Every now and then, a writer emerges with the rhetoric and credentials to capture the imagination of a generation. Their ideas slowly percolate into the intellect of the laity, taking root and mobilizing a movement whose perceptions impact the very culture of their day. These are the writers whose pens drip more than ink, they drip change.
Sometimes, this impact is beautiful. When St. Augustine etched out his City of God, the arguments it contained spread like penicillin, innoculating a collapsing empire from the bitterness and rage it felt towards those Christians whose doctrines of compassion and mercy “weakened” what was once the military powerhouse of the known world. Instead, these virtues were preserved, shaping innumerable future civilizations including our own.
Sometimes, however, an author draws out his quill and sketches a compelling argument that challenges the mind and engages the imagination, yet is so factually inaccurate and patently dishonest that one wonders if he even knows what he is talking about. Thankfully, most of these pieces are so transparent that they quickly fade into obscurity. Occasionally, however, a wordsmith arises who can make even the meaningless seem profound. Occasionally, there comes a scholar who can do just enough research to make his fabrications appear believable. As Christians, we’ve seen them in cult leaders and televangelists.
Atheists now have their version in Richard Dawkins.
“The God Delusion makes me embarassed to be an atheist.” – Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University
Let me pause for a moment. Lest I seem like some petty zealot embittered by the idea that Dawkins would dare write some heretical rant attacking the concept of God and labeling believers as little more than delusional, let me set the record straight. It is not Dawkins’ stance that I draw issue with. After all, I heartily respect Sam Harris, whose polemics against religion are mired with philosophical inconsistencies, yet whose tone is respectful and his scholarship honest. I can further appreciate Christopher Hitchens, who labels religious belief a poison and employs rhetorical slight-of-hand as a matter of principle, yet whose passion is scarcely rivaled by any contemporary. I will openly express my honor for Carl Sagan, whose theological understanding was a bit myopic and his grasp of history jaded, yet whose science was nothing short of inspiring. Admittedly, I am deeply humbled by Stephen Hawking, whose philosophy leaves much to be desired, but whose scientific mind is nothing short of extraordinary. All these people challenge and inspire me, despite our wildly divergent worldviews. I had hoped to be similarly challenged as I cracked open the cover of The God Delusion and began wading through its pages. I was woefully disappointed.
As it turns out, I’m not alone in this. Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University, responded to Dawkins’ publication with the shame-infused confession that “The God Delusion makes me embarassed to be an atheist.” Criticisms of his work abound, with Dr. Dawkins repeatedly lambasted for failing to research his topic, for misrepresenting Christian theology, and for creating an elaborate “straw man” which he then proceeds to decimate. What I find most startling, however, is that, rather than deny the charge of slovenly scholarship, he accepts and even defends it! Regarding this very criticism leveled at him by Alister McGrath, Dawkins simply responded with the question, “do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?”
If you want to speak out against leprechauns, then speak out against the leprechauns people believe in. If you want to speak out against God, at least take the time to research basic theology.
It is this, not his anti-religious stance, that is my great source of ire. Yes, Richard, you DO have to research “leprechology” if you are writing an anti-leprechaun polemic. It would hardly do to make an argument that leprechauns cannot exist because the laws of aerodynamics do not allow for flying horses. If you want to speak out against leprechauns, then speak out against the leprechauns people believe in. If you want to speak out against God, at least take the time to research basic theology.
This is the hypocrisy which runs like a colorful thread throughout the tapestry of his text. On the one hand, he rails against what he perceives as a Christian assault against reason. On the other, he openly advocates ignorance as a virtue both in the penning and defense of his book. And yet, in spite of this, The God Delusion has become a best-seller, and Dawkins even named Author of the Year at the British Book Awards. Like it or not, his ideas are taking root.
So, with this in mind, I am dedicating a series of four articles towards expounding the principle issues I have with his book, and demonstrating key examples of each. These are:
- Dawkins’ failure to grasp basic Christian theology.
- Dawkins’ openly dishonest reporting of Christian thinkers.
- Dawkins’ failure to utilize even rudimentary levels of academic scholarship.
- Dawkins’ pitiful employ of philosophy.
These four pillars form the basic framework upon which nearly all of The God Delusion rests. As the articles for each are published, I will be turning the corresponding list number into a link. One by one, I hope to pull the pillars out, until we are left with a book aptly named – not for its central thesis, but as the delusional anti-God rantings of a skillful wordsmith.
What do you think? Have you encountered Dawkins’ arguments before? Am I being too harsh in my criticism of his book and of him as an author?
Image Credit: Rob Boudon
@OfDustAndKings January 4, 2013 at 6:01 am
The Dawkins Debacle http://t.co/IQVpSzt4
@OfDustAndKings January 4, 2013 at 8:50 am
Richard #Dawkins “openly advocates ignorance as a virtue”? http://t.co/SMgq1LNC | #Christianity #Atheism
Alex January 4, 2013 at 8:54 am
I haven’t read the God Delusion, but I did see a short documentary series against religion hosted by Dawkins that left me bereft of any respect for the man.
T. E. Hanna January 4, 2013 at 9:03 am
Oh? I’ve watched some of his debates. He does particularly well in undergraduate level q&a sessions, where the people he argues with have little more than a high school diploma. Against his intellectual peers, however, he leaves something to be desired. It is unsurprising that he now turns down the vast majority of his debate requests.
Judy January 4, 2013 at 9:17 am
I look forward to your analysis. Sounds interesting.
jamesbradfordpate January 4, 2013 at 9:31 am
I listened to The God Delusion on CD a while back. I didn’t have much of a problem with the arguments that I remember—-God in the Bible does or commands morally problematic things, for example. I was most intrigued by his arguments against Intelligent Design, since I was curious about what an atheist would say against ID and the anthropic principle. I remember some of his arguments on that but not others. In any case, I’m looking forward to reading what you have to say.
T. E. Hanna January 4, 2013 at 10:08 am
my main issue is not in highlighting moral difficulties, but in deliberately false information. For example, he quotes Augustine as rejecting curiosity and reason as detrimental to faith, but in order to get that quote he had to remove nearly 500 words, keeping a phrase here and there as he went, in order to arrive at a condensation whose meaning was nothing like the passage he cut away. And then, he didn’t even mark it with ellipsis to note that there was ever any other words he had to first remove.
Or his depiction of scriptural transmission, describing it as an endless process of copies after copies for over a millenia, akin to “Chinese whispers” (his version of the telephone game). In reality, we draw our Bibles from manuscripts dating back as early as the second century, some arguably late first century, and scholars are confident that 99.8% of what he hold in our hands was exactly what was originally written. Dawkins knows this, he has this information, but he deliberately presents false data to back up his thesis.
Then there are more minor infractions… the way he consistently defines supernatural events and attributes in natural terms, a rather careless philosophical mistake; his constant return to infinite regression as his trump card argument against God, despite the numerous philosophers who have dealt with this throughout history (yet whose arguments he conveniently ignores); his misrepresentation and blase dismissal of theistic evolution; the list goes on.
The latter group I find forgivable. I think if you want to present yourself an expert on a topic, it behooves you to research it, but he would hardly be the first who skipped this step. No, my biggest issue is the first group – where he takes information and presents it dishonestly.
beaconapologetics January 4, 2013 at 9:53 am
Interesting though how Dawkins himself stated he was not 100% certain there is no God!
befuddled2 January 4, 2013 at 10:08 am
Sadly I must agree, basically, with your assessment of Dawkin’s criticisms of religion and Christianity. I would say though that that a more accurate criticism is that it is too focused on the lowest levels of Christian thought and not at the more intelligent thinking. On that level he does OK, but still a bit stronger than I think justified. At the level of the more thoughtful and intelligent Christian he totally misses the mark.
Unlike his works about evolution which are examples of some of the best of writings about science (and which I love), his works about religion are not as well thought out.
I noticed your comment that Dawkins does well with the undergraduate level, and this is probably true. But if you think about it, that level of thinking in regards to both Christianity and atheism is what his book targets, even though he claims it covers all of Christianity. And a great number, if not most, of both believers and non-believers thinking and knowledge is at that level; unfortunately.
It is one reason why his book has been so popular among so many atheists. Another is that many atheists come from a religious background that has been forceful and repressive and his books speaks to their experience.
Anyway, I look forwards to seeing more of your thoughts on Dawkins.
@OfDustAndKings January 4, 2013 at 10:48 am
What is your opinion of Richard Dawkins and The God Delusion? http://t.co/aa9SQAaH
Keith January 4, 2013 at 11:12 am
Looking forward to the “pillars”!
Biblicalnerdgirl January 4, 2013 at 11:40 am
Indeed, I have not read the book, mostly because every review I came across was scathing, from the very audience he intended to reach or purportedly support/encourage/engage. The biggest issue I have is the reports that much of the work is highly subjective, lacking the academic scholarship that we should expect from this author. I will look forward to your input. I truly have no interest in reading it, as of now.
T. E. Hanna January 4, 2013 at 11:54 am
Heather! I didn’t know you had a blog. Biblical Nerd Girl is apt, I think.
You’re leading a youth ministry now, aren’t you?
T. E. Hanna January 4, 2013 at 11:55 am
Lol! And only you would title it in the Greek.
Keith January 4, 2013 at 12:01 pm
bibllicalnerdgirl I want to “follow” you! Even if it is in Greek or Hebrew.
Sara's Musings at WordPress.com January 4, 2013 at 12:14 pm
Excellent piece! I’ve missed your writings and I’m glad you’re back! Since I have not read “The God Delusion,” I look forward to reading your future writings on it.
Broken Heart Recovery January 4, 2013 at 12:17 pm
The God Delusion is the very book my husband used to defend his descent from Christianity into atheiesim. It destroyed him, he needed to deny God so he could become an addict and adulterer. Dawkins gave him a pathway. He had to hit rock bottom to find his way back to God. The God Delusion still sits on a shelf in our home. I think I’ll burn it in the fire tonight.
Cierra January 24, 2013 at 3:52 pm
Broken Heart Recovery – I am extremely sad that your husband became an atheist simply to create room to do whatever he wanted. However, every atheist I have met has left the faith because there simply is not enough evidence, not because they want to “sin”. Many of my unbelieving friends have been divorced by their husband or wife because they are atheist. Saying that atheists don’t believe in God so they can be immoral is a gross misstatement and over-generalization of an extreme minority of atheists. It is just as much a misstatement as atheists claiming that all believers are “in it for the power”.
Also, the majority of atheists I know are more kind, socially active, and generous than the Christians I grew up with.
T. E. Hanna January 24, 2013 at 5:21 pm
I think that’s a fair critique, Cierra. I have certainly known many atheists who are absolutely beautiful people, just as I have known some Christians who were outright monsters. I think the reverse is also true, as well, as I have known atheists who have been absolutely dreadful to me simply because I am a person of faith. One critical difference is that, for a Christian to hatefully (which I am, I’m sorry to say, still guilty of from time to time), we have to violate core ethics of our faith. Atheism is simply a rejection of religion, and thereby makes no ethical claims. While being an atheist in no way necessitates immoral activity, it does provide the freedom to do so without any fundamental worldview violation.
I’m glad you came by, Cierra, and I hope you linger as part of the community here. I am always eager to learn from perspectives that differ from my own, and would welcome your thoughts on any of the discussions here. I look forward to connecting with you!
Hannah January 22, 2013 at 1:23 pm
Fantastic post!
A year ago, my capstone class during my last semester of college was entirely based on studies of literature and the creation/destruction of credibility– from history to science and and beyond. We read from a book called “Spurious Coin” by Bernadette Longo. It was rich, inspiring, and totally blew my mind about literature in general, but especially in relation to science and religion.
We discussed how, as writers–not as scientists, magicians, mathematicians, (or God)–we have a kind of power that entitles and invites us to use ethical responsibility. It is dishonorable to use the power of language in a way that is manipulative purely for the sake of being manipulative or to hide a lack of knowledge/understanding or cover faulty reasoning on the author’s part.
I wrote more about this in a post in my blog I kept for that class. Here is the link if you are interested: http://hannahalexander.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/post-3/
So in other words, Dawkins has essentially violated the nobility of writing through having knowingly created invalid arguments and having failed to own up to it. I’ve listened to a presentation or two by Dawkins in one of my psychology classes in college, but it has been too long for me to remember many details. However, I do remember feeling frustrated with his arguments in much the same way you seem to have felt have toward his book. I kept wanting to correct him about things he was saying because I knew more than he did about some of what he was discussing. So yes, I understand where you are coming from.
John January 23, 2013 at 12:52 pm
Thanks for the insights and the balance.
I especially liked this:
“Occasionally, however, a wordsmith arises who can make even the meaningless seem profound. Occasionally, there comes a scholar who can do just enough research to make his fabrications appear believable. As Christians, we’ve seen them in cult leaders and televangelists.”
T. E. Hanna January 23, 2013 at 2:25 pm
It’s true. Much as we like to point the finger, we have our own baggage as well