"The God Delusion" - A Critique

7/28/2019 "The God Delusion" - A Critique

1/12

Christopher Lewis: TH595

Theres all the difference in the world between a belief that one is

prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is

supported by nothing more than tradition, authority or revelation.

Critically assess Richard Dawkins views on the differences between

science and religion

In contemporary debates regarding science and religion, it is safe to say that

Richard Dawkins has contributed immensely to the school of thought which rejects

the existence of anything supernatural. He has produced documentaries and written

books in which he emphatically argues for the non-existence of God and, in addition

to this, the dangers which can surface through a belief in God or through the

following of a certain religious faith. Before delving deeper into Dawkins ideas, it is

necessary to make a note of his style of writing and also, to clarify the context through

which key terms will be used.

Not only does Dawkins believe that it is irrational to believe in a creator but, more

specifically to major Western religions, he states that the Judaeo-Christian God of the

Old Testament is a vindictive, blood-thirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic,

homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal,

sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully (p31, Dawkins, 2006,). This is a

good example of the rhetoric that is a feature of Dawkins writing. For the purpose of

this essay however, it is essential that his arguments are stripped down to their

simplest form, so as to be able to determine whether they are truly valuable.

Another important matter to take note of before going through Dawkins arguments

is the subject of epistemology (the study of knowledge), a topic which stems from

philosophy. Relevant to our purpose in this area is defining a belief and what

differentiates a strong belief from a weak one, since we are trying to find out whether

evidence and logic are different from tradition, authority and revelation in forming

beliefs. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, a belief is a mental

state, representational in character, taking a proposition (either true or false) as its

content and involved, together with motivational factors, in the direction and control

1


2/12

of voluntary behaviour (p82, Honderich (ed.)). The epistemological problems here lie

within the fact that the content of a belief can consist of either a true or a false

proposition and that a belief is after all, a mental state. Although it is worth taking

note of this, it must be set aside in order to continue into an analysis of whether

evidence and logic are more substantial than tradition, authority and revelation in

belief.

As Dawkins background is in biological science and zoology, it comes as no

surprise that evidence and logic are central to his way of thinking. He is a fan of

Charles Darwins theory of evolution, which states that human beings have developed

through the process of natural selection (p23, McGrath, 1999). This was observed

by Darwin through his research on a wide variety of fauna, where he found that the

same species of animal was different in different parts of the world. In The Origin Of

Species, Darwin mentions that not a single domestic animal can be named which has

not in some country drooping ears; and the view suggested by some authors, that the

drooping is due to the disuse of the muscles of the ear, from the animals not being

much alarmed by danger, seems probable (Chapter 1, Darwin, 1859). From this it can

be inferred that species adapt relative to their surroundings through time, and that this

process relates to humans as much as it does to any other species. The philosopher

Bertrand Russell argued that evolution was as severe a blow to theology as

Copernicanism. Not only was it necessary to abandon the fixity of species and the

many separate acts of creation which Genesis seemed to assert; not only was it

necessary to assume a lapse of time, since the origin of life, which was shocking to

the orthodox worse than any of these, the evolutionists ventured to affirm that man

was descended from the lower animals (p75/76, Russell, 1935).

Is it not possible to accept both Darwinian evolution and a belief in God? Ian

Barbour sees no problem in embracing both:

Some scientists have emphasized the role of information in molecular

biology, evolutionary history, and embryonic development and suggest that

the form of relationships is more important than the matter in which it is

expressed. On the theological side, many authors have rejected the medieval

view of a static universe in which all creatures were created in their present

forms. They have explored the idea of a dynamic universe created over a

2


3/12

long period of time by a God who is immanent in nature but also transcends

nature. (pxiii, Barbour, 2000)

Dawkins is of the opinion that natural selection is a far more efficient view than

believing in God: far from pointing to a designer, the illusion of design in the living

world is explained with far greater economy and with devastating elegance by

Darwinian natural selection (p2, Dawkins, 2006). The fact that religious scientists

exist however, is an indication of the alternative view that evolution complements

religious faith.

John Hedley Brooke mentions that Darwin did refer to evolutionary laws as being

impressed upon by the Creator (p275, Brooke, 1991) and that it was possible to

imply that Darwin provided a link between evolution and God. Despite this, he

confided to botanist J.D Hooker later on in life that he regretted connecting the two.

Richard Dawkins agrees that there is a gap between religion and science which cannot

be bridged. It is through the evidence and logical progression of evolution that he

claims that it is unreasonable to believe in a creator. More specifically, he reiterates in

The God Delusion that Darwinian evolution disproves any form of argument put

forward from design.

The design (or teleological, meaning having a purpose or end) argument was

brought forward most prominently as an argument for God by William Paley. He

stated that mechanism and order implies contrivance, in other words, a sense of

purpose and meaning deriving from a creator. Consequently, Paley says that nature

can be seen in the same way, i.e. that the world has an order and that this order was

created. He provides us with an analogy, where he imagines that he finds a watch on

the floor (as opposed to something like a stone, which is a feature of the natural

world). He reasons that, as the watch has a design and a method through which it

works, it would be irrational to think that it had come into being without a maker

(p100, McGrath). Dawkins snubs this argument and believes that evolution by

natural selection produces an excellent simulacrum of design, mounting prodigious

heights of complexity and elegance (p79, Dawkins). So, all we see in nature that

makes us wonder about its creation and development can be explained through the

evidence and logic put forward by Darwin i.e., natural selection. The Dawkinsian

viewpoint is that the reason nature is the way it is depends on the fact that organismsstrive to survive.

3


4/12

Dawkins himself provides us with a useful example of this in one of his earlier

books, The Selfish Gene, with reference to humans. He coins the term meme, which

he describes as a replicator which represents a concept within a culture, and this

replicator may spread depending on its survival value (p192/193, Dawkins, 1976).

Dawkins goes further to say that God is a meme, an idea which has been passed on

through generations, and that this meme has a high survival value because of its

psychological appeal. J.J.C Smart however, makes the point that natural selection

mimics teleology (p14, Smart and Haldane, 1996). It is fair to say that the

comparison between an organism and a mechanism is a fault in Paleys analogy of the

watchmaker because of the fact that organisms grow and their purpose is continued

existence. However, this still does not explain why they survive; it merely explains

what they have to do in order to survive.

The Scottish philosopher David Hume has said that the theist makes too much of a

leap in the design argument (p102, McGrath) in that the designer of the universe does

not necessarily have to be God. However, it could be said that the atheists argument

is also insufficient in that the explanation of the meaning of our existence is

incomplete. As implied earlier, the evidence and logic only takes us so far in shedding

light on why we came to be in this universe. The physicist and theologian John

Polkinghorne has argued along these lines. He has pointed out that organisms become

more complex through time and raises this question: why do molecular plants and

animals emerge when single cellular organisms seem to cope with the environment

satisfactorily? (p17, Polkinghorne, 1994). This question can be seen as a serious

blow to the Dawkinsian view that evolution disproves the Divine. The evidence is

overwhelming in favour of the assertion that the theory of evolution exists but the

issue that, at times, seems to be ignored by Dawkins is that it is unclear as to why

evolution itself exists and why life forms grow to be more intricate.

A more modern version of the design argument has come about through what is

called the anthropic principle. This principle has been brought about through the

field of physics and states that all the astonishing coincidences of physics, chemistry

and biology that have conspired to produce us indicate that the fact that conscious life

has evolved is the central, unique fact about this universe (p251/252, Appleyard,

1992). This is very much a human-centred notion and countless examples can be

found of the cosmic coincidences which result in the theists updated version of the

teleological argument for God. One such example can be found in Stephen Hawkings

4


5/12

popular science bookA Brief History of Time (Bantam Press, 1988). He deduces that

if the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by one part in

a hundred thousand million million, the world would have recollapsed before it ever

reached its present size (p121/122, Hawking).

As expected, Dawkins repudiates this argument. The reason for this is that he

believes that the concept of God is even more complex and improbable than the series

of events that brought about the universe and in turn, the human race (p143, Dawkins,

2006). It seems here that Dawkins has misunderstood the conclusion of this argument.

The theist is not implying anything of the nature of God, nor is he/she attempting to

prove that God exists. The anthropic principle does not seem to attempt to provide us

with proof of a Creator, but only with reason to believe in one. It declares (through

evidence and logic), that because of the incredible coincidence of the cosmos, there

are grounds from which one can base a belief in God. Dawkins on the other hand,

needlessly adds the attribute of complexity to God in order to justify his stance.

In his reactionary book, The Dawkins Delusion (2007), Alister McGrath maintains

that the leap from the recognition of complexity to the assertion of improbability is

highly problematic (p10, McGrath, 2007). Furthermore, he points out that a popular

notion in contemporary science is that of a grand unified theory, i.e. a theory that

can explain everything. Dawkins fails to see that this theory, however dissimilar from

a concept of a Creator, can be just as complex as the notion of God.

Despite the fact that the makeup of the anthropic principle is inconclusive, Barbour

has argued that it is consistent with a theology of nature (p59, Barbour, 2000). This

denotes that one may find belief in God to be a rational and coherent interpretation of

their experience in the world, due to the fact that the fine-tuning of the physical

constants appear to have a purpose or goal.

Another issue regarding religion and science is the idea of the God of the gaps,

which states that gaps in human understanding can be filled with God (p153,

Peacocke, 1990). In other words, whenever science fails to explain something, the

theist can argue that we have no alternative but to consider God as the explanation.

Dawkins has firmly rejected this idea on the grounds that these gaps have increasingly

become far narrower as our understanding of our surroundings becomes far more

developed (p125, Dawkins, 2006). It seems that on this matter, many religious

scientists are in agreement with Dawkins. Arthur Peacocke declares that the advance

of the natural sciences showed just how vulnerable was such a God of the gaps, as

5


6/12

science gradually filled these supposed opportunities in which a god could flex his

omnipotent muscles (p153).

Peacocke however, takes the God of the gaps idea further by saying we must

allow for permanent gaps in our ability to predict events in the natural world and

that we perhaps ought to propose a God of the unpredictable gaps. When

considering permanent gaps in our ability to understand the world, the uncertainty

principle in quantum mechanics may provide us with a good example. The basic point

to be taken from this principle is that there is no way of knowing or predicting both

the velocity and position of a particle at the same time. It was devised by Werner

Heisenberg, and Stephen Hawking states that the more accurately you try to measure

the position of the particle, the less accurately you can measure its speed, and vise

versa (Hawking, p55). Is this a case where the God of the gaps approach is brought

to another level?

McGrath also argues along these lines and states that perhaps explicability itself

requiresexplanation (p12, McGrath, 2007). Science works wonders in telling us

about the nature of the universe and how we can manipulate natural resources within

the world, but this is a scientific rather than a religious purpose. Much like the

criticism of Dawkins to do with the anthropic principle, it could be said that he has

not probed deep enough into the matter at hand.

Despite this, it is worth noting that Dawkins makes a lucidly strong case against the

Intelligent Design movement, which is mainly based in North America (p12,

McGrath, 2007). Creationists, who reject the theory of evolution, argue vehemently

for the God of the gaps and irreducible complexity, which states that various

examples exist in nature of organisms (or parts of organisms), which cannot have

evolved. Dawkins proves that the creationist argument is incoherent:

A creationist speaking: 'The elbow joint of the

lesser spotted weasel frog is irreducibly complex. No part of it

would do any good at all until the whole was assembled. Bet you

can't think of a way in which the weasel frog's elbow could have

evolved by slow gradual degrees.' If the scientist fails to give an

immediate and comprehensive answer, the creationist draws a

defaultconclusion: 'Right then, the alternative theory, "intelligent

design", wins by default.' Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails

6


7/12

in some particular, theory B must be right. (p126, Dawkins, 2006)

Dawkins logic here disproves the creationist, who seems to be looking for

scientific gaps in order to fit God into their world-view. Furthermore, he has already

won this battle against other critics of evolution in his bookThe Blind Watchmaker

(1987). These critics have said that certain parts of the eye could not have mutated as

one part seems to be ineffective without all the other corresponding parts. However,

Dawkins shows how image-forming eyes have evolved independently at least forty

times among vertebrates, and nine distinct eye structures can be identified (p93,

Barbour, 2000). From the two points made above, it can be proposed that the

creationist argument can be dismissed. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the

creationist has not appealed to tradition, authority or revelation in order to support

his/her point. This perhaps shows that, even though religious beliefs in various parts

of the world are still held because of tradition, authority and revelation, religious

responses to the rise of science have recently begun to take the form of empiricism

and reason.

An additional issue worth raising is that of the cosmological argument, which was

largely contributed to by the 13th century theologian St. Thomas Aquinas and goes as

follows:

1) All the features of the universe are reliant upon other features in order for their

existence;

2) The universe is made up of its features within it, therefore what can be said of

its features can be said of itself;

3) As a result, the universe is reliant on something else to have brought about its

existence;

4) Consequently, the universe relies on God for its existence. (p96, McGrath

1999)

This argument is derived from our empirical experience of the world and cantherefore be called an a posteriori argument. In addition, infinite regress is a key trait

7


8/12

of this claim, meaning that it depends on the concept that the law of cause and effect

cannot go back forever.

Dawkins goes through this argument in The God Delusion, and he is of the opinion

that the claim makes the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is

immune to the regress. He goes further to say that, simply because our minds cannot

grasp the notion of infinite regress, we should not make the assertion that an

omnipotent, omniscient being is the cause to the end of this regress. He adds to this by

mentioning that, logically speaking, the characteristics of omnipotence and

omniscience are not compatible: If God is omniscient, he must already know how he

is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that

means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not

omnipotent (p77/78, Dawkins, 2006). So, if God is all-knowing, then he cannot

exercise his unlimited power, since He cannot change his mind about the future.

A counter-argument to Dawkins can be found again through Alister McGrath, who

accuses him of being naive. Dawkins title to this section of his book is Thomas

Aquinas Proofs and this perhaps confirms his naivety, as they are generally

accepted only as arguments. Philosophically, these arguments are open to debate and

McGrath insists that while such arguments cast light on the questions, they settle

nothing (p7, McGrath, 2007). In fact, atheist arguments take more or less the same

form as theistic arguments, for example, Ludwig Feuerbachs claim that belief in God

is nothing more than an idea that comforts the individual. This claim is also open to

criticism in that the individuals want or need for God has no bearing on whether God

exists (p28/29).

As regards Dawkins statement that omnipotence and omniscience are

incompatible, McGrath believes that he goes about it the wrong way: His (Dawkins)

attitude seems to be: Heres how a scientist would sort out this philosophical

nonsense. It seems as if Dawkins mind-set is pedantic and, in fact, much of what he

is saying about the cosmological argument may be shown to be false through his own

arguments about the ontological argument.

The ontological argument for the existence of God is a priori, meaning that it can

be proposed prior to experience (i.e., through reason and logic). Central to this

argument is St. Anselm of Canterburys definition of God, which is that than which

nothing greater can be conceived (p36, Smart and Haldane, 1996), or in other words,

8


9/12

the most perfect being imaginable. From this it is postulated that God must exist

because if He didnt, He would not be a perfect being.

Dawkins immediate response to this is an automatic, deep suspicion of any line of

reasoning that reached such a significant conclusion without feeding in a single piece

of data from the real world (p82, Dawkins, 2006). Ironically, his assertion that

omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible also reaches a significant

conclusion based on no evidence. Moreover, the main line of reasoning that weakens

the ontological argument is that whether something is perfect or not has no bearing on

its existence (p37/38, Smart and Haldane, 1996). This way of thinking is again based

on pure logic as opposed to evidence and Dawkins, instead of being deeply

suspicious of this stance (because of its lack of data), accepts it as a counter-

argument to Anselms claim of Gods existence.

This leads us onto Dawkins views on faith. On this matter Dawkins is of the

opinion that it is in the nature of faith that one is capable of holding a belief without

adequate reason to do so (p51, Dawkins, 2006). So to Dawkins, blind faith and faith

itself are one and the same. Through the eyes of many religious scientists however, it

seems that reason is in fact the basis of faith. Keith Ward has defined faith as a basic

commitment to a set of most general beliefs about the nature of reality, about what

really exists (p99, Ward, 1996). To Ward, materialists such as Dawkins are actually

making faith statements when they declare for example, that all that exists in the

universe are material things. Furthermore, he mentions that Dawkins is wrong to put

science in competition with theism and that it would be more accurate to compare

theism with materialism (p100).

This brings us to the matter of whether science and religion can be compatible, or

whether they exist on either side of a gap too wide to be bridged. It is clear where

Dawkins standpoint lies on this subject. To him religion is something which is not

only incompatible with science, but is also generally incompatible with the

contemporary world. Evidence and logic will eventually prevail over tradition,

authority and revelation as bases of belief. McGrath however, makes the point that if

Dawkins truly believes that religion is incompatible with the modern world and that it

is unreasonable to believe in God, why does he put so much effort in trying to

disprove His existence (pvii, McGrath, 2007)?

John Hedley Brooke is a supporter of trying to bridge the science/religion gap. He

maintains that new parallels have been drawn between scientific and religious beliefs

9


10/12

in the sense that, in both, one often finds a protected core of received wisdom

surrounded by belts of more negotiable doctrine (p326/327, Brooke). If it is accepted

that both materialistic and religious stances can hold firm in the modern world, it is

important to consider whether Dawkins is merely causing controversy over a matter

that is subject to personal belief rather than objectivity.

On the agnostic scientist Stephen Jay Goulds assertions that scientists have no

place in debates to do with religion, Dawkins states that a universe with a creative

superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without. Why is

that not a scientific matter? (p55, Dawkins, 2006). However, the claim that the

universe would be very different had it been created by a divine being seems rather

obscure and cannot be proven, since we only have experience of one universe.

Furthermore, it seems Dawkins has misunderstood Goulds intentions. He is not

declaring that scientists ought to steer clear of religious matters altogether; instead, he

is saying that science as a subject should not be brought into religious affairs. In

addition to this, a scientist who knows only about science will ultimately be less

credible than a scientist who has studied the history of philosophy, theology and

religion.

Keith Ward has said that science and religion are compatible; however, he

mentions that scientists should be more careful when taking up matters of religion:

Ironically, their (scientists who enter the realm of religion i.e., Dawkins)

attitudes are often anti-scientific in temper as well as anti-religious, since

they do not consider carefully and rigorously the claims of major

theologians, but are content to lampoon the crudest versions of the most

nave religious doctrines they can find. Their treatment of religion shows no

dispassionate analysis, but a virulent contempt which can only be termed

prejudice. (p12, Ward, 1996)

For the purpose of this essay I have deliberately made an attempt to ignore

Dawkins approach to matters concerning religion so far. It is however, worth

pointing out that, if we are truly searching for answers to ultimate questions such as

the existence of God (or whether there is such thing as a grand unified theory) all

viewpoints must be taken into consideration carefully and Dawkins is prone to

emotive responses, as opposed to cautious deliberation. When Dawkins quotes Gould

10


11/12

on the matter of the gap between science and religion, he talks of his almost bullying

tone. Considering Dawkins has only devoted 3 pages ofThe God Delusion to

Aquinas Five Ways and has come up with what appears to him to be a significant

conclusion, it seems hypocritical to accuse others of complacency.

In conclusion, it is clear that Dawkins may be accurate in saying that there is much

difference in a belief that is defended through evidence and logic and one that is

defended using tradition, authority and revelation, especially when dealing

specifically with the realms of science and religion. Dawkins arguments about the

relevance of religion in todays world however, appear inaccurate to me in light of the

fact that evidence and logic can be useful tools through which ones faith in God can

be strengthened. The reality is that many students of science not only reject atheistic

arguments, but some, such as John Polkinghorne and Alister McGrath, believe in

theism and have faith in a creator. Furthermore, it is apparent that their beliefs are

strengthened by evidence and logic.

11


12/12

Documents

"The God Delusion" - A Critique