|
The God realityA critique of Richard Dawkins' The God DelusionStrengths and weaknessesTHE GOD REALITY This book sets out ‘to embolden Christians to stand up for their beliefs’ and to ‘cause atheists and agnostics to question . . . their faith’. It is written for the layperson and assumes no detailed scientific knowledge. As such it is very readable and informative, if somewhat weak on the science. In The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that the existence of God is highly improbable and that natural selection can adequately explain everything from life to the origins of religion and the roots of morality. He attacks what he sees as the immorality of the Bible and rants against the evils of faith and the particular evils of a religious upbringing which he equates with child abuse. Rob Slane deals with each of these themes in turn and seeks to show the flaws, ignorance and duplicity of Dawkins’s arguments. Crucially, Slane argues that this universe of matter, space and time has been created by a God who is spirit, transcendent and eternal and, therefore, not a part of this world. So the idea that we can discover God through scientific enquiry is shown to be utterly false. Where the book is weak, however, is where Slane seeks to engage with the scientific arguments. At times he is ill-informed and at other times he opposes scientific ideas unnecessarily. He makes no allowance for scientific and theological explanations to be complementary; his own logic is sometimes convoluted and some illustrations are flawed. What Slane does well is to expose the true weakness of the atheists’ position, which is the consequences of his beliefs. The atheist has no logical basis for morality and Slane very perceptively reveals the logical (and somewhat frightening) conclusions of where Dawkins’s beliefs are headed. Ultimately the real motivation behind such atheism is exposed as hatred of God and a refusal to believe, not a lack of evidence. The Christian, by contrast, has a faith which is based on reasonable evidence. So this book should embolden Christians to challenge the assumptions of non-Christian friends, but I would not recommend it to my scientific colleagues. Andrew King, © Evangelicals Now - March 2009 |