The God Delusion Ch. 1

As I review the first Chapter of The God Delusion I am disappointed to be hearing the same old tune.  A tune which we are coaxed to believe is accurate and true.  I mean, one who has an advanced degree is presenting this material and you would think this one has learned to do research, and learned to think inductively...right?  Sadly no.

After a short anecdote, a quote from Darwin, and Carl Sagan (of which I will comment on later), we find a quote from Steven Weinberg.  As a side note, it is interesting that these people’s credentials are sourced in their own work (advanced degrees) or others noticing the like (Nobel Prize).  This is the source of their authority, as if that somehow trumps, or even competes with the source of Christian authority.  

Steven Weinberg says “Of course, like any other word, the word ‘God’ can be given any meaning we like.”

I’m afraid not Dr. Weinberg!  Words have clear and indisputable meaning.  Perhaps what Dr. Weinberg meant was that we are free to choose the semantic usage of any particular word?  Even so, the only one endowed with that freedom of choice is the original user of the word.  However, when we choose the words we use to communicate some meaning, we stand the risk of using them improperly; as does our readership and/or listeners stand the risk of assigning wrong meaning to our words.  In such a case, the one using words in err or the one hearing/reading words in err also stands the risk of being corrected.  Dr. Weinberg’s statement is a wonderful example of this.  Yes, we are clearly able to ascribe the word ‘God’ to anything we like, but we also may very well be wrong, as compared to those authoritative documents which clearly communicate God’s attributes and character.  Just as one who asserts that Green Eggs and Ham was written by William Shakespeare is able to easily be proven wrong, so can Dr. Weinberg.  Like Dr. Weinberg, one who wishes to ascribe any meaning to any word must thereby realize that the consequences of their desires destroys any meaning of any word.  No word has clear meaning, so everything then means nothing outside of what the reader/hearer wants it to mean...or it means everything (semantically) all at once and then loses any authority of meaning.  This is the post-modern, relativistic view at it’s finest.  Everything centers around the meaning one finds for oneself, but that meaning isn’t and shouldn’t be the same for everyone.  Meaning no longer exists, but those of us who demonstrate clear meaning in language and find reasons why any one word can’t mean the other semantic usages in it’s domain are labeled intolerant, disrespectful, and ironically ignorant, amongst other colorful language.  Alas, words have meaning, whether Dr. Weinberg, Dr. Dawkins, or anyone else wants them to or not.  In the Christian context the word God has a very specific meaning which is so repeated in scripture that one wonders if any of these men have read the Bible.  If they have, they are being dishonest to what they have read; if they haven’t, they are being dishonest about their research.  Which is it?

What Dr. Dawkins does a great job doing is explaining what he sees atheists as believing.  However, one is left with a nagging question.  Who cares?  Who cares what people believe?  Upon what authority is that belief founded, and is the information accurately represented as to support such a belief?  These are the important questions.  So much of the first chapter of Dawkins’ book assumes the authority of science as interpreted by whomever, Ph.D. holders, Nobel Prize winners.  While I admit these people have expertise, they lack any real authority.  Likewise their beliefs and statements lack any real authority.  At best they refer back to other people.  I say this so confidently because all of science points back to God, and therefore Dr. Dawkins’, and Dr. Weinberg’s authority is false and empty.

“Great scientists of our time who sound religious usually turn out not to be so when you examine their beliefs more deeply.” - Dawkins

“What most atheists believe is that although there is only one kind of stuff in the universe and it is physical, out of this stuff come minds, beauty, emotions, moral values - in short the full gamut of phenomena that gives richness to human life.” - Julian Baggini

These statements also beg the question, who cares?  Christianity does not rely on “Great scientists” or “most atheists” for its authority, so why do these statements matter or have bearing on the subject?  The answer is THEY DONT, which is the very definition of a straw man argument.  Once again, Dawkins fails to engage with Biblical Christianity.  Without enumerating them (because there are far too many), further statements in this chapter call into question “religion” as a field (though I have never heard of such a field...rather Theology would be the field Dr. Dawkins is speaking of.  Who ever heard of a Religiogian?  More like Theologian).  Other statements try to associate Catholicism with Christianity, as if they were synonymous, when they aren’t even similar.  And still other comments seek to rob ‘religious faith’ of rational justification.

I hope I have demonstrated the lack of rational justification of Christianity as it seeks to read and use words accurately and honor the writer’s original meaning.  If this is a lack of rational justification, I wonder what is Dawkins’ justification?  We shall see in coming chapters.

NOTE:  If you are reading along with me, you will do well to notice that Dr. Dawkins’ source for defining God, faith, religion, etc. is “what most (people, christians, deists) believe.”  No reliable source has been used and no analysis of ANY religious primary documents has been offered.  Doctoral caliber research???  This sort of material would not get me a ‘C’ in even an undergraduate class.

Did you know that unbelief is even an option?

No further into The God Delusion than the preface to the paperback edition (which is the first of two prefaces) do I come across endlessly repeated misrepresentations of Christianity.  I here only address Christianity because I don't believe in other systems, and truthfully would hold them to be as damaging.  That being said, and only considering how this book interacts with Christianity, allow me to comment on those misrepresentations.

At the very beginning we are met with the assessment of anyone who says "I am an atheist, BUT", or the related statement "I used to be and atheist, but", to be "unhelpful, nihilistic" and "suffused with a sort of exultant negativity."  So there can be no meaningful and/or reasoned position within such a view as Christianity.  It is discounted at the outset.  This and a few others are the faulty presuppositions upon which both prefaces precariously perch.  I will agree with Dr. Dawkins, that far too many use this statements referenced above as some sort of credential, so as to say "you should listen to me because I am coming from your point of view", or some thing similar, but on both parts (Dawkins' and the one making the statement) there is a fundamental ignorance of where epistemic truth comes from.  Dawkins presents a straw man argument here (although he says its not later in the preface, he fails to state why it's not).  It's a straw man argument because both Dawkins and Christians believe that that statement is no basis of authority, as it is most often attempted to be used.  For the Christian, the Bible is the Epistemic basis of truth, and therefore what other Christians are doing or saying is irrelevant.  Nothing is here gained by Dr. Dawkins' assessment of these statements.  They are therefore truly meaningless, and hardly damning.

Dr. Dawkins states that those of us who believe have never realized or been told "unbelief is an option". Really?  It's that easy?  Thank you for relieving me of my ignorance Dr. Dawkins.  I never once considered that my faith was the result of the inadequacy of our (do you mean ours [America] or yours?) educational system.  Clearly I am too ignorant and poorly educated to grasp those things which I've studied, think on them critically, and apply them.  Unbelief is an option?!  Brilliant!

Much to the contrary, such an assessment is intellectually dishonest as it dismisses weighty, meaningful arguments at the outset by labeling them as unhelpful and nihilistic.  Dr. Dawkins couches his convictions of stupidity, ignorance, and dependency in the assertion that what he is saying is not shrill or intemperate when compared to food critics, a sampling of whom He then quotes on page 16.  I can't help but think that even in their abrasiveness the food critics are at least honest.  They want us to know they didn't like it, and more accurately hated it.  Yes, there is a bit of exaggeration there, but the message is an honest one.  A better comparison of Dawkins to a food critic would be one who says "I didn't like your food, but you're too stupid to know that making anything better is even an option."  Dawkins disguises such statements (unbelief is an option) in this manner to ease the blow and stroke the ego, hopefully making the hearer/reader more apt to listen.  Spare us!

Granted these were just he prefaces, but if Dawkins insists on finding an epistemic basis for the truth of Christianity in what most Christians think or do or say, I am afraid the rest of this book will be simply addressing objections that aren't really there...the very definition of a straw man.  There is no demonstration of even an attempt to understand the Christian position, so Dr. Dawkins goes to bat against something which he has constructed and therefore knows how to demolish.  This is not Biblical Christianity that Dawkins presents.

Both of Dr. Dawkins' prefaces (without considering the convictions of stupidity, ignorance and dependency) can be combatted with the simple retort: "have you ever considered that belief is an option?"  It will be disappointing if the full force of Dr. Dawkins' doctorate, as applied in this area amounts to these few straw man arguments.  I refuse to think that Dr. Dawkins can't understand, and I will not call him stupid, but I will say that perhaps he won't understand, which is an indication of the assertion of his will in accordance with his clear bias.  I continue to read and remain hopeful, however knowing what I do about the author and his work, I doubt that things will get better as I progress.

Chapter one coming soon.

Richard Dawkins' God Delusion

As an off shoot of my last post, oh so long ago in January of this year, I will be reading Richard Dawkins' God Delusion.  As I read I will respond to each chapter as best I can, taking into consideration the arguments and subjects used therein.

Since you all know that I already stand at odds with Richard Dawkins' work, it is rather obvious that I will be presenting refutations of Dawkins' arguments, answers to his questions, and hopefully (if I can find resources) counters to his research.  My goal will be to show how even someone like me (barely educated compared to Dawkins), using a Biblical position and that as my presupposition, can show such people as even Dawkins to be the embodiment foolishness itself (1 Corinthians 3:19).

I will use the same sort of contextual analysis I do with the Bible to do my best in representing Dawkins position accurately.

Stay tuned in...this should prove interesting.