Built On Nothing - Article3
E31003 Book Review: The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins mb4254
Introduction
Since its publication in 2006, ‘The God Delusion’ has gone on to sell over 2 million copies. Its author, Richard Dawkins, is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford and one of the best known writers in the fields of evolutionary biology and ethnology.
The book has received praise from prominent authors and celebrities such as Philip Pullman, Julian Barnes and Derren Brown. The reason I have chosen to review ‘The God Delusion’ is that there seems to be a perception within contemporary culture that whenever someone assumes the title of scientist, particularly someone as respected as Richard Dawkins, he or she must be presenting non-negotiable fact. Can one safely say that about ‘The God Delusion’?
Explanation
‘The God Delusion’ presents a case for atheism by appealing to humanity’s great strides in scientific discovery and philosophical thought. The argument is reinforced with an aggressive presentation of religion’s unforgivable influence socially, politically and scientifically. It basically asks two questions: firstly, why should one believe in God when there is no scientific evidence to support God’s existence? And secondly, why should one believe in God considering how much evil and suffering belief in God has brought to this world? The review that follows will examine three dominant themes within the book beginning within the author’s specialist field, science, and then moving into politics and morality.
God and Science
In chapters four and five, Dawkins expounds the logic of natural selection and the contribution it has made to present understanding of the world. He also graciously concedes that there is still a huge gap in scientific understanding of the origin of life.1 In chapter ten, Dawkins reveals an almost child-like enthusiasm for science which sweeps the reader along on a journey of genuinely exiting insights about the natural world. These insights, gleamed from science, reveal a universe of atoms that the human brain simply cannot comprehend without science. From the strangeness of Quantum theory to the vast expanses of space within solid rock, so much of this universe comes as a surprise and there is so much yet to discover. However, the general aggressive tone throughout the book is that it is religion, ‘the mother of all burkas’, as Dawkins ventures, that has sought to blind society to this glorious scientific reality.
In a sub-chapter entitled ‘NOMA’, Dawkins, perhaps fairly, criticises those who see fit to separate God from science. The premise being that we could never understand God through science because science is a ‘how?’ question and God is a ‘why?’ question. Unfortunately, in seeking to make his point he does precisely what he criticises others of doing. He drives a wedge between God and science. He asks- via a series of misguided anecdotes- whether theology should even be considered a subject at all. Claims like, "theologians have nothing worthwhile to say about anything else" 3, might obviously be challenged by the likes of the anti-Apartheid theologian, Rev Allan Boesak or the anti-Nazi, German theologian Dietrich Bonheoffer. Interestingly they might also be challenged by some very respectable scientists who, based on their study of natural selection actually find a place for a creator God.
In an essay entitled, ‘The Cost of New Life’, the biochemist and theologian Arthur Peacock drawing on the work of other theoretical biologists, makes a plausible case for creation by natural selection. Peacock argues that it is the ‘chance’ element of natural selection that operates within a law-like framework that is the basis for an inherent creativity of the natural order. Law and chance must act together. If creation is simply based on law a repetitive uncreated order would prevail. However, if it was all down to chance, as Dawkins suggests, there could be no forms, patterns or organization persisting long enough for them to have any real identity or existence. Therefore the cosmos could not be susceptible to rational enquiry. It is this law-like framework that Peacock attributes to God when he says, "God must now be seen creating in the world by giving existence to processes involving chance".4 The theoretical physicist and theologian, John Polkinghorne, echoes Peacock in an essay entitled, ‘Kenotic Creation and Divine Action’5. Both Polkinghorne and Peacock draw on their knowledge of science to present an all-knowing, all-good God who is compatible in character with biblical teaching, but also plausibly fits into a contemporary understanding of natural selection. Interestingly, Dawkins concedes that both Peacock and Polkinghorne are, "…genuine specimens of good scientists…"6 His only explanation is that that their positions in the scientific world are quite rare and he cannot fathom why they hold to such positions.
Perhaps one could argue that much of ‘The God Delusion’ is a legitimate response to the perceived historic, worldwide religious domination and more contemporary religious bias, by those with an agenda in the political or scientific realms. Unfortunately this is not an argument for God’s existence but merely a critique of the abuses of theism. Where this critique becomes problematic is when Dawkins tries to separate theistic beliefs and atheistic beliefs.
God and World Peace
Rather than present a case for atheism, chapters one and two, more often than not, serve merely to highlight the fact that one’s beliefs are not private. They are powerful tools of influence for good and bad, and therefore do matter in our society. In a sub-chapter entitled ‘Secularism, the Founding Fathers and the Religion of America’, Dawkins criticises the contemporary religiosity of America by pointing out that its founding fathers were passionate secularists who, "believed that the religious opinions of a president, or lack of them, were entirely his own business."7 This seems to contradict the quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and James Madison cited by Dawkins in the previous paragraph: Jefferson said, "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."8 This seems hardly a neutral stance. Furthermore, even if one did concede that the founding fathers were entirely neutral secularists, one would also have to concede that theirs was no private belief system. This was a belief system that most certainly had an influence- in this case positive- on the American Constitution.
Again this is not evidence for the existence of God, yet it might be a suggestion that atheism could be the answer to solving the problem of world peace. The solution: a healthy detachment of humanity from its ‘primitive’ belief in God, as if this were something resembling a wet jumper. Unfortunately, the 20th century has been for the world precisely this very costly experiment. The atheist belief systems of Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong, made a significant negative (or positive depending on one’s belief) difference to their society because of their dominant position of influence.
Dawkins seems to misunderstand that for a vast proportion of the world’s population it is precisely a belief in God that defines their identity as human beings. Whether belief in God is true or not, is it good for world peace to label a vast proportion of the world’s population delusional and therefore inferior?
God and Morality
In chapter six Dawkins tackles the issue of the origin of moral absolutes. He asks rightly, "Does a belief in God inform what we believe to be right and wrong?" and, "Are there such things as moral absolutes?" He opens with the fair argument: "A great deal of the opposition to the teaching of evolution, has no connection with evolution itself, or with anything scientific, but is spurred on by moral outrage".9 However, in setting up his scientific argument, Dawkins, again true to form, sees fit to present his case in precisely the way he criticises his theistic opponents. He is spurred on with a significant measure of moral outrage, through a series of well selected negative anecdotes.10
In chapter seven Dawkins focuses specifically on the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh. He argues that, considering the extent of evil perpetrated by Yahweh and those who follow him in biblical scripture, it is obnoxious that any person would seek to use the Bible as a moral code.11 Here Dawkins’ understanding of biblical theology of both the Old and New Testaments and the historic teaching of the Christian Church is quite revealing. Dawkins praises Jesus because, "Jesus was not content to derive his ethics from the [Old Testament] scriptures of his upbringing. He explicitly departed from them…"12 However, in the gospel of Mathew 5:17 Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets [Old Testament scripture]; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." This is hardly an explicit departure.
Furthermore, Dawkins asserts elsewhere that there is little historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status.13 In the gospel of John, Jesus makes claims like "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). "Anyone who has seen me has seen the father" (John 14:9; the opening paragraph of the letter to the Hebrews states, "He [Jesus] is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3). These are some of the many examples that are also supported by the witness of contemporary Roman historians such as Pliny the younger (63 – 113 A.D.) into the practices of the early church.14 Dawkins may disagree with the claims but to say that the evidence is minimal is factually incorrect.
Whist there is much within the Old Testament scripture that is deeply shocking to Atheists and Christians, Dawkins fails to give a context to any of the violent examples he cites from the books of Genesis, Exodus, Joshua and Judges. He also fails to mention that throughout the Old Testament Biblical narrative, God is deeply critical of the behaviour of Israel. The Sri Lankan scholar Vinoth Ramachandra has pointed out that in virtually all other ancient cultures of the world, the power of the gods is channelled through and identified with the elites of society. These would include kings, priests and military captains. To oppose this elite would have been the same as opposing the gods.15 And yet in Old Testament scripture it is unprecedented how much criticism of the most elite of Israelite society is written down and, significantly, preserved. In his book, ‘Whose Delusion?’ Mike Starkey points out that far from being role models to imitate, there is hardly a single Old Testament character, whether priest, prophet or king who is held up as a perfect hero. Rather the scriptures portray real people with real failings in the context of a God who condemns those who murder, commit adultery, lie, steal and perform child sacrifice.16 This is a God who, in contrast to all other ancient cultures, exercises his power in favour of the orphan, the widow and the stranger.17
It is the followers of this same God who compelled the atheist journalist Matthew Parris, in 2008, to write an article for the Times newspaper entitled, ‘As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God’. He writes, "Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts".18 Interestingly, in a review of ‘The God Delusion’, the atheist Terry Eagleton asks how in a book of almost 400 pages, Dawkins cannot come up with a single human benefit from religious faith.19
However, just because theists do good things does not prove that God exists. They may be delusional, as Dawkins proposes. Likewise then, the argument for atheism used when theists do bad things must also be considered redundant. And yet it is an argument that Dawkins chooses to use again and again to paint a very bleak picture of theistic behaviour. A picture that, in chapters seven, eight and nine, appears to support his overall hypothesis that belief in God cannot provide any kind of moral framework or consistent moral behaviour.
At this point one is then left with the uncomfortable question: what does provide the moral framework for society to function? Who gets to say what is right and wrong? Should human beings to be treated with more dignity than pigs? One might say that the majority should always decide. However, if the majority decides to exterminate the minority, is this then a ‘right’ course of action?
In an essay entitled ‘Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law’, Yale professor of law Arthur Leff identifies what he calls a ‘normative performance utterance’. This may comprise of a statement such as "you ought to do X" or, "it is right to do X" or "X is good". These statements can only be validated by a set of principles that give the speaker total objective authority. If there is no omniscient being, argues Leff, this objective authority does not and can never exist.20 Any law that is made is only subjective to culture or individual and therefore no individual or culture has any superior moral basis to criticise any other culture. In a sub-chapter entitled, ‘If There is no God, Why be Good?’ Dawkins asks, "Is it always wrong to put a terminally ill person out of her misery at her own request?" Or, "Is it always wrong to make love to a member of your own sex?" Or "Is it always wrong to kill an embryo?" 21 To this Leff would add: Is it always wrong to napalm babies? Or is it always wrong to starve the poor? Or is it always wrong to buy and sell human beings?22 What makes Dawkins’ questions ethically more complicated than Leff’s? According to Leff nothing can, because both are up for grabs and no human being has superior authority to say otherwise. Dawkins concludes that it is fortunate that morals do not have to be absolute. Leff concludes, "God help us."23
Exploration: God, Incarnation and Resurrection
In ‘The God Delusion’, Dawkins makes the fair point that he is not simply arguing against theism, but more specifically against the idea of a just and loving god with whom one can have a relationship through personal prayer and life-transforming experience.24 It is this kind of god for whom Dawkins’ argument apparently finds no evidence. In 1958, C.S. Lewis wrote a response, originally published in the Christian Herald newspaper, to Russian Cosmonauts who claimed that God did not exist because they had been into space and had not found him. Lewis stated that finding God in outer space would be like Hamlet climbing high into his attic to find Shakespeare. 25 His argument centred on the premise that as created beings, we could not find God in the created order, unless God, the creator chose to put himself there.
In the realms of Christian apologetics it should never be forgotten that the central tenet to Christian belief is an exploration into the ridiculous. It is the claim that the God of the whole universe chose to show up in this world as a fellow human being at a particular time and within a particular culture. Furthermore, God chose to put himself through the most humiliating death known to that culture. And if that isn’t ridiculous enough, he rose from the dead three days later. It is only this act that enables Christians to justify a personal relationship with a just and loving God. Here what is revealed is that even respected scientists like Dawkins have their biases. Throughout his book Dawkins is happy to expound numerous examples of seemingly ridiculous facts about the universe that science has proved to be true. The premise being that the nature of the subject, no matter how ridiculous or socially sensitive it may seem, should never hinder the pursuit of truth. And yet it is the weight evidence for this seemingly ridiculous act of God that Dawkins feels is hardly worth addressing throughout nearly 400 pages of the ‘God Delusion’.
Conclusion
‘The God Delusion’, is an example of a specialist stepping out of his field into a much broader field. Sadly, for such a respected author, it is an enterprise that reveals a limited understanding of the subject of theism. It is an enterprise which has led the Atheist, Terry Eagleton to compare Richard Dawkins’ knowledge of theology to someone writing about biology whose only knowledge is the Book of British Birds.26 However, for Christians in a post-modern society, ‘The God Delusion’ should be received as a gift and a spur to engage with the wealth of evidence for their own faith and in so doing speak confidently to a culture that so desperately needs truth.
1 Dawkins 2006, 137.
2 Dawkins 2006, 362-374.
3 Dawkins 2006, 57.
4 Peacock, A.,2001, The Cost of New Life, as compiled in Polkinghorne, J., 2001, The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis (William B. Earmans Publishing Company), 26-27.
5 Polkinghorne, J.,2001, Kenotic Creation and Divine Action, as compiled in Polkinghorne, J., 2001, The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis (William B. Earmans Publishing Company), 90-106.
6 Dawkins 2006, 99.
7 Dawkins 2006, 43.
8 Dawkins 2006, 43.
9 Dawkins 2006, 211.
10 Dawkins 2006, 211- 214.
11 Dawkins 2006, 237.
12 Dawkins 2006, 250.
13 Dawkins 2006, 92.
14 See Pliny’s letter to the Emporer Trajan c.111 A.D.
15 Peskett, H. and Ramachandra, V. 2003, The Message of Mission: The Glory of Christ in All Time and Space (InterVarsity Press) 113, as quoted in Keller, T.,2010, Generous Justice: How God’s Grace makes us Just (Hodder & Stoughton) 6.
16 Starkey 2007, 23.
17 Keller 2010, 6.
18 Parris 2008, As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
19 Eagleton 2006, Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching.
20 Leff 1979, 1229 -1249.
21 Dawkins 2006, 232.
22 Leff 1979, 1249.
23 Ibid, 1249.
24 Dawkins 2006, 18.
25 Lewis 1958, Christian Herald, Vol. LXXXI, April 1958.
26 Eagleton 2006, Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching.
Bibliography
Dawkins, Richard (2006) The God Delusion (Bantam Press Hard Cover).
Dyrness, William A. Karkkainen, Veli-Matti (2008) The Global Dictionary of Theology (Inter- Varsity Press)
Eagleton, Terry (2006) Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching (London Review of Books Vol.28 No.20) available from: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching [Accessed 21st March 2011]
Keller, Timothy (2010) Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just (Hodder & Stoughton).
Leff, Arthur (1979) Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law (Duke Law Journal No. 6 December 1979) available from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4531646/Arthur-Leff-Unspeakable-Ethics-Unnatural-Law [Accessed 21st March 2011]
Parris, Matthew (2008) As an Atheist, I truly Believe Africa needs God (The Sunday Times Archive 27th December 2008) available from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece [Accessed 21st of March 2011]
Pliny the younger (111 A.D.) Letter to the Emperor Trajan, available from
http://www.tyrannus.com/pliny_let.html [Accessed 21st March 2011]
Polkinghorne, John (eds.) (2001) The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)
Starkey, Mike (2007) Whose Delusion?: Responding to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (Grove Books Limited)