The God Delusion
14 November 2006
Richard Dawkins is a popular British biologist, famous for his advocacy of evolution and atheism. His previous works, such as The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, have focused on evolution. But in his new popular work, The God Delusion, Dawkins focuses on a different topic.
The God Delusion actually tries to accomplish three goals: (1) demonstrate that God does not (or, at least, very probably does not) exist, (2) construct an evolutionary theory for the development of religion and morality, and (3) show that religion is and has been harmful and the world would be better off without it. Needless to say, this is an ambitious project, and one which Dawkins fails to satisfy.
Chapters 2-4 address the existence of God. In the second chapter, Dawkins clarifies “The God Hypothesis,” claiming that it is a scientific hypothesis that can and should be tested. In chapter 3, Dawkins attempts to disprove arguments for God’s existence. Unfortunately, the chapter fails to address the most recent, relevant arguments. Although he spends a couple pages trying to refute Aquinas’ Five Ways, he gives no airtime to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which has recently become quite popular and which I think is the single best argument for God’s existence. He also discusses the ontological argument (though he devotes more space to insulting it than refuting it). And although I am not a big proponent of the ontological argument, once again Dawkins fails the test of relevancy, as he does not discuss the much more recent version of the argument proposed by Alvin Plantinga (see here for a brief exposure to different forms of the ontological argument). The chapter is very short, and deals primarily with positively bad arguments such as The Argument from Religiously Admired Scientists. He also devotes a few pages to the argument from scripture, which consists of his tragically insufficient attempt to refute the Bible. Dawkins is no historian or textual critic, but he confidently asserts things without so much as a citation. In sum, Dawkins fails to deal with the most relevant arguments for God’s existence, so even if everything written in the third chapter were true, the evidence for God’s existence would still be very strong.
The fourth chapter deals with another extremely powerful argument for God’s existence- the argument from design. However, even if one grants evolution, we are still left wondering how life began and how the universe (finely tuned for life) began. Dawkins’ response to the question of life’s origin is curious. He claims that there might be billions and billions of planets in the universe, and so it is not that unlikely that at least one of them has life. However, this logic is flawed. Since Dawkins gives no estimate of the probability of life’s abiogenesis by natural means, increasing the number of potential planets to 100 billion does not clearly help very much. If the odds of life originating are 1,000,000 trillion to one, then the fact that there are “only” 100 billion hospitable planets will not help the case for atheism much. Furthermore, Dawkins seems to assume that there are billions upon billions of life-hospitable planets in the universe. This hypothesis is far from proven, and many scientists have argued that, to the contrary, hospitable planets are extraordinarily rare. In essence, Dawkins’ reply to the problem of abiogenesis is to increase the probabilistic resources in an ad hoc fashion, and then merely assume that it is probable.
His response to the bigger question of why our universe is fine tuned for life is even weaker. He speculates that there “might be” multiple universes, mentioning Lee Smolin’s hypothesis of black hole universe creation. Dawkins hopes that a multi-verse theory like Smolin’s may explain the existence of our own fine-tuned universe by means of some sort of natural selection process. But Dawkins provides no evidence for a multi-verse, much less one with selecting properties. He merely hopes that Darwinian “consciousness-raising” will cause us to think that there is one. Dawkins’ response to the teleological argument resorts to wishful thinking, not sound science or philosophy.
How well does Dawkins accomplish his second goal of explaining religion and morality? I found the fifth and sixth chapters, which discuss this issue, quite interesting. I think he does a good job explaining the possible development of religion and morality. However, I find such a goal, if interesting, to be rather useless. There is almost no conceivable human behavior that could not be justified by some sort of Darwinian explanation. The fact that Dawkins can propose some sort of naturalistic account of religion or morality is not at all surprising, and does nothing to undermine religion in general or Christianity in particular.
What about Dawkins’ last goal, to show that religion is harmful? Once again, the fact that religion has been abused in the past, and continues to be used for evil purposes, does nothing to undermine Christianity. But his chapters on biblical morality are full of bluster and completely absent of scholarship.
Richard Dawkins tried to accomplish too much with this book, but in the end accomplished almost nothing. He failed to address relevant arguments for God’s existence, much less refute them, and committed basic philosophical blunders that destroyed his attempt to refute the design argument. If God is actually a delusion, then Richard Dawkins surely hasn’t shown it.
For more on The God Delusion, see these articles:
1. The Evolution of Belief? This article analyzes attempts to demonstrate that religious belief has an evolutionary explanation, especially including ideas found in Dawkins’ book.
2. Dawkins’ Central Argument. This article focuses particularly on Dawkins’ argument for the nonexistence of God based on the evolutionary explanation of life.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Thank you for this blog. I don’t have time to read everything that comes down the pike. This helps alot with someone I know who is reading the book.
— Ben Jan 6, 06:18 AM #
There’s no reason for Dawkins to explain how the universe is fine tuned for life. The only reason that someone would have to do that is if the universe’s purpose is life, which, although established within religion, is not in any way arguable outside of those bounds. This is a common assumption held by people who subscribe to the design argument, but is one of it’s greatest flaws.
Just out of curiosity, how would you, as a knowledgeable Christian, respond to the accusation that the bible condones selling your daughter into slavery?
— Nate Jan 12, 10:48 PM #
Nate, your statement about whether or not life is the purpose of the universe is a good one, but doesn’t hold up in the context of this book review.
Dawkins sets out to refute the existance of God, taking him firmly into the realm of religion. It is therefore reasonable that religious conclusions on scientific findings be admissible as a rebutal.
I would further ad that your question is not exactly a fool proof loophole from the idea of a Creator. Logic must still drive you to accept that if enough coincidences unite at a singular point creating a very specific effect, that there might be a design at work. The only really honest argument is where the line should be drawn on what is coincidence or design.
Even if you discount life as the purpose of the universe, you must still contend with the origin of the universe from nothing. This is an age old argument, and I’m sure we will not resolve it on a blog, but it is also an argument for which religion provides a sufficient answer and naturalism provides only more questions.
Lastly, your question about “selling your daughter into slavery” is strictly theological and is out of place with the discussion of the book review. Still, I might ask you that if you accept the existance of a God who is all powerful, why would you assume he shares your morality? Would his disagreement with your own moral code preclude his existance?
— volk Jan 15, 12:00 PM #
Volk,
The conversation about the origin of the universe from nothing is discussed on other pages of the blog, so I didn’t feel the need to address it.
I was specifically stating that that particular argument is meaningless. First of all, how do we know that life requires the specific conditions of Earth to exist? That is a very large assumption. And if other kinds of life can exist, that logic is out the door, because maybe this universe wasn’t so catered to life as it claims. Maybe life happens all the time.
Now, you might say that in our experience so far, life can only live on Earth. Well, so far we’ve only really gotten a close look at Mars, and there’s even some evidence of bacteria there.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, necessarily, just that you should have more information before you claim that the odds of producing life are astronomically low.
In addition, you can’t argue about chances in hindsight. Lets say I flip a coin 30 times, and it happens to land on heads every time. It wouldn’t matter that the chances were astronomical, it happened. You can’t apply probability to things that happened in the past. Probability is merely a best guess of what will happen. What does happen always trumps it.
As for the selling your daughter question, I only brought it up because the review mentioned religious morality, but brushed it off, giving no examples of the things that are called full of bluster and absent of scholarship. I was wondering if the author of the article could establish his authority on the subject, in the absence of actual examples or references, to somewhat qualitate his claims.
— Nate Jan 16, 10:44 PM #
Sorry for the double post, but I have one last thing to say about the sell your daughter into slavery subject.
The author, in other articles, uses objective morality as an argument for God. Now, if we accept that, and accept that the bible is from God, and that God would not wish to mislead people as to what is or is not moral (one could debate this, but the only god I can imagine that would not follow this would be a trickster or liar, things considered by common morality to be wrong), then it follows that the Bible is an accurate representation of objective morality.
Now, given that the broad view (and my deep-seated feeling) that slavery is evil in any form, what does this say of the objective morality of people? I would argue that it says that it cannot truly be a god-given objective morality. Thus we have reached a contradiction, and must accept one of the premises as false. I would argue the easiest premise to drop would be the one which states that there is an objective morality.
Sorry about getting off-track, but I needed to get that down.
— Nate Jan 16, 10:58 PM #
“the only god I can imagine” sums up the key to original sin, and that of all sin to follow. If your only god is a god you can imagine and conceive, he must be quite tiny and powerless (probably a little wood figurine you buy in Tahiti). That is the difference between the god of ancient Baal and the God that burnt soaking wet offerings to less than ash in the Bible . When God becomes unconstrained in our mind and consciousness, He is free to become that truly omnipotent God that we cannot fathom. Dawkins’ is limited too by his concept of what god should be.
— SelectedPete Jan 29, 11:57 AM #
Nate, if I may make a point about your slavery comment: You question the Bible’s morality due to its numerous references to slavery. You mention the “broad view” that slavery is evil in any form. What exactly do you mean by this broad view? In the last couple hundred years it has been viewed as evil? Please understand I am not positing that slavery is in any way good. There is a theme in the Bible (and please excuse my religious vocab here – I don’t know what else to call it) called the Redemptive Hermeneutic. There is some controversy surrounding exactly what that is among Christians, but basically the idea is that some passages in Scripture are cultural, and some are more broad, absolute. So when the Bible appears to be advocating slavery, it is really advocating the better treatment of slaves compared to how people around the Hebrews would be expected to treat their slaves. This is why pulling certain random passages out of scripture is inappropriate; it must be understood within the context of history and the context of the rest of the Bible. I’m sure if you google it, you could find more information on the topic.
— Woods Jan 30, 05:38 AM #
I find this critique sort of ironic… the author criticizes Dawkins for supposedly simply waving away the arguments for God without any substance (it is my personal feeling after reading the book that he made many substantial points) yet that is exactly what this article’s author is doing to Dawkins arguments. “He failed” does not count as a rebuttal. Furthermore, Dawkins does address the Cosmological Argument. He devotes two sections (17 pages) to it.
Is it simply that the author is fixed on maximum brevity? Perhaps he or she would care to write a “refutation” with a little more substance?
— Ubuntu Feb 9, 05:27 PM #
Ubuntu,
I do not see your point here; demonstrating that Dawkins fails to establish his conclusions does indeed count as a rebuttal. Also, I recognize that Dawkin’s “addressed” the Cosmological Argument- if you read my review carefully you will note that I mention this. I said that he did not address the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is probably the most current, most popular, and most relevant form of the argument. His failure to even mention the argument is significant.
Furthermore, you criticize me for the brevity of the article. Don’t you realize that this is a simple book review? It would be inappropriate for it to be much longer than it is. I have thought about writing a full refutation of the book, but I decided against it because, honestly, the book is rambling and does not have enough substantive content. However, upon request (such as this) I may write a full refutation.
Nate,
I disagree with your claim that the existence of life is a particularly unremarkable thing that cannot ground the Design Argument. However, even Dawkin’s did not, to my knowledge, use this argument- so it can’t really vindicate his poor response to the argument overall. In any case, conscious existence is an extremely improbable occurrence that is unlikely on the hypothesis of naturalism but likely on the hypothesis that there is a Creator of the universe who possesses conscious experience as well.
Additionally, you seem to be confusing the issue of the design argument, contending that Earth is not necessarily the only hospitable planet. But the Design Argument I was talking about concerns the type of universe that exists. It is unlikely for life to be possible, let alone actual, in any given universe- assuming naturalism. However, an intelligent Creator could purposely design the universe to be hospitable for life. Thus, the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of the universe for life is evidence for the existence of God.
You also ask me about the slavery issue. You are correct that I brush off Dawkins’ arguments from morality. I probably should provide some examples of the bluster and non-scholarship which I accused him of committing. This aside, on the issue of slavery, I would contend that, in context, the “slavery” principles taught in the Bible were actually for the benefit of the slaves. In actuality, the slavery mentioned in the Bible is analagous to voluntary indentured servitude. The word slavery has very negative connotations because of the abuses of the practice in recent times, as well as historically. However, in the Bible I don’t think the forms of ‘slavery’ mentioned were evil. Check out Glenn Miller’s christian-thinktank.com for more on this issue.
Sincerely,
Kyle.
— Kyle Deming Feb 11, 09:31 AM #
“But the Design Argument I was talking about concerns the type of universe that exists. It is unlikely for life to be possible, let alone actual, in any given universe- assuming naturalism.”
-Kyle
Please don’t take this as a personal insult, as I have a great amount of respect for many of your arguments, but this is utter nonsense.
We have no idea what the chances of life are in our own universe. We don’t even have a good definition of what life is. You’re taking the definition of life to be “carbon based lifeforms which have certain organic properties”, which may or may not be true. This is a very reductionist viewpoint, though, and I think you find that most people associate the term “life” with things like cognition, the ability to reproduce, etc. These properties could be held by all sorts of things, regardless of the medium. In fact, there’s a whole branch of science/computing dedicated to the investigation of things which would be considered alive in a medium far removed from our physics.
Philosophically, if not scientifically, you are of shaky ground when you say that this universe specifically is especially hospitable to life. Certainly it’s exceptionally hospitable to the type of life that’s evolved here, but the argument you’re making is even more open than the chicken and the egg.
In response to morals, would you admit that the morals were applicable to the time, and we have to readjust them, and to pick and choose, for them to have any meaning in the present? This is what Dawkins argues. If the morals are so mutable, in what way are they absolute? And if they are not absolute, why should we need them in the first place?
Thirdly, I believe that Dawkins refutation of the Cosmological Argument applies equally to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Merely substitute the word “begin” for “move” in the argument, and you have a proper refutation. In addition, the part of the argument which states that “causality does not apply to a creator because I define him that way” is absurd. That part of the argument is nearly as simple minded as the Ontological Argument. This part of the argument is mentioned in the text, and applies to both versions of the Cosmological Argument.
Nate
— Nate Feb 15, 02:27 PM #
There is a great review by Alvin Plantinga about this book, and he spares little.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
— Chris Feb 28, 02:25 PM #
Nate,
You are unimpressed with my Teleological Argument, but you have several misconceptions. First of all, we DO have an idea of the chances of life in our own universe. This has been determined by physicists and cosmologists who have painstakingly discovered and recorded the precise constants and values of our universe, and who have shown with mathematical models what happens when these parameters are changed (usually, disaster for life). You raise the possibility of non-carbon-based lifeforms. First of all, we have a good reason to be skeptical of ideas of such lifeforms, because carbon has a lot of unique properties (such as its remarkable ability to maintain long, stable chains) that make it particularly suitable for life. Other elements simply lack these properties- even the closest ones, such as silicon, simply don’t seem to be good candidates.
But this aside, oftentimes the universe is patently unsuitable for any life whatsoever if the values of the constants are slightly altered. For example, in many such hypothetical universes, hydrogen is the only element. But it seems absurd to propose that life could somehow form out of hydrogen alone.
In conclusion, let me just say that these types of arguments have been considered reasonable by a great deal of contemporary scientists and philosophers, including atheists. So, rather than being utter nonsense, I think the fact that these issues are a hotly debated and legitimate issue for today’s top minds shows that it is something we should give considerable thought.
Sincerely,
Kyle.
— Kyle Deming Mar 10, 11:14 PM #
‘The GOD Hypothesis’... an oximoron. Hypothesis are logically meant to be tested. But the KEY that most ‘scholars’ and athiest book pushers forget.. is that the whole Idea of ‘GOD’ is beleif. What good is your faith in something, if you’ve already proven. Thats like betting on fixed game. People the world over, including scholars, authors , athiests alike.. have waisted their careers trying to either disprove or Prove the existance of GOD. But God wants man to beleive through faith.
My theory is that God put just enough evidence for both sides to chew on, but not enough for either to win. He doesn want people to beleive because they’ve got the proof. He wants people to actually put in the effort to have a little faith.
So, go on, keep searching ( and this goes to non-believers and believers alike)... keep trying to find your ‘missing link’... you’ll never find it.
-Will, NJ
— Will Hernandez Apr 13, 12:31 PM #
Great post Will!
In other words, any time Science and Religion appear to be in conflict, then either Science, Religion, or both, have gone beyond the boundaries of how they are to be used.
— Vern Apr 23, 10:24 AM #
Exactly. It’s a contradiction in terms. The word, “hypothesis,” implies that God is somehow subject to scientific scrutiny. Science concerns itself only with natural, not supernatural, dynamics.
So many skeptics nowadays are embracing a scientistic, anti-metaphysical worldview, and it’s very frustrating to me as a Christian believer. Science certainly has it’s place, philosophy has it’s place, and theology has it’s place. Somtimes the three overlap, but one should know their respective limitations.
— Jared May 2, 11:33 AM #
thanks for the great review. I’m halfway through the book, and quite surprised that this is their “fair haired” poster child. He really does not do a good job. I had expected to be annoyed, but in fact have been rather humored.
— mjmesserli Aug 27, 03:38 PM #
Good site and review. I personally know of an atheist who became a church-going Christian on reading Dawkins book, so I reckon he should be encouraged to keep up the good work!
— Gerry Aug 29, 05:50 AM #
i’m just a kid compared to probably most of you and i still have a lot to learn, but i’m on God’s side.
i’m really happy that this site exists.
— Geraldine Sep 5, 10:21 PM #
and besides, if you look at the existance of God in a logical sence, you come to this: belief in God (and when you die there IS a God) you gain everything. disbelief (and when you die there IS a God) you loose everything. belief (and when you die there is NO God) you gain and loose nothing. disbelief (and when you die there is NO God) you also gain and loose nothing. So if you believe you really have nothing to loose.
— kije Sep 16, 12:19 AM #
We as humans are intellectually restricted. There are some things in this universe which are too complex for us to fathom. Its like an ant trying to understand string theory.
— bartok Sep 16, 12:25 AM #
The concept of God was made by man, unfortunately The Bible does not reveal truth about God anymore than it reveals the truth about dinosaurs. But science through empirical evidence and mathematics does more to explain God better than anything we have been given by religion. Dawkins does not say there is no God, he says that a God of the Bible is improbable. Our concept of what God is so utterly lacking is the point Dawkins or Einstein or Hawkings try to make.
— Alan Oct 26, 10:28 AM #
The biggest irony is that humans are the only animal intelligent enough to think up something as stupid as religion.
— Buck Oct 31, 07:34 PM #