Richard Dawkins—Revisited

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
A Mariner Book, Houghton Mifflin Company, 420 pp.

In my first blog I mention points of agreement that I had found with Richard Dawkins in his book, The God Delusion. Today I hope to comment on other aspects of the book.


Early in The God Delusion Dawkins demonstrates a lack of respect for anyone who holds a view differing from his. He assumes a lack of ‘native intelligence’ or close mindedness. [p 28] Throughout the book he liberally uses language such as ignorant, illogical, fools, bad logic, or he accuses his detractors of lazy and defeatist reasoning. Often he ascribes motives to others, sometimes putting words into their mouths, building up straw arguments and then tearing them down! He seldom, if ever, allows the so-called religious to speak for themselves.


I continue to question why science and faith have to be seen as contradictory. Why can’t the two areas be complimentary or supplementary? I’ve never thought of my faith being in conflict with science. Nor has science ever undermined my faith in a Creator God. In fact, scientific discoveries and explorations have deepened my faith in God. And I stand on tiptoes, as it were, eager to see the next discovery as the scientists explore and experiment in order to ‘subdue’ the earth (to use biblical language).


In his attempt to discredit all religions, Dawkins brings forth the most extreme cases—the Christians who picket military funerals against gays in the military or those who kill abortion doctors; radical suicide bombers or the Muslims who piloted a plane into the World Trade Center. He ridicules faith and demonstrates an ignorance of spiritual realities wrapping it into the one word, religion.


Dawkins admits that the ‘origin of life’ is difficult to explain since it has not yet been demonstrated in the lab. However, he holds out faith [my word] that it might someday happen. He describes the surety of what he hopes for, his certainty of what he does not yet see!*

His words:
“…I shall not be surprised if, within the next few years, chemists report that they have successfully midwifed a new origin of life in the laboratory. Nevertheless it hasn’t happened yet, and it is still possible to maintain that the probability of its happening is, and always was, exceedingly low—although it did happen once!” [p 165]

In this section of the book Dawkins’ argument is very weak. He admits to more than one “major gap [in explaining the origin of life] that is bridged by sheer luck…” [ p 168] His choice of words in this instance puzzles me! When is ‘sheer luck’ more scientific than faith?


Richard Dawkins inadvertently strengthened my faith in God and scientifically confirmed the existence of a spiritual realm! He confirms that every culture on earth has some version of religion.

His words… “Though the details differ across the world, no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth-consuming, hostility-provoking rituals, the anti-factual, counter-productive fantasies of religion.” [p 194]

This degrading observation reminded me of a scholarly book from my seminary days written by Mircea Eliade, called The Sacred and The Profane. Eliade writes on the nature of religion and presents “the significance of religious myth, symbolism, and ritual within life and culture.” His observations interpret the religions of the world with more meaning and insight than Dawkins expressed.


Mircea Eliade (1907-1986) served as Chairman of the Department of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago. Reading The Sacred and The Profane made me appreciate the place of spiritual encounter in my own life. Often the theophanies recorded in Scripture echoed or paralleled the experiences of other religions around the world giving them both even greater significance in my thinking.


Richard Dawkins seems to think in material terms, ignoring the evidence presented by cultural anthropologists and religious historians that would indicate the existence of a spiritual realm. He labels all religious expressions as bizarre superstition and ritual but his observation of the universal cultural reality of religion  strengthened my faith in God.


Someone recently mentioned a ‘god spot’ in the brain that helps deny the existence of God. So-called experiences attributed to God can be shown to be electrical impulses in the brain, a friend said. That is one way of interpreting it, I suppose. On the other hand, could this new discovery be yet another scientific confirmation of the existence of the spiritual realm?

*Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. HEBREWS 11:1