for over 3 decades

4. Richard Dawkins, with his University job aside, has made a career out of promoting his evolutionary and atheistic beliefs

5. Richard Dawkins writes entire books on subjects that he refuses to debate.

6. Richard Dawkins flies all over the world talking "smack" on major media outlets about the people that he refuses to debate

I'm sure I could name more. But given all of this, is Dawkins being a little inconsistent in how much time he devotes to criticizing ID'rs both on TV and in print, and yet refuses to interact with them?

The similar comparison would go as follows: I think the concept of a flat earth is at the height of absurdity. And its so absurd that I would find it a complete waste of time to write books on the subject or fly all over the world talking about it. But what if I spent three decades writing books, giving lectures, and appearing on major media outlets on the subject? Given such a "silly" subject, would I look equally as silly in refusing to interact with those whom I spent three decades criticizing?

To me, this is exactly what Dawkins is doing. If creationism and intelligent design is so silly, then stop writing books about it. If creationists and intelligent design advocates are just a bunch of nut-case "history deniers," then you should leave it alone just like i'd leave the flat earth "issue" alone.

Its one thing to write books promoting your position. But its another to write books and appear on TV against a perspective and then refusing to interact with them.

How not to debate Richard Dawkins

Even though Richard Dawkins refuses to debate Intelligent Design advocates or Creationists, every once in a while he will appear on a major media outlet, as he does with Bill O'Reilly:



This is not how you should debate Richard Dawkins, or an atheist for that matter. Its a shame that the few times Dawkins opens himself up enough for a public challenge, its from the worst advocates of the other side. Maybe this is why Dawkins thinks Intelligent Design is so silly. Or maybe its because he doesn't read their works and refuses to interact with them? Either way, Dawkins pulls the wool over his eyes and plugs his ears when it comes to acknowledging the other side.

Richard Dawkins Interviewed at The Royal Ontario Museum

Go HERE to watch the interview.

I have a few comments about this interview. First, notice all of the assumptions and passing comments that are made, such as, "Oh, this is the cousin of that over there." Imagine how a creationist would be criticized for making the same sort of passing remarks and assumptions if he were doing so in a creation museum. Evolutionists would not have it!

A few other observations about the interview:

"They don't look at the evidence. If they did look at the evidence, they would be persuaded."

Who is "they?" Perhaps the vast majority of those who deny evolution? The same people who have a high school or college education? The same people that wouldn't have passed their tests if they didn't "look at the evidence?" It would be like someone passing a test on the Civil War without having any prior knowledge about the event. Surely Dawkins isn't going to argue that no evolution-denier has ever not looked at the evidence?

"I'm interested in persuading those who are perfectly capable of understanding and looking at the evidence and haven't gotten around to doing so. And why should they?"

If this is the case, then why not deal with our arguments from our best resources? Why pretend that his most educated critics do not exist?

"How sad that children should be brought up in ignorance of this amazing fact of our existence and how it came to be."

Who's children? Sure, you might find some fundy, independent Baptists living in the woods somewhere, who homeschool their children and tell them that dinosaurs never existed. But i'd be willing to bet that these make up a very small percentage of evolution-deniers. For the rest of us, we go to public schools that teach evolution as a fact, and our parents take us to museums. So who exactly is Dawkins referring to here? If he's referring to informed Creationists, we actually encourage children to learn about evolution. Can Dawkins or any evolutionist show me just one Creationist or Intelligent Design organization that condones bringing up our children in ignorance?

"I jokingly refer to myself as Darwin's Tyrannosaur...I [have] these yappy Terriers snapping at your heels refusing to look at the evidence and much worse, browbeating and brainwashing children into not looking at the evidence too. Its so sad and such a waste of time."

More evidence that Dawkins is living in a dreamworld. Again, who is "refusing to look at the evidence?" Can Dawkins prove any evidence that this is the case?

I think Dawkins just can't understand how we can deny evolution. And because of this, he creates a false reality where all his informed critics are simply an illusion. Perhaps the following syllogism will illustrate:

I. Anyone who looks at the evidence for evolution will be convinced.

II. There are people who look at the evidence, but aren't convinced.

III. Therefore, evolution-deniers don't exist.

Dawkins vs. Colbert

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Richard Dawkins
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

Richard Dawkins continuing to keep is eyes closed.

In this interview, Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and the recent best-seller The Greatest Show on Earth: Evidence for Evolution, continues to close his eyes to reality and persuade others to do the same.

"These people need to put up an argument of their own, rather than just badmouthing the people who are criticizing them. Let's hear their argument."

This reminds me of a child holding his ears screaming, "La la la la! I can't hear anything," when their parents are telling them to clean up their room. Later on, when they are asked why they didn't clean their room, they say, "Unless you tell me to clean up my room, i'm not going to know that i'm supposed to do it."

If this is the reality that Dawkins wants to present to his readers, as if ID'ers and Creationists haven't presented arguments "of their own," and instead are only "badmouthing," then Dawkins is living in a dream world. Dawkins is either completely oblivious or intentionally deceptive. I'm going to vote for the latter.

Its unfortunate that Dawkins has made a career out of atheism and evolution, but refuses to give a fair representation of his critics. Perhaps in Dawkins' ethical system he doesn't think its a problem to spend a lifetime arguing against his critics and then pretending they don't exist; but then again, i'm a Christian who thinks that men are made in the image of God and should be treated with dignity and respect.

"As you know, respectable theologians and bishops and vicars and people all believe in evolution anyway, so no religious person should have no quarrel with this, unless they are the truly ridiculous kind religious person who believes that the world is only 6,000 years old."

First off, they don't "all believe" in evolution. But even if they did, who cares? With the exception of Catholics, JW's, and Mormons, who are under obligation to believe whatever their organization tells them, theists generally don't reject or accept evolution solely based on what their leaders tell them. Some people actually think for themselves. But Dawkins doesn't want his readers to know that.

"There's no informed opposition. The opposition is all entirely from ignorant people who know nothing about it."

This is the epitome of ignorance. Are all evolution-deniers people who know nothing about it? Really? This is truly absurd and Dawkins should be ashamed of himself for presenting such a fabrication of reality.

"All living creatures are cousins of each other. That is a fact."

Gravity is a fact, Mr. Dawkins. It is something that we can measure or detect through repeatable experiments. This is contrary to the claim that my distant cousin is a banana tree.

(ht: RichardDawkins.net

Richard Dawkins presents, "The Greatest Show on Earth."

If you believe in Creation, think that evolution is false (and especially if you believe the earth is young), then according to Richard Dawkins', you are an educational disgrace. Why did Dawkins write such a book? Well, he feels that so many of us who don't believe that microbes evolved into biologists are uniformed and need to be educated on the evidences for evolution.

This is due to the fact that 40 percent or more of us don't believe in Evolution. This makes us an educational disgrace. The problem is, haven't we already been given the evidence for evolution? Did this 40 percent not go to public schools, get college degrees, and watch the Discovery channel? Is there some big mystery that we don't know about? Is Dawkins going to present evidence that I didn't hear about in my college biology classes? If so, then why isn't the most powerful evidence taught in our schools? This just isn't adding up.

I plan on reading this book only because I know it will be picked up by the masses. Yes, I expect Dawkins to present his arguments, but I do not expect Dawkins to spend any amount of time dealing with the best arguments and sources coming from the Creationist and Intelligent Design camp. Just like The God Delusion, I don't expect that Dawkins' target audience will be those who will actually look into what he says and what the other side has to offer. Nope. Probably will be more shallow argumentation that pretends as if Creationists and ID'ers have no response. Truly sad.

Book Review: "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins (Part 2 of 2)

Chapter 4 is interestingly titled, “Why There Almost Certainly is No God.” However, don’t be fooled: the author is showing no evidence of an open mind. This chapter is basically dealing with the design argument. Dawkins’ refutation basically boils down to, “who designed the designer?” as if theists didn’t think this would be a potential objection. But never mind that. Dawkins doesn’t expect his readers to read theistic works for themselves, for if they did, they’d see how elementary his arguments really are.

I found it very interesting that of all works which could be referenced, “Life—how did it Get Here?” (Published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) was referenced. Dawkins is absolutely right that this is a popular work with eleven million published copies. But what Dawkins forgets to mention is that the vast majority of these books are owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves. Furthermore, a snowball in a blast furnace has a better chance than a Jehovah’s Witness actually taking the time to evaluate the arguments presented in “The God Delusion.” But never mind that. Dawkins isn’t concerned with presenting the best that the other side has to offer. Instead, he refers to one of the most closed-minded religions in the world in presenting arguments against evolution. After all, why appeal to the hundreds of books and articles that have been written by Ph.D scientists in refuting evolution when you could refer to a book published by the Watchtower?

To be fair, Dawkins does reference Michael Behe in his dealings with irreducible complexity. But, as stated before, the author’s attempt to refute is pathetic. “Without a word of justification, explanation or amplification, Behe simply proclaims the bacterial flagellar motor to be irreducibly complex.” (p. 131) Rather than go into the complex arguments involved with the bacterial flagellum, I ask that you read Darwin's Black Box for yourself and see if Behe argues his point “without a word of justification.” Those who do so will find Dawkins’ statement to be utterly dishonest, even if one disagrees with Behe.

In attempting to deal with the flagellar motor, Dawkins borrows Miller’s argument in appealing to the TTSS pump as evidence that the motor could function as something else before actually becoming a motor. Thus, the author concludes, “evidently, crucial components of the flagellar motor were already in place and working before the flagellar motor involved.” (p. 132) I ask that the reader look at the responses offered by Behe and others to see if Dawkins actually dealt with the arguments fairly, as the issues would be too complex to discuss in this book review.

Dawkins then deals with some of the other theistic proofs, such as the “fine-tuning” argument, but falls into the same trap of not bothering to look at the counter-refutations or modern developments. Instead, the author presents the same tired argument of,

“A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself.” (p. 143)

However, Dawkins completely misses the boat with his objection, which actually doesn’t explain anything. This is in light of his example of the man who is sentenced to death by a firing squad, but they all miss. In reacting, the man exclaims, “Well, obviously they all missed, or I wouldn’t be here thinking about it.” (p. 144) This is a classic case of circular reasoning.

I. The universe is set up with specific parameters.
II. Life is here.
III. Therefore, it happened by chance. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here.

The problem with Dawkins is that he neglects the specified and purposeful tuning of the universe. Its not just the mere fact that its improbable. After all, the structures to which a bucket of toothpicks forms after being dumped on the floor is extremely improbable. But finding toothpicks arranged on the floor to read the first page in “The God Delusion” would not just merely be an improbable event, as if it happened by chance. Instead, it would display specification, function, and purpose. This is the lens to which we view all things that are functionally and purposefully specified. But when it comes to the natural world, we have to advocate unproven and unnecessary “multiverse theories.”

Chapter 5 deals with the roots of religion; where it comes from and why we have it. Certainly, I have my disagreements with Dawkins on this issue. However, the issue doesn’t really matter if, in fact, Christianity is true. That is, you can speculate all you want to and come up with innumerable convincing theories. But if something is actually true, then it doesn’t really matter to me how you think it might have originated. And this is a big problem I have with Dawkins’ book; there is far more content that assumes the case is closed than actual arguments against theistic proofs. The number of pages devoted to Dawkins’ opinions on religions is far too numerous in comparison to the shallow level to which he has dealt with the theistic arguments.

I was very disappointed with chapter 6, where Dawkins attempts to answer the question, “why be good?” And the reason I was disappointed is because the question is not, “why be good?” Instead, the question should be, “if there is no God, then what is the basis for good and evil?” In other words, you can come up with all the evolutionary explanations you want to as to “why” we should be “good.” But the problem is, what if your “good” is not the same as my “good?” The “why” becomes completely irrelevant.

Chapter 7 is an attempt to disprove the Bible as any sort of “good book.” But the argument assumes too much; namely, that Dawkins has an objective basis for judging the Bible. Even if the Bible were the most cruel and sadistic book in existence; if it is true, then its morality is true. Dawkins fails to realize this and simply argues on the basis that he is the objective beholder of true morality. But what he forgets is if atheism is true, then morality is up for grabs. In other words, what’s wrong for you might be right for me. Later in the chapter, Dawkins sought to list his “10 commandments,” as if they were somehow authoritative and binding upon all men. Sure, you might find a lot of people who think that its moral to obey, “in all things strive to cause no harm (Commandment #2).” But if you talk to the countless thousands who are in prisons worldwide for causing unjustified harm to others, they might just be there because they disagreed with the “second commandment.” So here, Dawkins assumes what he is trying to prove; that these “commandments” are somehow the yardstick of morality.

Chapters 8 and 9 could probably be lumped together, as they are the epitome of Dawkins’ hostility towards religion. In fact, the title of chapter 8 is, “What’s wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?” Most of the arguments Dawkins makes are primarily based on “religion’s” moral ills. Thus, because “religion” does things to hurt people and disobeys Dawkins’ “ten commandments,” he sees fit to be hostile. And with moral objectivity aside, I don’t blame Dawkins for his hostility. In other words, Dawkins thinks that his morality is right, and so he acts accordingly. I do the same thing, since I believe that my morality is right. But what is Dawkins really arguing here? Everything that is “so wrong with religion” is only wrong because the neurons firing in his brain causes him to think that it is wrong. This says nothing about moral objectivity. Its all assumption, and does nothing for someone like me who believes that God, not Richard Dawkins, is the beholder of morality.

Overall, I was very disappointed with “The God Delusion.” Had Dawkins spent more time in actual argument than expressing his hostility, I might have provided a better review. But it wasn’t Dawkins’ objective to actually convince people like me; those who are familiar with the arguments and are willing to look stuff up. Instead, Dawkins is targeting people who are on the edge of doubt; those who aren’t going to look up the facts or counter-refutations by theistic apologists. And sadly, these people are embracing Dawkins’ brand of radical atheism.

The only way this book can be at all profitable is to be familiar with the so-called “new atheists” and how they might present their arguments. However, in my opinion, your time would be much more well spent in reading arguments by the more sophisticated, less-hostile atheists who actually engage the best arguments from the other side. “The God Delusion” is a complete waste of paper and would have much better use in a recycling bin.

Book Review: "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins (Part 1 of 2)

Atheism is a subject that I haven’t spent a lot of time researching until lately. This is due to the fact that Atheism has been fairly rare in my neck of the woods (“The Bible Belt”) until the so-called “New Atheism” books became national best sellers. Because Atheism never appealed to me as a rational account for reality, I never really saw the need to investigate further. But as soon as my friends abandoned their faith in God and the Bible, I felt it necessary to find out why. Lo and behold, many of them did so because of books like “The God Delusion.” And because I care about my friends, and want to be equipped to “give an answer” for my beliefs (1 Peter 3:15), I felt obliged to not only be familiar with atheistic reasoning, but to see if it can account for reality. “The God Delusion” was atheism’s first attempt at this.

In this book, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, spends 10 chapters convincing his readers that “The God Hypothesis” not only has poor explanatory power, but hinders our rational, scientific, and moral minds. Though the author is a gifted writer, I was most disappointed that there was virtually no argument for atheism for the first 75 pages. In light of this, one sentence in the first chapter really got “The God Delusion” off on a bad start for me:

“It is possible that religious readers will be offended by what I have to say, and will find in these pages insufficient respect for their own particular beliefs (if not the beliefs that others treasure). It would be a shame if such offense prevented them from reading on, so I want to sort it out here, at the outset.” (p. 20)

In other words, Richard Dawkins was about to get offensive. Now, I’m all about being up front with your beliefs, and even stepping on the toes of those who disagree with you. But one thing I strongly despise is disrespect. And for one who provides not one argument for atheism in the first 75 pages, disrespect and offense is not very appealing to a reader such as myself. Fortunately, I’m not closed-minded, so I kept reading in accordance with Dawkins’ plea.

Nothing in the first chapter really rubbed me the wrong way. Some of the points that Dawkins developed was the “religious” nature of the atheist and used Einstein as an example. Dawkins sought to dispel the commonly held myth that he believed in God, as if the theists could claim him as one of their own. In doing so, Dawkins could justify his own “religious” nature, yet be fully atheistic in the process. Perhaps the following quote illustrates:

“If by ‘God’ one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying…it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.” (p. 19, where Dawkins quotes Carl Sagan)

The last point in the chapter deals with some things that I have long realized; the political correctness in “respecting” Muslims and other easily offended religious groups. Without getting nit-picky with Dawkins, I found myself agreeing with much of what he said, and he rightly pointed out the many double standards involved in so-called “political correctness.”

Chapter 2, “The God Hypothesis,” didn’t get off to a good start in the following being the first sentence:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

This isn’t to say that Dawkins doesn’t have the write to say what he wants about YHWH, but this certainly sets the tone for the bias that is prevalent throughout the book. However, I think the downfall is Dawkins’ hope of converting as many people as possible to atheism. And unfortunately, for Dawkins, he isn’t going to get a lot of converts from people like myself; those who have actually done a little bit of research in the area of theistic evidences. Instead, Dawkins’ target audience seems to be those who are in a “confused” state; perhaps they’ve grown up religious, but were never taught to question anything. Whatever the case, Dawkins’ bluntness doesn’t give him any more credibility in converting the honest researcher who isn’t after emotional appeals.

While there is much to mention with regards to Chapter 2, I wanted to use this review to address some of the arguments Dawkins presents for his atheism. In Chapter 3, the author seeks to refute some of the long-held “proofs” for God’s existence. Honestly, I was expecting much more from Dawkins. Never did I see any evidence that Dawkins has spent any time researching the modern, refined evidences for God. Instead, he refers back to the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas, as if this was the best that theism had to offer. The reason this bothered me is because if Dawkins really wanted to convince his readers that there is no God, then why not appeal to the best that the other side has to say? Apparently, high standards don’t apply to Dawkins.

First, the author “deals” with a few variations of the Cosmological Argument. In my opinion, Dawkins' attempt was elementary. Had Dawkins bothered to read anything by modern theistic philosophers, he would be aware that Aquinas’ arguments have actually undergone some significant development since the thirteenth century. It would be like me writing a refutation of evolution today but referencing Origin of Species and leaving out the plethora of evolutionary literature that has been written since. Surely, Dawkins would be appalled, and rightly so. He would hold me to the highest standard in dealing with the best that the other side has to say. Unfortunately, Dawkins didn’t think too much about double-standards when writing his book.

It is quite insulting to see how little Dawkins actually devoted to the Cosmological Argument. From what I could count, only four paragraphs were devoted. In “refuting” the argument, Dawkins appeals to the constant drumbeat of the theist’s “assumption that God himself is immune to the regress.” (p. 77) This is repeated throughout in dealing with the various theistic arguments. However, if Dawkins had bothered to read, for instance, William Craig’s treatise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, he would have been aware that the regress doesn’t apply to God, as it only applies to things which have a beginning:

I. Everything that had a beginning, had a cause.
II. The Universe had a beginning
III. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

If there is a problem with an “infinite regress” for an eternal being, I submit that Dawkins has a much bigger problem in postulating that everything came from nothing. But to my knowledge, Dawkins did not deal with his own problems in atheism. Perhaps Dawkins doesn’t see it as a problem that, given his view, things can spring into existence from nothing! Would Dawkins’ not agree that from nothing, nothing comes? Apparently not, because for him, from nothing everything came!

For this reason, I have no reason to conclude otherwise that Dawkins is a poor philosopher as well as a poor researcher. Perhaps Dawkins is a great biological researcher? But the author has shown absolutely no evidence of being able to apply the same standards to his field to that of other fields to which he has no expertise.

There is almost no use in dealing with the other 4 “theistic proofs” as they are just as poorly dealt with. Perhaps one of the most insulting is his dealings with the Ontological Argument. Anyone who has taken a look at the philosophical arguments put forth with regards to this controversial issue would be appalled at how unfamiliar the author is with the arguments. In fact, if Dawkins had written this section as a philosophy paper in an introductory course, he would have failed. Whether you find the Ontological Argument to be good or not, atheist or theist, you can’t help but cringe at how this man passes for an intellectual. And I don’t mean this to be insulting. Dawkins has truly failed in fairly dealing with these theistic arguments.

One theistic evidence that was missing from “The God Delusion” was the Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence, commonly referred to as TAG. But after reading Dawkins’ poor treatise of the arguments, I’m actually glad that he didn’t try to tackle it. I can’t imagine how poorly he would misrepresent it. But again, I don’t think Dawkins gives a rip about representing one’s views fairly and could care less in targeting people like me as his audience. Instead, Dawkins is after the theists who never bothered, or will ever bother, to read the scholarly, source material for these arguments.

Read part 2 HERE.