The 'God delusion' of Richard Dawkins

Many people are rightly concerned about the growth of religious violence and extremism in the modern world. With this in mind Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University has taken the opportunity to air his own extremist atheistic views in a two-part Channel 4 documentary.

In the programme, entitled The Root of all Evil, he dismisses all religious faith as ‘an indulgence of irrationality that is nourishing extremism, division and terror’ (Radio Times) across our planet. How is the Christian to respond to this?

Professor Dawkins has written many books and usually seeks to argue his case on four basic fronts.

Science and religion

Dawkins tells us that a Darwinian evolutionary view of the world makes belief in God unnecessary.

Even apart from the discussion as to whether full-blown Darwinian evolution is true or not (and there are many pieces of data which suggest that it isn’t) this point of view is actually not science but ‘scientism’. By ‘scientism’ I mean, not science itself, but the reductionist philosophy which says that only what is measurable and observable is real, and that everything can be completely explained in terms of science.

But though this is an inviting idea it does not hold together.

* It is not self-consistent. Its assumption that only what is measurable and observable is real, is itself not measurable or observable.

* It undermines belief in the validity of our own thoughts. ‘If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true…and hence no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms’ (Professor J.B.S. Haldane, 1892-1964).

* Science cannot give an explanation of ultimate origins, for whatever its theories or equations, they must have an environment in which to operate, e.g. laws, energy, etc, which are taken as given. Where did they come from? Why an environment which supports those particular equations? Science is a cause-effect system, which by definition cannot get behind the first cause.

For Dawkins, Darwinian evolution offers not just a description but an explanation of reality — a meta-narrative, a totalising framework. But taken to its logical conclusion this leads to the unhappy implication of a world without purpose and without morals. There is nothing wrong, therefore, with society being a place where ‘might is right’ and the weakest go to the wall.

Aware of this though, he calls himself a thorough Darwinist, when it comes to society and politics Dawkins does a total about face on ‘survival of the fittest’, protests that we alone of all the creatures are able to rebel against our ‘selfish genes’. (See The Selfish Gene, first edition, pp.200-201.)

Faith and proof

Dawkins usually gives a definition of religious faith like the following: faith ‘means blind trust in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence’ (The Selfish Gene, p.198).

But this is a straw man. No thinking Christian defines faith like that.

It was very noticeable in the first programme of the TV series that Dawkins studiously avoided talking to any scientists who are Christians to ask them their reasons for faith. The simple truth is that Dawkins himself offers no hard evidence that Christians (or indeed any other religion) has such a definition of faith as he has given.

By contrast we can point for example to the definition of faith given by W.H. Griffith-Thomas, one time principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford: ‘(Faith) affects the whole of man’s nature. It commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence; it continues in the confidence of the heart or emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned in the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct.’

The NT writers are clear that part of their reason for writing is to provide eye-witness evidence on which to base our faith (Luke 1.1-4; John 20.30,31; 1 Corinthians 15.6, etc.).

Religion and wonder

One of Dawkins’ persistent complaints about religion is that it is aesthetically deficient. He says its view of the universe is limited, impoverished and unworthy of the wonderful reality known to the sciences. This comes out particularly in his book Unweaving the Rainbow. The title of this book is actually derived from a poem by John Keats, ‘Lamia’, who attacks science for taking the wonder and mystery out of the universe. Dawkins seems to equate Christianity with a ‘medieval’ view of things.

But, of course, in fact Christianity affirms a sense of wonder about the universe. We do this on at least three levels.

* Through an immediate experience of the sheer beauty of the universe.
* Through the elegance of the science and mathematics which enables us to describe the universe.
* Through nature’s capacity to point beyond itself into the mystery and glory of God (Psalm 19.1; Romans 1.20).

Religion and evil

Dawkins gives the impression that it is religion which has caused all the wars and poverty in the world. It has done this through its ignorance and narrow-mindedness.

Of course, the church has not always got it right. Though true Christians are saved, even they don’t profess to be free from sin or perfect. And there have always been many within the church who are not saved at all who have muddied the waters for the church.

As regards some religions keeping people in ignorance and enslaved to harmful superstitions, there is no doubt some truth in that. But remember that the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th century, which has led to such technological advance and help for mankind, went hand in hand with the Protestant Reformation. It can be argued quite cogently that it was the Reformation which was the intellectual father of the birth of modern science.

As regards wars and conflicts, again the church may have something to answer. However, whenever the church got involved in religious wars it was going directly against the teaching of Jesus and Paul (Matthew 26.52; 2 Corinthians 10.4). Over the last century or so, in fact, it has been atheism which has caused by far the greatest loss of life of any ideology. With the advent of Nazism, inspired by the philosophy of the atheist Neitzche, we saw the holocaust. With the rise of atheistic Communism, we saw the millions who went to their deaths in Stalin’s gulags, and in the killing fields of Pol Pot’s Cambodia.

Christianity makes every human life valuable — as made in the image of God. But atheism treats human beings as just another animal — sadly, often that means that human life is expendable.

Furthermore, Dawkins also seeks to apply a kind of Darwinian evolutionary model to the way ideas spread through culture and shape humanity. Instead of genes these cultural influences he calls ‘memes’. He goes so far as to equate belief in God as a kind of ‘virus’ of the mind which brings only harm to mankind whereas atheism presumably is seen as ‘healthy’.

However, not only is it true, as we have already pointed out, that atheism is responsible for enormous harm in the world — what else could it be without any basis for love and morality? — but this flies in the face of the data. Recently there have been many studies on the relationship between psychological health and religious belief. The overwhelming evidence is that generally speaking religious faith makes for happier and more well-balanced people.

John Benton

For an excellent expose of the thought of Richard Dawkins, see Dawkins’ God by Alister McGrath, published by Blackwells, on which I have drawn for this article.