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

I agree with Richard Dawkins!

I agree with Richard Dawkins!

On some points made by Richard Dawkins in his bestselling book, The God Delusion, I did find to my surprise that I agreed with him! However, I will be quick to add that I am not an atheist. Nothing the acclaimed author and Oxford professor presented caused me to doubt my faith in an eternal Creator who exists in a spiritual realm and interacts with the creation.


Dawkins attempts to rebut all religious belief throughout the world, not just Christianity. He tends to focus on the extremes and the externals in each of the religions but seems to ignore the possibility of a spiritual realm. Perhaps Dawkins ignores this possibility because, according to his understanding, the realm of the spirit has not yet been accessed by the science of our day. (My thoughts on that will appear in another blog.)


But back to my original point—I do agree with Dawkins’ conclusions in some areas. (I did not begin to keep this list until I was about 300 pages into the book so I might actually find other points of agreement if I re-read it—which I’m not inclined to do at the moment.)


Points of Agreement!


1. “Small children are too young to decide their views of the origin of the cosmos, of life, and of morals.” (p 381) Dawkins’ emphasis is that children are raised by religious parents but should not be referred to as a Muslim child or a Christian child. Dawkins wants to raise public awareness of this distinction.


I tend to agree that faith must be a conscious choice with a personal commitment because I grew up in a Christian tradition that emphasized ‘adult’ baptism, i.e. baptism of those who can publically confess their faith. Other Christians who embrace ‘infant’ baptism would probably disagree with Dawkins on this point. (To avoid misunderstanding, I will add that my faith has evolved to accept the faith of Christians who received infant baptism.)


2. “…children should be taught not so much what to think as how to think.” (RD’s emphasis, p 367) Although I agree in principle with this statement, I would add that a child does not grow up in a vacuum. The priorities and assumptions of the nurturer and of the nurturing community will also influence the child’s development and will to some extent influence what they think. The key is that our children have learned how to think.


3. Repeatedly Dawkins decries the idea of the claim to the inerrancy of the Bible and devotes at least one chapter to the foolish idea of a literal interpretation of every word of it. His aversion extends to ‘rapture’ theology and the Christian desire for “nuclear war” which is interpreted as ‘Armageddon’ in the book of Revelation. (p 341)


4. Dawkins points out the inconsistency of pro-life Christians who feel it their duty to kill abortion doctors and to support the death penalty. (My emphasis, p 329ff)


5. And finally, Dawkins claims that religious extremists or religious idealists act out of religious motives to do harm, motives they consider to be rational and proper. Examples: Palestinian suicide bombers and Christian murderers of abortion doctors. (p 344)


On these few points I see that I agree to some extent with Richard Dawkins! I post them knowing that I am vulnerable to attacks from my siblings in Christ, but I risk that in order to honestly question some of Dawkins own ‘sacred’ ideas in my next blog.