Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

I love the title of this book, The Dawkins Delusion. Richard Dawkins is a vociferous “anti-evangelist” who is intent on spreading his message that anyone who believes in God is a nut case. One of his Oxford colleagues has decided to take Dawkins to task for his pseudo-intellectualism in this book. Zenit ran an interview recently with the Oxford author, Alister McGrath, who is one of the book’s co-authors.

McGrath had begun on the same route as Dawkins. In the 1960s he was an atheist with a doctorate in molecular biophysics; however, he eventually corrected the mistaken aspects of his thinking that led him to his atheistic conclusions. In this book, he points out Dawkins’s errors.

Dawkins is an “expert” in evolutionary biology, though apparently he no longer has time to publish in this area since he is all consumed with his constant rehashing of the same old canards in book after book. In his latest book, the God Delusion, Dawkins reveals he is not an expert in philosophy, religion, or sound thinking. He seems to think that the louder he talks and more emphatic his rhetoric, the more convincing he will be. Here are some snippets of what McGrath has to say about Dawkins in the former’s Zenit interview:

McGrath declares himself disappointed with the level of argument in Dawkins’ book, which he describes as “the atheist equivalent of slick hellfire preaching, substituting turbo-charged rhetoric and highly selective manipulation of facts for careful, evidence-based thinking.” He adds: “Dawkins preaches to his god-hating choirs,” relying on pseudoscientific speculation and aggregating convenient factoids.

It seems that Dawkins has little appreciation for the beliefs that he tries to condemn; nor does he have the capability for reasoned argumentation (which would demand that one knows what he is talking about):

McGrath devotes a chapter to explaining why God is not a delusion, as Dawkins maintained. He observes that the definitions used by Dawkins to describe faith, such as a “process of non-thinking,” are foreign to a Christian definition of faith.

Apparently Dawkins’s major concern is that he believes that religion and God are evil:

Another argument used by Dawkins is that God and religion are evil, being responsible for all sorts of violence and abuses in mankind’s history. McGrath readily admits that violence which draws its inspiration from religion is clearly something to be rejected.

McGrath, who grew up in Northern Ireland, had plenty of experience with religious violence. Nevertheless, he points out that it is an entirely different proposition to argue that violence is an inherent element of religion. Dawkins also errs in making out atheism to be a universally benign influence. A look at 20th-century history readily provides abundant examples of politically motivated violence, not least of which was that committed by the atheistic regime of the Soviet Union.

Clearly, people are capable of both violence and moral excellence, McGrath points out, and both of these qualities may be provoked by worldviews, religious or otherwise. It is true that religion can turn human conflicts into battles of good and evil. At the same time, a society that rejects God then tends to hold up as an absolute other realities or concepts. Thus, the French Revolution in its effort to replace Christianity with secular ideals carried out violent repression as it sought to impose its principles.

In the youtube interview below, Dawkins provides helpful insights into his acumen for critical thought. He points to religion as the source of suicide bombers and terrorists. He counters this with the fact that neither he nor any other atheist he knows is anything but a peace loving person. As McGrath points out above, Dawkins conveniently avoids the fact that many (if not all) of history’s greatest atrocities were foisted by atheists and that the same claim about peace loving believers could by made by 99.9% of those who hold religious convictions.

In a related topic, CNN recently did a piece on atheists as an oppressed minority. Someone in the atheist “anti-evangelical” movement, I think has figured out that since their arguments have proven to be generally ineffective, perhaps playing the victim card will bring them more success. After CNN’s “heart wrenching” piece about the fear in which atheists live in the US, they had a panel discussion. Well, they forgot to invite an atheist. The atheist community clamored for equal time and so CNN did an interview with Dawkins. I find this interview rather insightful. Take a look:

Here he appears to have been coached that it is time to play the victim card. Dawkins’s responses seem to me to reveal his disingenuousness. He admits that atheism is a belief… an opinion, rather than the ironclad, scientific fact that he tries to claim in his books. He claims that atheists do not want anything from anyone else except to pursue their beliefs and live in peace. He is pleading for tolerance for his “belief” all the while attacking as delusional the beliefs of others. This is justified I suppose because “they are in the habit of always having it their way.” This hypocrisy is a common feature of “victim-ality” (those who erroneously hold themselves to be victims of some sort of oppression).

At the end of the clip, he says concludes that atheism is better than belief in God because atheists believe that this is the only life they have to live so they have to live it properly, happily, and to the full. Whereas, those who believe in God think that they are going to have another life so, apparently by definition, they cannot live this one properly, happily, or to the full. This he says is a very negative way to live.

First, it is interesting that without God he can make the absurd statement that there even exists a proper way to live one’s life. If we are all just historical accidents, then isn’t the existential dogma the correct one? In other words, the meaning of life is simply that which each person gives it. If so, then Dawkins’s message is contradictory. If believers create their own meaning of life and it makes them happy then on what basis does Dawkins’s criticize it if his goal is happiness through “proper” living? It seems like he wants to start getting it all his way.

It is not clear what religion he is thinking about when he claims that believers in God can’t live “properly” because they think they will get another life. However, even if he is thinking about reincarnation, I do not think that he would find many who hold to incarnation that would agree that they think they can misuse this life because they get another chance. Certainly, this is not the view of Christians who do not see eternal life as a “second chance.” Is Dawkins really this ignorant of those systems of belief with which he finds fault?

I’m not a psychiatrist but I do play one here on this blog. As such, let me say that Dawkins seems to exhibit the common behavior of those who hold tenuous positions on issues of grave importance. They subliminally realize their precarious situations and, therefore, they require continuous reaffirmation that “they are o.k.” from everyone else.  Moreover, they cannot bear to hear anyone else tell them that they are wrong. This, by the way, I think is much the same phenomenon we see from those who suffer from and simultaneously embrace the SSA disorder. It is no wonder that rational argument is not possible with personalities such as Dawkins.