Skip to comments.Outgrowing Richard Dawkins’ God Delusions
Posted on 10/09/2019 2:15:19 PM PDT by Heartlander
Richard Dawkins, one-time leader of the now-fracturing New Atheist movement, has just released another anti-God book, Outgrowing God: A Beginners Guide. Its a sad display of what can happen when an influential scientist thinks the whole intellectual world exists inside his own head.
Its not just that I disagree with Dawkins conclusions. I certainly do; but there’s another problem he ought to care about himself. He makes faith look ridiculous by misrepresenting it, yet without even seemingly knowing that’s what he’s doing. He’s oblivious. Not a good sign for a man of his influence.
He should know it. For years now, Christian thinkers have been answering him, correcting him, explaining what it is we really believe. Judging from this book, though, none of that has pierced the shell surrounding his private idea of “religion.” He has sealed himself off from information and arguments.
Thats not just my impression. He approves of fellow atheist P. Z. Myers Courtiers Reply, which says you don’t need to understand religions’ nonsense in order to criticize it as nonsense. What he fails to see because he hasnt cared to find out is that hes not actually critiquing religion, especially not Christianity. The nonsense he attacks is his own invention, or the invention of other atheists. He maintains this private fiction by sealing off his brain from data.
He says, for example (page 7),
The monotheism of modern Christians and Muslims is also rather dubious. For example, they believe in an evil devil called Satan (Christianity) or Shaytan (Islam). They wouldnt call him a god, but they regard him as having god-like powers.
What does it take say that Satan makes Christians belief in one God dubious? One thing: one must have absolutely no idea what the word God means for Christians. Or for Muslims, by the way.
Dawkins gets it just as wrong a page later. There he says the Christian doctrine of the Trinity sounds like a formula for squeezing polytheism into monotheism. You could be forgiven for calling it tri-theism. An intellectually responsible person would make at least passing note of the fact that centuries of Christian thinking, filling libraries of Christian thought, struggled with this paradox. And concluded that theres no contradiction between Trinitarian theology and monotheism.
But Dawkins doesnt need to do that. He has his story and he’s sticking to it. Apparently he holds all the authority required to settle the matter. Actual Christian thought on the matter doesnt seem to exist in his world.
Later again he further demonstrates he doesnt know what God means, and doesnt care that its been explained to him. He insists on repeating an error that Christian thinkers have answered over and over again since The God Delusion. On page 187 he writes,
Designers need an explanation, just as watches do. If we think about it more carefully, we can see that God himself is even more improbable than William Paleys watch. Anything clever enough complicated enough to design things has to arrive late in the universe.
This echoes his supposedly greatest God-killing argument in The God Delusion. On page 149 in the 2006 edition of that book, he writes, A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple. His existence is going to need a mammoth explanation in its own right.
Or earlier, on page 114: God tries to have his free lunch and be it too. However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.
Dawkin repeats the same basic argument in Outgrowing God, even though it has been answered. Conclusively. Alvin Plantinga’s reputation as a world-renowned philosopher should have caught Plantingas attention. He dismantled Dawkins’ claim in a 2007 review of The God Delusion:
What can be said for this argument? Not much. First, is God complex? According to much classical theology God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is “a single and simple spiritual being.”) So first, according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex.
More remarkable, perhaps, is that according to Dawkins’ own definition of complexity, God is not complex. According to his definition (set out in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are “arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone.” But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts.
Plantinga continues in that vein. Oxford mathematician John Lennox offered a related answer in debate with Dawkins, so we know Dawkins has heard it. Hes impermeable to all that, though. Just like a … cult member.
Again in this new book, he repeats the same distorted version of God, never acknowledging the possibility of another answer. Its as if there were no intellectual world outside his own head; as if intellectual integrity never called for a thinker to respond to other thinkers. As if he were L. Ron Hubbard, concocting Scientology in the privacy of his study.
He (Dawkins, not Hubbard) gets Jesus badly wrong, too. On page 121 in Outgrowing God, Dawkins writes:
Imagine how impressed wed be if Jesus had told his disciples that the Earth orbits the sun, that all living creatures are cousins, that the Earth is billions of years old, that the map of the world changes over millions of years . But no, his wisdom, impressive though it was in many ways, was the wisdom of a good man of his time, not a god. Just a man, though a good one.
This paragraph is a marvel of compacted error. First, its chronologically naive. He suggests Jesus should have explained 21st century science to people of the first century. How impressed would they have been if hed told them the Earth orbits the sun? In the first place they would have strong empirical evidence to conclude he was wrong. The sun-centered solar system required telescopes to show it was right. And it needed Keplers math and Newtons theory of gravitation to explain why it made logical sense. (Copernicus didnt make it quite that far with his version of the theory.)
And does Dawkins really think Jesus would have impressed anyone in the first 15 or so centuries after his time on earth, by explaining that the Americas are slowly receding from Europe and Africa? (From context, thats what he was referring to when he said the map of the world changes.) Isnt there just a tad bit of knowledge they were not quite ready to absorb there?
Meanwhile Jesus wisdom far exceeded that of a good man. But Ill have to wait until my next book is published to pursue that argument where Id like to take it.
But how has Dawkins missed the fact that Jesus actually accomplished what he set out to do on Earth? He launched a global movement that would honor the truth of God in three Persons? (And give his followers new life, though I’m sure Dawkins would never see that.) Its as if he thought Jesus was some kind of failure!
But my question there is easily answered. Dawkins has it all figured out in his head. And hes not willing to change his mind or open it.
Its ironic, for this former Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. It is of the essence of science to put ideas to the test: to let them be challenged, both by other knowledgeable people and by reality itself. He won’t do that with his ideas on religion.
There’s much more I could say, for these are only a few selected examples. Since The God Delusion and even earlier, Dawkins has insulated himself from the reality of Jesus, and from other thinkers well-informed opinions on Christianity. Dawkins’ thinking passes the trivial test of his own thinking. The strange thing is, apparently he’s content with that.
Oh, and by the way, he sells boatloads of books to people who dont know enough to realize how distorted that thinking is. Hes influencing millions to crawl into the limited and unreal space of his own head with him. If influence is what he wants, I guess thats good enough for him. I’d rather he’d outgrew that and learn to think along with the rest of the world.
Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) is a senior editor with The Stream, and the author of A Christian Mind: Thoughts on Life and Truth in Jesus Christ and Critical Conversations: A Christian Parent’s Guide to Discussing Homosexuality with Teens, and the lead editor of True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism.
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you wont find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
Richard Dawkins River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.-------
- Richard Dawkins
Note the excerpt from the following interview from October 2006:
Dawkins: .What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we dont feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do. None of us ever actually as a matter of fact says, Oh well he couldnt help doing it, he was determined by his molecules. Maybe we should I sometimes Um You probably remember many of you would have seen Fawlty Towers. The episode where Basil where his car wont start and he gives it fair warning, counts up to three, and then gets out of the car and picks up a tree branch and thrashes it within an edge of his life. Maybe thats what we all ought to Maybe the way we laugh at Basil Fawlty, we ought to laugh in the same way at people who blame humans. I mean when we punish people for doing the most horrible murders, maybe the attitude we should take is Oh they were just determined by their molecules. Its stupid to punish them. What we should do is say This unit has a faulty motherboard which needs to be replaced. I cant bring myself to do that. I actually do respond in an emotional way and I blame people, I give people credit, or I might be more charitable and say this individual who has committed murders or child abuse of whatever it is was really abused in his own childhood. .
Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?
Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. But it has nothing to do with my views on religion it is an entirely separate issue.
I generally don’t have a problem with atheists who look for natural explanations to the mechanics of the universe.
But Dawkins is an rather mean a-hole who goes from “everything can be explained” to “there is no God” with pretty much nothing between. Read “Mere Christianity” for a clear and logical explanation of how we go from a natural world to the existence of God.
Bottom line: Dawkins and his followers are dicks.
Atheism never fails to bring apparently smart people to a point where they repeatedly express short-sighted, incoherent or self-contradictory ideas.
These folks belong to the “Flat Consciousness Society”
” Dawkins’ thinking passes the trivial test of his own thinking. “
DUDE, killed it !!
“Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Dawkins doesn’t understand the words survival or true.
Is it not interesting that he says there is no basis for morality because there is no Source of morality yet at the same time he states that without morality life would be intolerable?
“Atheists don’t believe in God. But the Devil does’’. Bishop Fulton J. Sheen.
Dawkins stopped learning and switched to self worship.
Someone is deluded about God. His title is aimed at believers of God but psychological projection would have it pointing straight back at himself.
I’ve actually heard atheists making fun of religious people for believing in some “old guy sitting on a cloud”. That’s not what we believe in, but it doesn’t matter to them. They’re happy with their mischaracterization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.