The God Delusion Is A Mess

One of the most persistent fallacies of our time is the genetic fallacy. More specifically, the problem is an appeal to an illegitimate authority. How often are the political or religious opinions of celebrities considered expert? In a similar vein, should a biologist be considered an expert on philosophy and theology?

In this paper, I will discuss The God Delusion, a book written by a self-proclaimed “expert,” Richard Dawkins.

Who Is Richard Dawkins?

Richard Dawkins is an Oxford-educated evolutionary biologist and zoologist influenced by another English biologist, Charles Darwin.

More well-known for his ardent atheism than his scientific acumen, Dawkins has risen to prominence as a member of the four horsemen of atheism, along with Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.

The God Delusion

In 2006, Dawkins published The God Delusion, in which he argues that God does not exist and that religion is a social contract whose time has passed. As the title suggests, Dawkins claims that religion is a delusion, which he defines as “a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.”

If one were to create an argument map of the premises of the book, it might look something like this:

1. The complexity and fine-tuning evident in the universe suggest that it results from a design.
2. If the universe is designed, then it is natural to infer a designer.
3. However, such an inference creates the problem of who or what designed the designer.
4. A much better explanation for the apparent design of the universe is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
5. Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.

Later, I will discuss the errors in The God Delusion in-depth, but for now, it should be noted that the above argument is not new. For the most part, Dawkins regurgitates Bertrand Russell’s arguments.

The book can be divided into three parts. First, Dawkins argues against the existence of God; then, he offers his explanation for the existence of religion. Finally, Dawkins suggests that science can and should replace religion.

A Biologist Out Of His Depth

Dawkins makes three arguments against God’s existence. First, Dawkins attempts to refute the argument for a first cause. He argues that if everything in existence goes back to an intelligent, supernatural designer, who designed this designer?

Without being able to speak with Dr. Dawkins directly, it is impossible to ascertain whether he seriously misunderstood the first-cause argument or is attempting to create a strawman (a weaker and easily refutable argument). However, since Dr. Dawkins suggests that he has offered “a very serious argument against God’s existence,” we may assume he has failed to comprehend the cosmological argument.

Regardless, the actual argument is that everything that comes into existence requires a cause, not that everything requires a cause. The cosmological argument is predicated upon the contingent nature of the universe. Everything in the universe came into existence at a particular time in the past and will pass from existence at a particular time in the future. My parents caused me, and my parents were caused by their parents, and so on. Since nothing can cause itself and since there cannot be an infinite regress of causes, there must be a cause that exists necessarily as the cause of everything else. A proper understanding of the first cause argument does not preclude – indeed, it necessitates an uncaused first cause.

Mr. Dawkins will argue that an infinite regress is not illogical. Here is why it is both illogical and impossible. If an infinite regress of causes existed, there would be no first cause. If there is no first cause, there would be no secondary causes and no effects. Said differently, without a first uncaused cause, nothing would exist.

In continuing with his theme of non-sequiturs, Dr. Dawkins suggests that God does not exist because the Bible is “unreliable.” The claim of unreliability simply does not hold, and the historical accuracy of the Bible is considered very high. “The archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine. Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics.” – Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology, Yale University.

Putting aside Mr. Dawkins’s “efforts” at exegesis, this argument has an even bigger problem. Even if the Bible never existed, it would not follow that God does not exist. The Bible presupposes the existence of God. It is intended to delineate sacred history and to bring believers to a better understanding of God, not to prove God’s existence.

The God Delusion’s last argument against the existence of God posits that natural selection is a better, more rational, and verifiable explanation of life on Earth than God. Since this argument is within the realm of Mr. Dawkins’s expertise, one would expect it to be both cogent and persuasive. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Even if one were to accept evolution and natural selection completely (and there are questions to be addressed), it would do nothing to militate against the existence of God.

Evolution is defined as “change in the properties of groups of [existing] organisms over the course of generations…it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population to the alterations that led from the earliest organism to dinosaurs, bees, oaks, and humans.” Natural selection refers to the mechanism within evolution whereby heritable traits that help organisms survive and reproduce become more common in a population over time. (See Futuyma, Douglas. Evolution. Sinauer, 2013).

Put simply, evolution is a theory that claims to explain adaptations over time in existing creatures. Evolution makes no claims as to the origins of life or the universe. (See Rice, J.W., Warner, D.A., Kelly, C.D. et al. The Theory of Evolution is Not an Explanation for the Origin of Life. Evo Edu Outreach 3, 141–142 (2010).

Conclusion

In the preceding article, I have endeavored to show that Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion is an ill-conceived and poorly argued attack on faith and the existence of God.

While we ought to listen to scientists regarding matters of science, we ought to be very leery when those same scientists seek to pontificate on matters of philosophy or religion. The God Delusion is a perfect example of the dangers of seeking philosophical or religious insights from a scientist.