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
I watched Ben Stein’s documentary called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and Richard Dawkins conceded to the fact of a higher life form. Of course, this is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
One should keep in mind the book of Titus. Titus 3:9-11 reads “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
If believer’s spent more time loving one another and becoming unified, Richard would be chasing us down and not the other way around. Jesus ignored the Pharisees and they kept showing up in his business. It is my desire to be so irresistible and passionate about Christ that others will seek to look into what I am doing.
I agree that Christians need to be more unified and love each other better. I’m not sure that Jesus ignored the Pharisees tho… He certainly had some harsh words when he was with them (brood of vipers, etc), responded to their questions and misperceptions, and spoke about then when they were not around (so not do as the Pharisees do… etc)
I think we need to respond to falsehoods when they are presented, but still be an overwhelming unified presence of love in our world.
Richard Dawkins in one of his articles (I think from 2006) says: “Incidentally, I was myself sexually abused by a teacher when I was about nine or ten years old. It was a very unpleasant and embarrassing experience, but the mental trauma was soon exorcised by comparing notes with my contemporaries who had suffered it previously at the hands of the same master.”
While he may claim to consider this to be a matter of comparatively little consequence, if this really was part of his introduction to Christianity in practice, it is little wonder he is now extremely cynical.
In some ways it reminds me of Gandhi who was admiring of Christ but not at all impressed by the lives of those who called themselves Christian. Given Gandhi’s South African experience and Dawkins’ boarding school experiences I suspect the question we should really be asking ourselves is, if the same had happened to us would we really have turned to the support of Christianity ….. as it is practiced?
I’m sure that such a trauma would undoubtedly leave a scar, and I’m also certain that there are aspects of some Christian expressions which are shameful at best.
However, while this may speak to motivation, it does little to argue against his criticisms. The issue isn’t THAT Dawkins takes a stand against religion so much as it is that he formulates his arguments based on data that he misrepresents, misunderstands, or deliberately fabricates. Then, when he gets called on it, he elevates ignorance to bring a virtue. All of this undermines his credibility and strips any value from his writings altogether
Dawkins is not, nor has he ever claimed to be, a philosopher or theologian. He’s a scientist and examines the premise of a god(s) on those terms. As such, studying theology in depth would be akin to asking him to study fashion prior to writing an article on whether the emperor is in fact naked in the fable of ‘the emperor’s new clothes.’ When I read your blog above I did enjoy it but it did make me think of this:
“I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor’s taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.”
His science is brilliant. I love his work in evolutionary biology.
There is a significant issue, however, when a person summarizes Christian thinkers (even identifying them by name), yet never reads or understands those he summarizes and critiques; when one details the theological beliefs of a religion yet never actually studies or portrays them accurately; when one conveys “facts” that are simply false; and when one invents quotes and attributes them to prominent theologians of antiquity… That goes beyond a generic dismissal of theism. It is patently dishonest and scholastically shameful.
My issue is when one teaches on a subject he knows nothing about through lies and misrepresentation. It’s fine to write a polemic, Dawkins just needs to actually research his content area.
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.
Thank you for the “Like” on my blog. This is a great post! -Lori