Monday, June 2, 2008

Book Review: The God Delusion

Note: This review of The God Delusion will be followed in a few days with a review of The Dawkins Delusion? by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath. Alister McGrath, an atheist-turned-believer who is, with Richard Dawkins, an Oxford professor, is joined by his wife in authoring this succinct answer to Dawkins. Just as Dawkins should be required reading for serious believers, the McGraths’ pithy response should be required reading for serious atheists.
Let it be said: Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion, Bantam Press, 2006) is a very good writer, and the kind of person with whom one can readily imagine an enjoyable and simulating evening over a glass or two of red—enjoyable that is, so long as he refrained from his predictable outbursts of rambunctious polemic. And this highlights the two sides of Richard Dawkins: at once engaging, personable, rational, pleasant, entertaining; and alternatively unreasonable, angry, boisterous, given to ill-conceived diatribes. If he is preaching to his own choir, these diatribes will likely elicit hearty “amens!” If believers are his target audience, his arguments would go farther if he would restrain his clamorous tone.

Most of the theistic readers of this blog will find, as I do, that
Dawkins’ arguments are often wide of the mark with respect to our brand of theism and Christian Faith. Some of his arguments are undisguised straw man. Many others are waged against a fundamentalism into which most readers of this blog do not fit. In fact many believers will find themselves nodding in agreement. For example, when Dawkins declares "As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect,” I heartily agree! However in Chapter 8 (Dawkins’ defense of his own hostility toward people of faith) he devotes the final section to answering why he deplores even the more moderate, rational wing of Christian faith. Here he develops his "moderates validate fundamentalists" argument. “The teachings of ‘moderate’ religion,” Dawkins contends, “though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.” What?? And how does this not apply equally to “moderate” atheism? While Dawkins dismisses the notion that Stalin and Hitler operated out of their atheistic world-view (his arguments are less than convincing), why are extreme acts of atheists not validated by more moderate atheists? I have often thought that Hemingway followed atheism to it’s logical extension: existential despair and suicide. While most atheists I’ve met do not take their atheism to that extreme, could it not be argued that moderate atheism paves the way to such actions. (I’m not forwarding this argument here. Theists also commit suicide. And Hitler’s atheism is arguable. I’m only suggesting that Dawkins' argument against moderate expressions of faith is unfair, and can be turned back upon his own brand of moderate atheism.) It is apparently Dawkins view that, without the more moderate voices of religion, the more extreme versions would fade away. He never explains the logic behind this supposed linkage.

Dawkins' “central” atheistic argument is found in chapter 4. After dismantling (to his satisfaction) many of the standard theistic arguments in chapter 3, Dawkins attempts to demonstrate “Why There Is Almost Certainly No God”. This argument from probability betrays his simplistic concept of the Christian view of God. For those unfamiliar with Dawkins’ core atheistic contention, Dawkins’ argument runs something like this: Believers, appealing to the extreme improbability of this universe developing as it has, the fact that it is hospitable to life at all, indeed the extreme improbability of life itself, contend that our universe demands the existence of an intelligent Cause. But, Dawkins counters that postulating a God only extends the problem of improbability, and pushes it back in time. That is, any God appealed to to account for the complexity of our universe must himself be yet more complex. And his existence thus becomes more difficult to explain than the material universe we observe. Thus, in Dawkins’ view, the notion of God is “very close to being ruled out by the laws of probability.” Dawkins is either unaware of, or fails to understand the Judeo-Christians concept of God as the eternal “self-existent” One. No believer I know has struggled with the question, “Whence God?” Nor will Dawkins’ expostulations raise such a question for believers. The God of believers is far beyond Dawkins’ notion of demanding explanation. It is indeed reasonable that we seek logical explanations for causation in our material world. To suggest the same logic must apply to God does not follow. Christians understand that God exists outside of our physical dimensions. As such, he cannot be restrained to our time bound concepts of causation. Dawkins’ shallow reasoning reminds me of a favorite passage from David Bentley Hart:
“... since strict materialism is among the most incoherent of superstitions ... it is incapable of imagining any conception of God more sophisticated than its own.” (The Doors of the Sea, page 14)
In fairness, Hart goes on to depict unbelief in more generous terms, but Dawkins leaves one wondering if his concept of God is as small as it seems.

There is an interesting confluence in Richard
Dawkins, and one that should be telling for believers. He is considered by many to be both the world’s foremost evolutionary biologist, and the world’s foremost atheist. Is this indicative that evolution and atheism are intrinsically linked, as many of my believing and unbelieving friends insist? Or is it rather indicative of how believers have 1) failed to embrace evolutionary science (which has now moved beyond reasonable doubt), and 2) failed therefore to develop a reasonable theology around evolution. This website exists in part because I am convinced of the later, and hope to explore the promising theological implications of evolution. As Christian thinkers join in this process, I believe one effect will be to remove the stinger from Dawkins’ atheist arguments. For example, Dawkins devotes much of The God Delusion to evolutionary explanations for the development of religious impulses, morality, altruism, etc. Apparently, he views these explanations as the death knell of theism. As a theist who has thought long on the concept of “Evolutionary Creationism”, I found little in these explanations to disagree with. Furthermore, I did not see how his arguments inherently favored atheism over theism. Certainly they undo many worn-out theistic arguments. And they effectively rebut many traditional Christian assumptions. But those arguments and assumptions were incorrect, and should be scuttled. If the Creator has (as I believe) used evolution to bring humankind into a state of God-consciousness (which by Dawkins’ admission is ubiquitous in all cultures, and favored by the great majority of people), why should it surprise us that evolution would be his tool of choice?

Reading
The God Delusion was, frankly, less challenging to my faith than I anticipated. His best arguments are leveled against religious fundamentalism; here I share many of his views. But when he turns his guns upon my faith, his extreme hostility tends to invalidate his arguments. When a person becomes consumed with antipathy, reasoned argument can give way to irrational tirades. Dawkins’ atheistic zeal seems to have negated any trace of respect he might have shown toward those with a different persuasion. And when we cease to respect our adversary, a consequence is that our arguments are inevitably weakened.
There was some discussion of my review over at Amazon.com, where it is also posted. Some of the comments were posted by David Marshall (author of The Truth Behind the New Atheism), who last year posted a review of his own. His comments prompted me to read his review. For those interested in further discussion of Dawkins' book, I recommend Marshall's review which can be read here.

15 comments:

RBH said...

Cliff wrote

I’m only suggesting that Dawkins' argument against moderate expressions of faith is unfair, and can be turned back upon his own brand of moderate atheism.) It is apparently Dawkins' view that, without the more moderate voices of religion, the more extreme versions would fade away. He never explains the logic behind this supposed linkage.

As you say, Dawkins does not explain his logic there, at least not well. But I think his point is fairly straightforward. "Moderate" believers value faith in the absence of evidence, and as a consequence they validate the same kind of faith in the absence of evidence, or even in the teeth of evidence, on the part of extremists. Further, to the extent that moderate believers are silent in the face of claims by extremist believers they tacitly become part of the group that extremists claim to speak for.

A local example: We have a situation here where a fundamentalist science teacher has been running what amounts to a Christian parochial school embedded in the public schools. At a recent board of education meeting one of his supporters said that 86% of the population of the U.S. is Christian, the teacher is Christian, and therefore to discipline him for his behavior in the classroom would be to violate the religious expression rights of 86% of the population.

As it happened, I was sitting next to a Church of Christ pastor during that, and afterward asked him whether the speaker spoke for him. He said 'no.' I asked him why he didn't speak up. He pled that he hadn't signed up to speak. Fair enough. But in his silence he allowed the fundamentalist speaker to attribute to him a position he is far from holding. In his silence he tacitly joined with the speaker, as did the administrators -- who have been characterized by fundamentalist speakers as "good Christians" -- who turned a blind eye to the teacher's activities until they became so blatant (he burned a cross in a student's arm with a tesla coil) that a set of (Christian) parents hired a lawyer to communicate their concerns to the administration.

That I think is Dawkins' argument. Moderate believers give cover to extremists. At any rate, it's how I interpret it.

Now, I haven't thought through whether the same argument can be made with respect to 'moderate' atheists. It's 2:25 am and I'm falling asleep.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone read the recent article in the new york times about dark energy and scientists confusion of why there seems to be a force or something that is counter-acting on gravity? I'm not much of a scientist, but from what I gather, this is a big controversy which I imagine would be appropriate to discuss in this conversation of science and faith:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/science/03dark.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science

Cliff Martin said...

RBH,

"Moderate" believers value faith in the absence of evidence.

I take exception to that comment; my faith is hardly without evidence. Without proof, perhaps. Without what you might consider empirical evidence, perhaps. But not without evidence. Indeed, the Christian definition of faith straddles this line: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen" (Hebrews 11:1).

Other than that exception, I agree with you. It troubles me that "moderate" Muslims, for example, are not more outspoken in their condemnation of Islamic extremists. Fear driven, perhaps? And likewise, fear of rejection, or perhaps a misplaced desire for Christian unity, often drives moderate Christians into silence in the face of irrational fundamentalism. That is certainly something I am trying to change. But sadly, it has come at the cost of many damaged relationships.

If I were living in your community, I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you in opposition to that H.S. science teacher. He is aiding neither the cause of Christ, nor the pursuit of truth.

It could be argued that all forms of moderation legitimize and validate related extremists. Moderate social drinkers validate alcoholics. Moderate environmentalists validate eco-terrorists. Moderate progressives validate socialism. But so what? Does this mean we should abandon moderation?

Its not that Dawkins' argument is entirely without merit. And your point, that silence is interpreted as tacit agreement, is well taken. I just think that Dawkins' point is not well thought out.

Cliff Martin said...

Anonymous,

Good question (thanks for the link, btw. Interesting article).

Dark energy is one of those unsolved mysteries of the universe (along with earth's polar magnetic fields, black holes, unified theory, even gravity) which demonstrate the remaining gaps in our understandings. Sometimes it seems the more we know, the more we discover we don't know.

Any metaphysical commentary on dark energy would, at this point, be totally speculative. On this site, I prefer to discuss the confluence of faith and science that is more widely understood.

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Cliff,

Let me first say that I appreciate you taking the time to do this.

Now lets get into a discussion!

". . .alternatively unreasonable, angry, boisterous, given to ill-conceived diatribes."

Lets see if we get some examples in this review. I am used to hearing the quote from the beginning of chapter 2 about the god of the old testament being "arguably the most unpleasant character of all fiction; jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak . . ." etc. etc.

Now this is certainly robust to say the least. How would you put it more politely though? Or do you mean to say that several or perhaps none of these labels apply? Tell me which or pick your least favourite and I can try to tell you why the label is appropriate and you can tell me why it isn't. We can go from there.

Hint; I think punishing person A for something done by person B is wrong.

I think I have also heard the phrase "faith-heads" thrown up as another example but I haven't seen many more. Have you got any more examples of "unreasonable, angry . . ." etc. comments?

- - -

Please can you be more specific than just saying some of his arguments are undisguised straw men, perhaps you could pick a few out that you view as such?

- - -

Atheism is just a lack of faith. You seem to be implying that it is more in the way that some might imply that "bald" is a hair colour.

Please give us more details of the range of atheism you see. How would you describe me for example? What makes an atheist more extreme or more fundamentalist in your view?

- - -

Your argument that simply saying that god has always existed means that you don't have to explain where he comes from is a very simple and watertight excuse from having a logical discussion. Well done;-)

It reminds me of the old canard that reasons that sound good are very different from good sound reasons.

- - -

You said;
"The God of believers is far beyond Dawkins’ notion of demanding explanation. It is indeed reasonable that we seek logical explanations for causation in our material world. To suggest the same logic must apply to God does not follow."

Cliff, logic is logic. You know, the sort where "If A=B and B=C then A=C" is true. Simply saying you don't apply the rules to god is not making a logically valid argument, it is merely, once again, avoiding it.

- - -

You said;
"As a theist who has thought long on the concept of “Evolutionary Creationism”, I found little in these explanations to disagree with. Furthermore, I did not see how his arguments inherently favored atheism over theism. Certainly they undo many worn-out theistic arguments. And they effectively rebut many traditional Christian assumptions. But those arguments and assumptions were incorrect, and should be scuttled. If the Creator has (as I believe) used evolution to bring humankind into a state of God-consciousness (which by Dawkins’ admission is ubiquitous in all cultures, and favored by the great majority of people), why should it surprise us that evolution would be his tool of choice?"

I think the reason why these are strong arguments for many people is that they take the next logical step and ask themselves "Well if we evolved through natural processes with hundreds of millions of years of bloodshed as part of the system then why should we think he answers prayers now?"

The next step would be to look at the evidence for this. I can't find any.

- - -

Perhaps you could give us some examples of his "extreme hostility" or "irrational tirades".

These are very strong statements Cliff, please show me what you mean.

- - -

If I can just finish by pointing out that your last sentence is illogical ;-)

Perhaps that isn't what you meant?

Perhaps you meant that when you hear arguments from someone who you know doesn't respect your opinions, you naturally take less notice of theirs. A perfectly natural human reaction of course.

Thanks again for taking the trouble to "read the opposition" and to come up with a thoughtful review. I look forward to your response to this comment.

Regards as ever,

Psi

Psiloiordinary said...

With regards to your comment about the limited outlook of naturalism I would refer you to this;

http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/06/welcome-to-real-world.html

Regards,

Psi

RBH said...

Cliff wrote

I take exception to that comment; my faith is hardly without evidence. Without proof, perhaps. Without what you might consider empirical evidence, perhaps. But not without evidence. Indeed, the Christian definition of faith straddles this line: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen" (Hebrews 11:1).

Um, doesn't that Hebrews verse reverse the relationship between evidence and faith? My comment was about faith in the absence of (yes, empirical) evidence, but that verse sure seems to say that faith is the evidence. Or am I misinterpreting it (not an outlandish thought)?

Psi, that seems to be a dead or incomplete link. Try TinyURL to condense links, or use the HTML tag. Works like a charm. :)

Tom said...

Cliff,

I commend you on reading this. I don't think too many Christians have or will. I'll have to read it myself as well as the Dawkins Delusion someday soon. I might even be able to finish both of those by the time you get done with Psi's laundry list!

Cliff Martin said...

And here goes my first attempt at Psi's laundry list ...

Psi,

I probably will not responded to your satisfaction, but this comment is already way to long, so this will have to do for now:

1) unreasonable, angry, boisterous: Dawkins spends an entire chapter defending his hostility toward all manifestations of belief in God. Hostility implies antagonism and intense ill-will. (If the God of the O.T. is “jealous and proud of it”, Dawkins is hostile and proud of it. Btw, Dawkins reveals his ignorance of the nature of jealousy which is not always a negative response.) I didn’t mark the book, and I don’t have the time to make a list of citations. My impression comes more from the tone (often smug) of the whole book, and the frequent use of ridicule and belittlement. His hostility is such that he finds he must defend himself even against his own atheist colleagues, who, he tells us, sometimes suggest that he soften his tone. This impression also comes from other Dawkins articles I’ve read. Perhaps “irrational tirades” is a bit over-the-top. But it is my observation (and others have noted, including atheist commentators) that Dawkins is at times blinded by his own zeal. For example, dismissing the Ontological Argument as “infantile”, Dawkins fails to take into account the intellectual stature of those who have seriously debated it, and demonstrates his lack of appreciation for the nuances and sophistication of the argument.

2) Dawkins’ straw man arguments are strewn throughout the book. It is easy to identify theism as fundamentalism, and attack it effectively. This is what Dawkins does. And as I said in my review, many theists would agree with whole swaths of his book, particularly when Dawkins takes aim at this easy target.

3) A different logic: You ask why logic changes when applied to analyzing God as opposed to analyzing the material world? I assumed this would be obvious, and not require elaboration. If we posit a God who is a spiritual being, living outside our four dimensions, not bound to our concept of time (and this is perhaps a separate discussion ... but most believers subscribe to such a view of God), then that God simply would not be subject to the physical laws we use to analyze the material world. For example, the concept of causation is time related. Cause and effect is one way we define time and its flow. It is perfectly logical to say that the material world begs for an explanation of ultimate cause. But if something, or someone exists outside of time, outside of our three spatial dimensions, causation suddenly becomes meaningless, at least in the time-bound way we perceive cause & effect. Even if God had a cause, the tools we use to determine cause would be utterly useless, and hence our notions of probability would likewise be void of meaning. Correct me if I’m mistaken somewhere.

4) Are there ranges of atheism, as in moderate to extremist, and beyond? Of course there are. Dawkins’ is quite certain (rating himself a "6, leaning toward 7" on a scale of 1 to 7 where 7 is absolute certainty) that there is no God. Others would be more modest in their claim, less assured. Some claim only agnosticism. Some confirmed atheists follow their atheism into moral license: no God for them means no fixed right or wrong, no definable good or bad, and so they assume full liberty to act in pure self-interest. Most atheists I know have a more reasoned view of morality. I’ve read some atheists who distance themselves from Dawkins, stating that Dawkins is extreme in his views and in his presentation (some, Dawkins tells us, even suggest that Dawkins acts like a "fundmantalist atheist"). Some atheists, because of their atheism, place a very low value on life. Others do not take their atheism to this extreme. Can you see these ranges?

5) My last sentence: You say, “your last sentence is illogical ... Perhaps you meant that when you hear arguments from someone who you know doesn't respect your opinions, you naturally take less notice of theirs.” Yes, that is part of it. But mainly what I mean is this: our arguments are weakened when we cease to respect our adversary because we tend not to hear them, and thus we discount the strength of their position, and our own argument suffers for it. It is my experience. When I read Dawkins, I have the distinct impression that he has never in his life listened with interest to a person with faith beyond the sophistication of a literalist/fundamentalist. Even when he appears in a shared interview with his intellectual equal, Francis Collins, he short circuits the discussion by resorting to ridicule. The force of his argument suffers for it, in my opinion. “Respect your adversary” was drilled into me in the Debate training I received in school. Seems logical to me.

Cliff Martin said...

RBH,

that verse [Hebrews 11:1] sure seems to say that faith is the evidence. Or am I misinterpreting it (not an outlandish thought)?

Yours is certainly a valid interpretation. It is not how I have understood the verse, but the writer could have intended it just as you suggest.

But this verse, along with others, suggest to me that Biblical faith is not a mindless leap in the dark, but does rest upon reason, observation of nature, and evidence.

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Cliff,

{Extra-Serious mode on}

That you are even taking the time and trouble to engage with me, with my rather forthright approach and naturally strident tone, is very much appreciated. I am fascinated by your faith and really do appreciate your openess in this.

{Extra-serious mode off}

1) OK I do agree he is at the very least strident. ;-) Then again you need to be careful that you don't simply slip into the courtiers response.

What subtle nuances of the Ontological argument would you consider the most important?

2) Dawkins covers this very topic himself, although he has obviously not stressed the point enough for you. He is specifically attacking fundamentalism in the vast majority of the book. He does make the argument as to why moderate faith lets the fundamentalists in,so to speak, as was remarked upon earlier.

3) Cliff, I have you in a logical bind with this one I fear - sorry. The subject under discussion is the question of wether or not god exists. My point is that we only know of one kind of logic. We have not discovered more than one "version", we as a species only have two categories; logical, illogical or perhaps rational and irrational.

When you begin you defence of your position with the phrase "If we posit a God" you are simply committing that most slippery of logical fallacies, begging the question. In other words you are using your target answer as an assumption.

Do you agree we only know about one kind of logic? If so then perhaps you would at least allow that whilst you find your argument compelling, then it is not a rational argument?

Anyway - I think both sides of this have been fully aired now.

4) Sorry Cliff. I mispoke - and yes I see exactly what you mean. I thought you were referring to levels of activism rather than degree of belief or turn of phrase.

5) I agree.

That Laundry list is getting shorter - only one or two invitations to reply further for you.

Best regards,

Psi

Cliff Martin said...

Psi,

1) Ontological Argument: I do not wish to be put into a position of defending the ontological argument. It is not my argument, nor one I would choose to use. My point has more to do with Dawkins’ offhand dismissal of the argument as “infantile”, an argument which he goes on to tell us was taken quite seriously be no less an intellect than Bertrand Russell. He later allows that it is more a philosophical than scientific argument, and perhaps his dislike of it thus stems from his proclivity to science. Okay. But then why dismiss the many philosophers who have seriously studied the ontological
argument as “infantile” in their thinking.

3) A different logic: You contend we only know one kind of logic. I just did a google search for the phrase, “a different logic”, and google found 75,900 hits. My point is that I used the term “logic” as many do, to denote a specific deductive approach which may work in some cases, but not in others. I get your point, logic is logic is logic. But ask an Eastern philosopher if he subscribes to Aristotelean logic, and he will expound on “a different logic”. I am suggesting that one must use a different logic to analyze the probability of God than one would use to analyze the probability that Big Brown will win at Belmont. Dawkins is not arguing here against God as theists define him, but rather a God of his own imaginings. You ask if my argument is rational. I’m really not forwarding an argument. I am not saying “here is proof of God.” I am responding to Dawkins, and I am contending that his argument (“here is the proof of no God”) is irrational because he applies the same “cause and effect” reasoning to a proposed immaterial, eternal Being that he applies to the material world.

Thanks for the discussion!

Steve Martin said...

Hi Cliff,
Thanks for the fine review. Very fine indeed. And thanks to everyone for the stimulating discussion.

Personally, I'm not sure I have that much interest in reading the "God Delusion" - (well I have at least 20 or 30 others I'd like to read first) since, as you note & I've heard elsewhere, it is attacking a caricature to which I do not subscribe. I've heard that Dawkins' next book will be a little more substantive ie. addressing McGrath et al's responses to him. Anyone else have more details?

Isaac Gouy said...

June 3, 2008 8:08 PM Cliff Martin said...

4) Are there ranges of atheism, as in moderate to extremist, and beyond? Of course there are. Dawkins’ is quite certain (rating himself a "6, leaning toward 7" on a scale of 1 to 7 where 7 is absolute certainty) that there is no God. Others would be more modest in their claim, less assured. Some claim only agnosticism. Some confirmed atheists follow their atheism into moral license: no God for them means no fixed right or wrong, no definable good or bad, and so they assume full liberty to act in pure self-interest. Most atheists I know have a more reasoned view of morality. ... Some atheists, because of their atheism, place a very low value on life. Others do not take their atheism to this extreme. Can you see these ranges?

Wow!

First, we should note that Dawkins describes himself in "The God Delusion" as a de-facto atheist.

iirc Acknowledging that God has not been shown to be a logical impossibility, Dawkins claimed certainty that "God" does not exist would be an act of faith which he did not accept.


Second, you seem to be engaged in tarring a disparate and rather arbitrary category of people based on no more than your own speculations.

Have you examined US crime statistics broken out by religious affiliation?

Isaac Gouy said...

June 2 Book Review
Here he develops his "moderates validate fundamentalists" argument.
That argument is lifted whole cloth from Sam Harris's book The End Of Faith.


I’m not forwarding this argument here.
You just did.


"... Nazism was not some heretical deviation from Christianity, nor merely a 'substitute for religion', but rather a 'substitute religion', an Ersatzreligion rather than a Religionersatz. The Germans were not living in an atheistic state, but in one where a religion other than Christianity had burgeoned within the public domain." p197
"Sacred Causes", Michael Burleigh, 2007.


Believers, appealing to the extreme improbability of this universe developing as it has...
Given that we have a sample of one, we are not in a position to judge whether the universe is improbable or not.


The God of believers is far beyond Dawkins’ notion of demanding explanation.
Is that intended to suggest more than belief in God is an act of faith?


But when he turns his guns upon my faith, his extreme hostility tends to invalidate his arguments.
That doesn't seem to make sense - his arguments will remain valid or invalid independent of his hostility - it's simply that you will have stopped listening to them.