A Look at Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion

Atheists are becoming more vocal about offering a viable alterative to Christian theism and faith in general. I know that Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion is not his most current book. But it should be no surprise that The God Delusion sold over one million copies. I think a recent t-shirt sums up my position by saying, “I love atheists, I just don’t agree with their worldview.”

As I have conversed with several people, I have heard a variety of viewpoints on the Richard Dawkin’s book The God Delusion. Some people who come from a Christian background (but with little apologetic foundation) have found Dawkin’s arguments convincing. On the other hand, I have had atheists tell me they are not thrilled with the rhetoric and arguments of the book.

In relation to Dawkin’s philosophical skills, philosopher Alvin Plantinga said in his review of The God Delusion that, “You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.” See the entire review here:

And on the cover of Alistar and Joanna McGrath’s book The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, philosopher and Darwinian advocate Michael Ruse says, “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.”

But in this post, I want to mention a few of the problems with The God Delusion.

Dawkin’s Strong Scientism

For starters, it is no surprise that Dawkins is a strong advocate of what is called “strong scientism” which tends to reduce all legitimate knowledge (epistemology) to the scientific method. Therefore, much of Dawkins method ends up committing the reductive fallacy by taking one area of study and reduces all reality to this one area alone. Furthermore, to assert that all truth claims must be scientifically verifiable is a philosophical assumption rather than a scientific statement.

Also, while the Christian worldview is not opposed to science, it does recognize the limitations of science in relation to the discovery of human knowledge. To read more about this issue- click here.

For Dawkins, a delusion is “a persistent false belief in held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.” Dawkins goes onto say, “When one person suffers from delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion.” (pg 5)

Here is the central argument of Dawkin’s book- pgs 157-158.

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable, appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
4.The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural explanation
5. We don’t have an equivalent explanation in physics.
6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as something Darwinism is for biology.
7.Therefore, God almost certainty does not exist

For starters, as we glance at #7- We can observe that Dawkin’s conclusion does not follow from his previous six statements. Why should I infer that God does not exist based on Dawkin’s arguments about the design of the universe? A Christian could still believe in God’s existence for a variety of reasons other than the design of the universe. But having said this, Dawkins arguments allow me to bring up the following syllogism:

1. The universe resulted either from design or from chance.
2. It is highly improbable that it resulted from chance.
3. Hence, it is highly probable that the universe was designed.

By now, many people have heard of what is called the anthropic principle which states that (1) the discovery that the universe had a beginning, and (2) the discovery that the beginning had to be very precisely “fine tuned” or we wouldn’t be here. As one reads on through The God Delusion, it is not hard to see that Dawkins misapplies the anthropic principle in a variety of ways. But to sum it up, which is a better explanation for the life permitting universe that we have- Blind Chance or an Intelligent Agent? Since Dawkins main area of expertise is evolutionary biology, he believes natural selection can do just about anything (once it gets going). Dawkins seems to take for granted that before evolutionary processes can get going, crucial conditions must be in place such as:

1. The universe came into existence out of nothing (and no, quantum mechanics does not answer this issue).
2. It is precisely tuned for life.
3. It actually produces life (just because a universe exists does not guarantee it produces life).
4. Life continues to be sustained despite harsh conditions; many of nature’s harsh conditions could have snuffed it out.

What About Chance?

Sometimes it is common to hear that it is logically possible that the life-permitting universe we have could have arrived by chance. Defining the word chance depends partly on the worldview agenda of the one doing the defining. Some regard chance as the lack of any cause. As Mortimer Adler put it, some take chance to mean “that which happens totally without cause—the absolute spontaneous or fortuitous.” (1)

Others view chance as a real cause itself, only a blind, rather than an intelligent, cause. Naturalists and materialists often speak this way. (2)

But generally speaking, two usages are commonly confused when speaking about the origin of things: chance as a mathematical probability and chance as a real cause. The first is merely abstract.

When rolling a dice the chances are one in six that the number six will come out on top. The odds are one in thirty-six that two dice will both come up six and one in 216 that three sixes will be thrown on three dice. These are abstract mathematical probabilities. But chance did not cause those three dice to turn up sixes. What did it was the force of throwing them, their starting position in the hand, the angle of the toss, how they deflected off objects in their way, and other results of inertia. Chance had nothing to do with it. (3)

In the words of R.C. Sproul, “1. Chance is not an entity. 2. Nonentities have no power because they have no being. 3. To say that something happens or is caused by chance is to suggest attributing instrumental power to nothing” (Sproul, Not a Chance, pg 13).

As Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee say in their book Rare Earth,
“If some god -like being could be given the opportunity to plan a sequence of events with the express goal of duplicating our “Garden of Eden,” that power would face a formidable task. With the best intentions, but limited by natural laws and materials, it is unlikely that Earth could ever truly be replicated. Too many processes in its formation involved sheer luck.” (Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe, pg 37).

So even though chance has no causal power to do anything, maybe we should stick with the explanation that Dawkins gives in The God Delusion. According to Dawkins, there are multi-universes, all that have different parameters and laws. Of the billions and billions of universes, only a very few-perhaps only one has parameters and laws finely calibrated enough for life. How do we know this? Well, “of course the present universe has to be the one of that minority because we are in it.” (pg 145)

In response, let’s think about this:
1. Even if we could show evidence for multiple universes this would only multiply the need for a Creator and Designer because each one would need creation and fine tuning to get started.
2. If true, who or what is keeping these universes from colliding?
3. There is no known mechanism that exists for generating such universes.
4. That itself would require impressive design.

And in thinking about Dawkins theory, perhaps an illustration will help that is given by Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman Jr:

“Suppose you find a penny and begin flipping it over and over. To your surprise, it keeps coming up heads. After the hundredth toss yields yet another heads, you begin suspecting that the coin has been weighted or “fixed” in some way. (Rightly so; the chances of getting heads a hundred times in a row are less than one in a quadrillion quadrillion!) It would make no sense to reason that since there are over a hundred billion pennies in circulation, one of them was bound to come up heads a hundred or more times in a row. Even if a quadrillion quadrillion pennies were in circulation, the best and most sensible illustration for getting heads a hundred times in a row would be that the coin was fixed. Likewise, the fact that the universe has an extraordinary combination of highly precise parameters and features, all of which are necessary for life to be possible at all cannot be explained by postulating the existence of a quadrillion other universes.”

So in looking at the Dawkins explanation, we just happened to luck out in that the earth has been set up in such a precise fashion (see more below) so that the scientific process can get off the ground and Dawkins can do biology. And let us not forget the real lesson here. If you have enough faith/trust in Blind Chance, all things are possible. In other words, when you employ a reductionist view of science, almost everything becomes the product of chance.

Perhaps an analogy will help. In a state lottery, a player may pick five numbers between 1 and 50, a separate number between 1 and 50 and hope to match the random drawing exactly. The lottery winner is surprised he won, because the probability was about one in a hundred million that he would win. But he really should not be surprised, we are told; after all, someone had to win. So in looking at the Dawkins explanation, we just happened to luck out in that the earth has been set up in such a precise fashion (see more below) that the scientific process can get off the ground and Dawkins can sell millions of books and do biology.

It is important to understand that the argument for design is not trying to give an explanation as to why this particular universe exists. Instead, it’s trying to give the best explanation as to why a life permitting universe exists such as ours.

Unchanging Constants

There are unchanging quantities in the universe, and we know that the laws of nature do not determine the value of these constants. As William Lane Craig says, “There are certain arbitrary quantities that are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate. Because these quantities are arbitrary, they’re also not determined by the laws of nature. If the initial quantities had been different, then the laws would predict that quite a different universe would result.” (4) Let’s glance at some of the following constants that make life possible on earth:

• A .01 Percent increase during the Big Bang’s early stages were would have yielded a “present day-explanation thousands times faster than what we find. An equivalent decrease would have led to a recollapse when the cosmos was a millionth its present size.

• The four balanced forces of nature- gravity, strong and weak nuclear force, and electromagnetism- wouldn’t allow for life if slightly out of proportion.

• If gravity’s force were just slightly stronger, all stars would be blue giants, which burn too quickly for life to develop. If slightly weaker, all stars would be red dwarfs, which are too cold to support life- bearing planets.

• Oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. If it were 25 percent, fires would erupt, if 15 percent, human beings would suffocate.

• Even a slight increase in the force of gravity would result in all the stars being much more massive than our sun, with the effect that the sun would burn too rapidly and erratically to sustain life.

• If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.

• If the universe was expanding at a rate one millionth more slowly than it is, the temperature on earth would be 10,000 degrees C. (ibid., 185).

• The average distance between stars in our galaxy of 100 billion stars is 30 trillion miles. If that distance was altered slightly, orbits would become erratic, and there would be extreme temperature variations on earth. (Traveling at space shuttle speed, seventeen thousand miles an hour or five miles a second, it would take 201,450 years to travel 30 trillion miles.)

• Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 miles a second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth (Ross, 126).

• If Jupiter was not in its current orbit, we would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter’s gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that would otherwise strike earth (ibid., 196).

• If the thickness of the earth’s crust was greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life untenable (ibid., 130).

• If the rotation of the earth took longer than 24 hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period was shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.

• Surface temperature differences would be too great if the axial tilt of the earth were altered slightly.

• If the atmospheric discharge (lightning) rate were greater, there would be too much fire destruction; if it were less, there would be too little nitrogen fixing in the soil.

• If there were more seismic activity, much life would be lost. If there was less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift. Even earthquakes are necessary to sustain life as we know it. (5)

Apparently, Dawkins BELIEVES- has FAITH that Blind Chance has better explanatory power to explain the constants just mentioned as well as several others. Noted theoretical physicist Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of a precisely-tuned universe like the one we have to being actualized to be one part in 10 to the 123th power. To illustrate, “Even if I were to write down a ’0′ on each separate proton and on each neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure-we should fall short of writing down the figure needed. (6) To read more about the probability of these constants, click here: Why The Universe Is The Way It Is.

Furthermore, an examination of The God Delusion shows Dawkin’s arguments are tied directly to his view of causality. Two of the most crucial principles of science are causality and uniformity. The principle of causality states that everything that comes to be had a cause. The law of causality is the one of the foundational starting points of science. The principle of uniformity derives its name from the uniform experience on which it is based. Repeated observation reveals that certain kinds of causes regularly produce certain kinds of events. However, the principle of uniformity should not be confused with uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism wrongly assumes that all causes of events in the world must be natural causes. (7)

For example, in using the principle of uniformity, we know that wind on sand (or water) produces waves. Heavy rain on dirt results in erosion, and so on. These are what are called natural, or secondary causes. Natural laws do nothing and set nothing into motion. A “law of nature” is a description of what happens when no agent (whether it be divine, human, etc) is interfering or intervening into the casual order. Their effects are produced by natural forces whose processes are an observable part of the ongoing operation of the physical universe. In addition to secondary causes, there are primary causes. For example, we know that nature can’t by itself produce skyscrapers or computers; human agency/intelligence must bridge the gap. Intelligence is a primary cause. (8)

Another example may help. When we comes across a sandcastle or the words “John loves Mary” scratched into a beach, we never assume that waves did it. So convinced are we by previous repeated experience that only intelligence produces these kinds of effects that when we see even a single event that resembles one of these kinds of effects we invariably posit an intelligible cause for it. So whether the evidence calls for a secondary or primary cause, the principle of uniformity is the basis. (9)

What is ironic is that Dawkins admits that the message found in just the cell nucleus of a tiny amoeba is more than all thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica combined, and the entire amoeba has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. It must be remembered that these 1,000 encyclopedias do not contain random letters but letters in a very specific order- just like real encyclopedias. So as we said, if someone finds the words “John loves Mary” scratched into a beach and they know instantly that it requires an intelligent cause, why wouldn’t a message that is 1,000 encyclopedias require one? We know that natural laws never have been observed to form a scratched message on the beach or a message 1,000 encyclopedias long. (10) Both Dawkins and Francis Crick both admit that while the world shows every indication it is designed and have purpose, they add one qualification; it only looks that way. In other words, while the design is evident, it can be explained without resorting to any Designer.

For DNA to actually exist as information, there must be a cell in which it functions as information. However the cell is not made up of DNA, it is made up of proteins and it is vast array of protein structures and protein based activities that allow the genetic code to come to life. So this would mean we would need the chance generation of a multitude of protein structures as well as DNA. Since proteins are made of amino acids, they must occur in very particular sequences. Choosing a very small protein with only a very small protein with 100 amino acids we find the odds are 20 to the 100th power to one against that happening. So if we make that a little clearer, if we calculate the odds of that happening with a very modest protein, we see it is about 12,000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 to one against getting the simplest protein structure by chance. But once again, despite what we observe from the principle of uniformity, we see that Dawkins thinks Blind Chance can accomplish such a task. (11)

What becomes apparent throughout The God Delusion is that Dawkin’s science is directly related to philosophy- in this case, philosophical naturalism. And if you study the history of modern science, there was a period where the some of the founders of modern science did not allow for all causes to be explained by natural, or secondary causes. In other words, they allowed for both a primary Cause (that being God as the originator of things ) and secondary causes-the operation of the world. See more here. It is evident that Dawkin’s primary Cause is Blind Chance. Oh well!

And what about the objection-#3: “The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.”

For starters, Dawkins commits a category mistake by assigning to something a property which applies only to objects of another category. In other words, Dawkins confuses two categories- the made and the unmade. Whatever is made has composition. Obviously, from the Orthodox Christian view, God has no composition. The Hebrew word for one is “echad” which leaves room for a plurality within a unity of substance- but there is no implication of a plurality of beings or parts within a being. Scripture admonishes mankind about making any physical image of God (Exodus 20:4). God is pure spirit ( John 4:24). He has no parts and is an immaterial Being. Hence, the God of the Bible is unmade. To see a comparison between theism and some other “isms” click here:

Also, Dawkins misunderstands the law of causality which states that everything that comes to be had a cause. Since God did not come to be, he does not need an explanation. If we had to continually offer an explanation for an explanation it would lead to an infinite regress. There would be no science.

My hope and prayer is that people would move beyond the rhetoric of The God Delusion and look at the substance of Dawkin’s arguments. He has recently released a new book on evolution. James Sire once said that given Dawkin’s disdain of religion, the only thing that might change his heart is a life-changing experience. I will continue to pray for him in the days ahead.

Sources:
1. Geisler, N. L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. 1999, 125.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Craig, W.L. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Wheaton, IL: 2010, 108.
5. Geisler,25-27.
6. Penrose, R. The Emperor’s New Mind. New York:Oxford University Press, 1989, 344.
7. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 568.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Geisler N.L. and Frank Turek. I Do Not Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004, 116-119.
11. See Hahn, S. and B. Wicker. Answering The New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkin’s Case Against God. Stubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Road Publishing. 2008, 30.