A Review of Richard Dawkins’
The God Delusion
By James W. Gustafson, February, 2007

Thomas Huxley was dubbed “Darwin’s Bulldog” when he advocated for the new theory of biological evolution over a century ago.

Richard Dawkins now plays the role of Darwin’s evangelist, providing the atheists with a voice as powerful as Billy Graham’s has been for evangelical Christianity.

Not a man to mince words or dance around his objective, Dawkins says upfront that his goal is that any religious believer opening the first chapter of his book will be an atheist by the close of his apology.

And he has done as good a job as most that have gone before him. Passionate about his subject, Dawkins keeps us engaged by a fine writing style and an in-your-face pugnacity that brooks no pussyfooting.

Here’s the one-sentence teaser Houghton Mifflin uses for this 2006 release.

“A preeminent scientist and thinker asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.”

My comments regarding this provocative but serious book will center on a few concepts—epistemology, the nature of God, the complexities of human nature, and personal context.

Epistemology.

Epistemology is that branch of philosophy that searches for assumptions that lie under the human quest for knowledge and understanding. It addresses methods we use in gaining what we call knowledge. This is tricky business, since we must use our minds to question the validity of our mind’s thinking.

Dawkins is putting religion on trial. Epistemology sets the rules for what will be admissible as evidence. As in any court the evidence (facts, interpretations, and experiences) is but a tiny fraction of all the events that bear upon the verdict. We must ask whether Dawkins has admitted all of the types of evidence relevant to the charges, as well as how much of the relevant evidence has been considered.

Dawkins takes the classic Enlightenment view that logical reasoning working on empirical data can arrive at reliable truth. I do not dispute this.

Dawkins also regards this rational empiricism as the sole method of coming to reliable knowledge about reality. Here I am not as confident as he. How do we know that this method (which we can term scientific method) is the only path to truth concerning questions human beings ask? This proposition—All reliable knowledge of reality comes only from scientific method—certainly is not known through scientific method.

It is an assumption which some might call an article of faith. Dawkins would likely object to that characterization, as would I. The word “faith” is a tricky one that carries much baggage. I would rather call it a reasonable assumption that is taken to be true without logical proof. Even the power of logic can only be assumed to be sensible—unless one admits the validity of circular argument—which I do not. Circular? Yes. Put it this way: Logic is known to be a valid instrument because logic shows it to be valid. One can see instantly that this is not an argument at all, since the premise assumes the truth of the point to be proven. This we see that Dawkins’ entire argument rests on a philosophical assumption not a scientific fact. To be credible, Dawkins should address this assumption. But he does not.

Dawkins would agree that humans have developed rational capacities because reason gives us insights that enable us to survive in the real world—our environment. Similarly, it is reasonable to assume that our senses give us insight into our environment. Descartes’ theory included this question: “Why God would give us eyes if there was nothing to see?”

Dawkins would have us substitute evolution for God, of course. But the point is similar. It is reasonable to assume that wherever our senses came from they perform a useful function. Our senses are not all encompassing or without error. Nonetheless it is a reasonable assumption that they are basically reliable in informing us of the reality around us. And whatever our philosophy might say to discredit such a view, our daily living is based on it.

That being said, is scientific method the only avenue to knowledge? Among those who, though practicing science himself, answered “No” was William James, the Harvard psychologist and philosopher of Huxley’s era.

An Analogy

Let me use an analogy here.

Suppose we are at Universal University, standing in the foyer of the Hall of Human Knowledge. We are eagerly looking for knowledge—all possible knowledge that we can aspire to. On one side is a door advertising Department of Mathematical Knowledge: Certainty Guaranteed. Sounds good. We will not learn anything other than relationships among concepts, but it will be a powerful tool to help us in our quest for truth. We open the door with confidence.

Another door is Empirical Sciences: Highly Probable Insights into the Natural World. This will give us truths that we not only can enjoy for their own sake but also use to advantage to contrive technologies that will benefit us. We will learn how to do lots of neat things. We’ll be going through that door a lot.

A third is designated Values: the Search for What is Worthwhile. That sounds good. What is the use of learning how to do amazing things via science and math if we don’t have some idea of what is worth doing? But it is clear that this is not going to be as definitive as math and science. Science can tell us how to do things, but it cannot tell us whether those things ought to be done. It’s a leap from facts to values.

In fact epistemology itself is a value subject. Why should we want to know anything anyway? Is knowledge better than ignorance? Even science has to assume values. If we say that knowledge helps us survive and live richer lives we are assuming that survival and enriched lives are preferable to their opposites. It’s a reasonable assumption, sure. But it is a philosophical assumption not a fact derived from scientific investigation. Why go through a door with such uncertainties in it? It may open to a quagmire whose quicksand will demand a lot of energy with no guarantee of benefit. And beyond that, among the possible values are religious values—possibly experience of the holy, the transcendent, the spiritual.

People like Huxley and William K. Clifford in William James’ time, and Dawkins in our own day, feel uncomfortable in the Department of Values, especially that of religious values. They stand outside denouncing religious values as irrational and therefore dangerous. Notice that this attitude is a value judgment not a fact.

William James

William James points out that a rule of thinking that prevents one from exploring certain areas of life that may prove fruitful is itself an irrational rule. In terms of our analogy, to say that one should avoid exploring anything religious is an arbitrary rule not a rational rule.

Dawkins moves the official agnosticism of Huxley to the level of atheism as he stands outside the door of religious values. Peering through the window he sees mostly the worst aspects of religious enthusiasm. He is unable therefore to savor any possible positive experiences that an exploration of things spiritual might provide. He must take a reductionist stance. Religious experience is “nothing but….” Nothing but inner emotional release. Or nothing but fanatical self-delusion. Or nothing but neural pathways of the mind gone awry.

James, on the contrary, pointed out that the spiritual may be a window into aspects of reality that are inaccessible to scientific method. Hence James’ advocacy of pragmatism. You shouldn’t knock something until you’ve tried it.

Dawkins, as most people, had a religious upbringing. So he may say that he has gone through that door and had quite enough of it to know it is dangerous and that the department of religious experience should be closed and its building razed.

But has he known the depth of experience of the holy or been in touch with God sufficiently to make a fair judgment about it? I do not think so. Sure, such experience is very subjective. But that does not mean it may not provide insight into something real about reality. Many people make their assessment of religious values on the basis of what they understood when they were immature young people. They have never given it serious attention with a sympathetic adult mind.

E. J. Carnell explains that there are three avenues of knowledge. One is knowledge by inference (logic and mathematics). A second is knowledge by acquaintance (empirical sciences). The third is knowledge by self-disclosure and is essential to inter-personal relationships. Dawkins seems to miss the last when it comes to God. If God exists as a person, none of us will ever know that God by the first two methods. Dawkins may be clever in refuting the arguments for God based in logic and empirical observation. But the third way still stands open to those willing to engage it.

This lack of epistemological openness is one of Dawkins’ difficulties.

The Nature of God

Dawkins says that God is defined as a complex being. Since complexity is the result of development over time, God must have gone through a process of creation. Therefore the hypothesis of God does not really explain anything, since we would have to explain what created God.

Dawkins mentions that some theologians say that God is simple (which they do). But Dawkins seems to think that “simple” means that God is undifferentiated. But this is not the meaning of the term simplicity in this context.

Simplicity refers to the notion that God is not composed or divisible by any physical or metaphysical means. God has many attributes or qualities, such as goodness, knowledge, wisdom, holiness and so on. But these are all qualities of a single ontological entity. Analogously, my consciousness is a single reality even though one can talk separately of my values, my fears, my memory, my knowledge and so on. But I am a single indivisible person. Another analogy is that of a diamond. It may have many facets that can be discussed separately while its ontological essence is a single diamond. Now these analogies, as all analogies, break down when we speak of material entities, which are composed at some level of parts. God, however, is defined as a single (though complex) ontological reality that is indivisible. We can—and must—speak of God one attribute at a time. The reality of God however is understood to be a single substance.

This may be hard to grasp, especially if we are immersed in scientific materialism that makes up the reigning paradigm of our era. But it is not illogical. While it may not be the case, it is not absurd. This, by the way, implies that God is a spiritual essence, not material, since apparently all physical entities are composed of parts. Nor does this defeat the possible Trinitarian nature of God as some allege. God is a single essence but may exhibit three centers of consciousness. This is hard for space-bound minds like our own to fathom, but it is graspable and no more difficult to accept than aspects of quantum physics.

The Origin of the Space-time Universe

Related to this is the problem of ultimate origins. We have two possibilities to pursue.

The first is that from utter and absolute nothingness, something came into being. This hypothesis is surely irrational and does not explain anything in a way that satisfies the mind. Logic tells us that from nothing, nothing comes.

The second alternative is that something always existed, never having had a beginning or an origin. This seems the more satisfying and reasonable option.

What, then, is the always-existing reality?

It is either the material universe that is eternal or it is something other than the material universe—something that is not in space and time and does not change or develop as everything in the space-time universe does.

Science has no way to decide which option is preferable on the basis of science itself. Science deals with what we can observe in some fashion. While science may speculate that there may have been an infinite number of expanding and contracting episodes in an eternal space-time or physical universe—sometimes called the oscillating theory of the universe—the means of confirming such an idea is beyond science. It is philosophical.

The existence of a non-physical entity (God) as the eternal reality is another philosophical possibility. This being never changes or evolves. God is a different kind of entity—an entity that is capable of being the ground of the natural universe that science studies without being contained within that universe.

Dawkins refutation of the philosophical reasoning used to support the God option is deficient on several grounds, even though, in my opinion, the arguments for God are never so cogent as to be beyond criticism. But they must be given respectful consideration by an open and inquiring mind. I am surprised that Dawkins allows himself to fall short here.

The complexities of human nature

Dawkins also needs to give more attention to the complexities of human nature rather than providing a facile reductionism. What “sees through” everything is apt to see through itself. And Dawkins has a habit of explaining away much of human experience in order to sustain his theory that there is no spiritual dimension to anything in human life. Every experience that indicates a spiritual dimension to existence is explained away. It is easy to stay with a thesis of everything that could count against it is facilely tossed aside.

If Dawkins seeks to reduce all human experience to by-products of brain mechanics we may end up with the loss of any meaningful free will.

Philosophers like Gilbert Ryle object to any “ghost in the machine.” That is, there is no spiritual entity that exists in, around, or behind the physiological nervous system, including the brain. Call it mind or soul or self—it does not exist except as a metaphor for certain activities or functions that proceed from the complex interactions of neurons, synapses and the like.

The implication of this view is potentially devastating to the theory itself, for it reduces human thinking to an epiphenomenon of physical processes. One implication is that our thinking would therefore be voided of any capacity to provide insight into the questions we raise, including the question of the meaning of the universe and the validity of religion and the soundness of scientific method.

C.S. Lewis pointed out that if a mind holds to an idea because its chemicals have taken on a certain configuration, why should it be preferred over an alternative idea that someone else’s brain comes up with? Every time we are convinced that an idea comes from an irrational cause, such as alcohol in one’s blood, we discount that idea as having any claim upon our beliefs. We don’t debate over ideas that come from a bunch of people on drugs. When nature (chemical events in the brain) invades reason it destroys the rational validity of reason’s ideas. If we say that the mind is nothing but the brain, then the explanation of a theist’s idea “God exists” is not an idea that is in his consciousness due to a grasp of logic but due to the chemical pathways excited in his brain. The same would be true of one who entertains the idea “No God exists—all is material.”

If our thoughts were sent to our consciousness by irrational chemicals only, they would seem to have no more validity than information a hard drive sends to a computer monitor. I do not see how scientific materialism can escape its own self-destruction as a claim to knowledge and insight. All ideas are nothing but the deposits of chemicals swirling in our brains. “Nothing buttery” as Donald McKay used to call it, leaves no coherent basis for rational analysis of anything.

We have good reason then to believe in the existence of something that is not reducible to pure naturalism. There are philosophers who have explored alternative ways of understanding the ultimate substance that undergirds the universe, conceiving of it as a primordial rational or logic entity. Hegel and Berkeley are among such philosophers. While this does not prove the existence of the God of Christianity and Islam, it does not foreclose it either. What it does show is the need for a concept of ultimate reality that has some supra-material aspect that gives intelligent (Berkeley’s Infinite Mind) or quasi-intelligent (Hegel’s Absolute) guidance to the development of nature. I am not arguing here for a specific theory of this ultimate. What I am suggesting is that there is something in reality from the beginning that provides a basis for believing in the existence of a Being that knows what is happening in the universe and could be the object of our religious intuitions and spiritual experiences.

Personal context

I am aware that anecdotal evidence is considered weak in any argument that requires evidence. That does not mean, however, that personal experiences, though obviously anecdotal, are of no value in establishing a claim. This is especially so when there is sufficient volume of personal experiences.

One of the difficulties of claiming that all experiences of a spiritual nature are impotent—that is they do not support belief in anything that points to anything beyond the material world—is that one must explain away all reports of such experiences. Either they are tricks or, if sincerely held, illusions that one expects to be reduced to natural scientific explanations in the future.

Even if we were to discount most, even 90%, of spiritual experiences as flawed, there remain many millions of experiences in the 10% remaining.

Dawkins lives each day within the bubble of his own context. We all do. While this does not invalidate all the considerations that bring him to reject all spiritual entities, it throws a new possibility into the mix. Some have a mind that sees everything from the perspective of scientific materialism. It is difficult—perhaps even impossible—for them to truly appreciate how the world looks from another personal context.

Many of us have had numerous events in our experience that simply will not conform to a procrustean bed of reductionist naturalism such as we have described regarding Dawkins and others who share his conclusion about the physical nature of all that is real. Call them answers to prayer. Include innumerable “lucky” connections that stretch the idea of coincidence beyond all bounds of reason. But from inside the perspective of one who is open (or perhaps gifted) to discern spiritual dimensions of the world, these events take on a different cast. The mind simply cannot reach what William James called intellectual satisfaction if one chalks up all such experiences to mere subjectivity.

A believable view of the world must accommodate as best we can all facets of our experience. And there is huge volume of experiences that humans have had, even in a scientifically advanced society like our own that requires an admission of spiritual influences in order to make sense of them. Surely Dawkins and others like him will reject, perhaps even scoff at such a claim. But if he could enter into a healthy spiritually focused community such as I have had the pleasure of experiencing, he might come to a different understanding. Unfortunately all of us are restricted in our social and professional circles. To some degree this is due to factors we cannot avoid; but some of it is because we gravitate toward those with whom we find most affinity. What we know is so circumscribed. Dawkins must dismiss the experiences of people like myself and countless others as delusional. Is this valid?

Even the highest achievements of human knowledge are likely very primitive at this time in history. We can never use what we do not know as an argument. There is so much that neither Dawkins nor I know. A huge dose of humility and tentativeness is in order.

For one, I confess I have a great many questions about the issues Dawkins raises. I strive to keep my mind open, for truth is important to me, even as it is for most of my colleagues who are more in Dawkins’ camp than mine. But by the same token, there are features of my own experience and of people I know intimately that cannot be properly explained on Dawkins’ hypothesis.

These four considerations comprise my major critique of The God Delusion. Dawkins fails to establish his thesis that the idea of God is no more than a dangerous delusion.