The God Delusion - an Appraisal  - Chapter 2 : Pt.2

Return to Main Contents Page



This is the Chapter 2, Part 2, Page for the appraisal of the contents of

Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion.



Page Contents:









Chapter 2 Overview

"The God Hypothesis"


The chapter is divided into:


(This page covers the following)

From the above links, you will see we have left the links to the previous page, if you want to go back to remind yourself what was in the earlier part of the chapter, (and use your Browser 'back' arrow to return here) but on this page we will only cover the second half of the chapter. 


Chapter 2 - Content & Comments (Continued)


Part 5: Noma



Quote 12: p.78


non-overlapping magisteria



OVERLAP: This is an acronym coined by Stephen Jay Gould that suggests that the magisterial, or areas of competency, for science and religion cannot overlap.


In other words they are two different spheres that cannot overlap. Richard denies that and wants religion to be subject to scientific scrutiny. Well, if it comes to examining the mountain of evidence, I haven't got a problem with that. McGrath's answer puts it another way, that there can be a Poma – a partially overlapping magisterial, where “science and religion offer possibilities of cross-fertilization on account of the interpenetration of their subjects and methods.”



Quote 13: p.79


I am still amused when I recall the remark of a former Warden (head) of my oxford college. A young theologian had applied for a junior research fellowship, and his doctoral these on Christian theology provoked the Warden to say, ‘I have grave doubts as to whether it's a subject at all.'



CATTINESS: I just had to include this. This is Richard at his snide worst, which is a real shame. From his ivory tower of Oxford this seems to him such a natty comment. Unfortunately, to the rest of us, it is just a catty Warden who obviously thinks his own sphere so much superior and, being ignorant of the length and breadth of Christian theology, makes a silly, childish comment. What is sad, is that it appears here. If this book was supposed to be a serious antidote to faith, this just about puts the nail in the coffin to that idea – and there are a lot more nails to come!


For quotes of a variety of modern scientists who maintain you can have science and religion together, I leave you to read chapter 2 of The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath.



Quote 14: p.80


Why are scientists so cravenly respectful towards the ambitions of theologians, over questions that theologians are certainly no more qualified to answer than scientists themselves?



THEOLOGIANS?: This is Richard's central tenet of belief almost, that scientists are just at good as anyone else at everything else. It comes from his belief that only that which is measurable is valid. Yet he still writes in other books, trying to show that concepts such as ‘love' and ‘beauty' and ‘meaning' are still acceptable parts of the atheist's vocabulary even though they have reduced them to chemical reactions.

LINK to logical outcomes of materialistic thinking


In answer to his question above, the answer is patently that theologians have spent considerably more time than the average scientist examining the evidence and thinking out the possibilities. This comment is going to come back and haunt him a number of times before the book is finished!



Quote 15: p.80


What on Earth is a why question?   



WHY QUESTIONS: Richard seems unable to grasp the idea (although he writes about it elsewhere) that we each have this desire for meaning and purpose and love and awareness of beauty etc., and we don't want it reduced to pure molecules. It's part of being human and it's part of what makes us be kind towards one another, perform feats of heroism for one another, feel good for one another, not merely because the molecules are working that way.


Answers to key questions such as, why is this world here, what is its purpose, what is my purpose and significance, what follows it after death, are not to be found in purely molecular descriptions, or if they are, they are profoundly unsatisfactory, and that in itself is a conundrum to the material reductionist.

LINK to logical outcomes of materialistic thinking



Quote 16: p.81


Which religion anyway?



EXAMINE RELIGIONS CAREFULLY: I recognise that Richard has a problem with all religions and I would want to meet him part way, for I too have a problem with most world religions. The obvious answer is to examine them (with the scientific mind, if you like!) and see which ones hold up to careful scrutiny and which ones don't - but it does mean careful investigation, but then I would expect nothing less from any reputable scientist.


His comments are all a bit tongue in cheek, I suspect, because he immediately follows on with critical comments about the Old Testament, which we need to look at separately.



Quote 17: p.81


To which chapter then, of which book of the Bible should we turn – for they are far from unanimous and some of them are odious by any reasonable standards.



INACCURACIES: Oh my goodness! Two derogatory critical comments, both inaccurate! The first declares that the books of the Bible are far from unanimous. Now it is one of the things that scholars and searchers of the Bible, such as myself, comment upon so often – the amazing harmony that there is in these 66 books. Until he shows us some specifics we'll leave any further comment until later.



Quote 18: p.81


How many literalists have read enough of the Bible to know that the death penalty is prescribed for adultery, for gathering sticks on the Sabbath and for cheeking your parents?



LITERALISTS: I'm not quite sure what the shot about ‘literalists' is about. The fact that God meant this literally? Well if He didn't there was not much point saying it! Come on Richard why be content to settle for only three reasons for the death penalty? I can find at least twenty! You want to speak about this disparagingly? Then you need to think about this considerably more. Let's just explain a little bit – and we could do pages!


Consider the fuller picture, if you want to go on about the death penalty. Quote the whole of the Law. Point number one, there had to be at least two reliable witnesses, which meant that it wasn't done casually. Point number two, the people surrounding the offender had to put them to death by stoning. Hold on, think about it! This would be the worst thing you could ever be involved with in your life and you'd probably have nightmares for weeks or months afterwards – but the one thing you'd be sure of, was that you'd do everything in your power to make sure it never had to happen again. Result? Probably the most peaceful and law abiding community that the world has ever seen – and the death penalty virtually never happened!

Compare that society (and see all the other laws that made it like that) with our own society where family breakdown is rife, fear roams the streets, murders are regular, crime is rife and we have to cut down prison sentences because we can't cope with the number of convicted criminals. Israel didn't have prisons. They didn't need them. Their crime rate was virtually non-existent. Which of the two societies was the most civilised? Cut out the superficial moralising!



Quote 19: p.81


if we reject Deuteronomy and Leviticus (as all enlightened moderns do) by what criteria do we then decide which of religion's moral values to accept?



ENLIGHTENED LIBERALS: Who? Who are these “enlightened moderns”? They are certainly not modern scholars or if they are, they are of the prejudging ilk that says, this can't be right, it speaks of a supernatural God. No, sorry this is Richard speaking about the unbelieving clique in his ivory tower again, not the vast majority of traditional scholarship.


LINK to Appendix 6 - Mis-Use of Liberal Theologians


So what are the grounds for rejecting these two books? That we don't like the laws in them? Look again at the comment above for the previous quote.


THE LAW: Does Richard believe that these two books are the only ones that contain the Law from God? Doesn't he realise that the Ten Commandments appear in Exodus, as do a lot of other laws? Moreover, doesn't he realise that most of these laws were given to Israel because they were a nation under God and don't apply to just any nation in the world?


THE TEN COMMANDMENTS: And while we're at it, with all the derogatory comments about the Old Testament, just go through those ten commandments, put aside the ones about God himself to start with if you want to be picky, but who in their right mind would want to reject the rest, for they form the foundation of any civilised society and without them, it is questionable whether any society can be considered civilised. Indeed these laws appear all over the world in subsequent law-making of subsequent civilisations.

LINK to Do the Ten Commandments still apply?


Josh McDowell in The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, possibly one of the best resources that Richard could read, wrote of the so-called Higher Criticism of the late nineteen and early twentieth century:

Unfortunately the higher critical school that grew up out of German scholarship in the last century employed some faulty methodology and tenaciously held to some questionable presuppositions. This seriously undermined the validity of many of their conclusions.”

The following 130 pages of McDowell's work answers those defective scholars. It's a new day!



Quote 20: p.81


I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in Rock of Ages.




MEAN WHAT I MEAN: This is beginning to sound more like Alice in Wonderland now. We'll make words mean what I want them to mean, not what you want them to mean, even if you spoke them! No further comment is necessary.



Quote 21: p.82


a universe with a supernaturally intelligent creator is a very different kind of universe from one without




DIFFERENT UNIVERSES: Now this is a good comment, but not in the way that I suspect Richard means it to be. I assume by ‘intelligent' Richard also means by implication, ‘good' because that is one of the prime characteristics that the Bible declares about God. Now unfortunately Richard doesn't go into what these two would be – perhaps because he's afraid of the answer. Consider the following:


Universe with an intelligent creator:

Either made complete with no possibility of further development, so that humans already know all that is to be known (so learning is not a part of their experience), or a world brought about gradually so that humans develop and learn gradually (the Biblical picture). It would be a world of order where everything can be observed and analysed, as modern science does.

LINK to Apologetics page on the Rwevelation of God


Universe without a creator:

This is a world of total, blind chance. It will be random and chaotic. There is no reason why things should be orderly and coherent (which we now take for granted). If it can genuinely start from blind chance from nothing, then it could equally finish at any point when chance kicks in again and terminates everything. Be consistent. These are the possibilities if not probabilities.



Quote 22: p.82


The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question




CAREFUL EXAMINATION: Yes, OK, I haven't a problem with that if you like. I became a Christian on the scantiest of knowledge but a sure inner conviction that what I heard was correct. To quote a Bible translator of last century, it had ‘a ring of truth' about it. But since then, for the following forty years I have been reading and investigating the evidence that supports my initial commitment and I am now ten times more committed (if such a thing is possible) because of that evidence. I have, if you like, carried out an intelligent forty year scientific enquiry.


MIRACLES: Richard also moves on to include so-called ‘miracles'. Now I have encountered miracles in that forty years and also heard of many more from those whose integrity I utterly trust. Now if you want to be absolutely basic about this, a miracle is where atoms and molecules are changed completely contrary to their usual working and are either acted upon to produce different phenomena than usually experienced by them, or actually they are acted upon to multiply in ways contrary to the ways they usually multiply or change. Now as a non-scientist, that is my best explanation of a miracle, but I hope it relates to a scientific mind.


Our problem is that we don't understand how, for instance to quote the Gospels, water molecules can temporally change to support human feet, or how water molecules can change to have all the characteristics of wine molecules, or that the molecules of a man's skin can change instantly so that dying skin cells of leprosy can be immediately changed into healthy cells. The examples could be multiplied many times. Our scientific mind says, this can't be, because everything I know of water molecules or skin cells says they don't work like this. No, left to themselves they don't, but supposing there is some alternative form of existence that is not ‘material' that we have simply not yet discovered (how many years has modern science been at it?) and that ‘existence' has the ability to operate in that way, why is it so difficult to accept that? Especially in the light of the staggering number of such ‘supernatural' incidents that are recorded in history, old and new? Richard's knowledge and experience of these things is evidently very, very limited. Some world travel is needed.


 LINK to subject of Miracles, Appendix 5  of The Appraisal of God is Not Great  



Quote 23: p.83


NOMA is popular only because there is no evidence to favour the God Hypothesis



READ APOLOGETICS: Probably the purchase of a good book on Apologetics might help here to counter the incredible naivety of this statement. The evidence is staggering in its amount, yet I guess to the closed mind it can never be seen. I believe it was Josh McDowell who used to tell the story of a man who believed he was dead. His friends tried to convince him otherwise but failed. Eventually they took him to a doctor who listened to him and eventually said, “Do you know of the scientific truth that dead men don't bleed?” “Well yes,” said the man, “I know that's true.” With that the doctor pulled out a pin and pricked the man's skin and blood appeared. “Oh my goodness,” said the man, “dead men do bleed after all!”


Back in 1969 a Catholic by the name of Sir Arthur Lunn wrote the following in a book called Christian Counter-Attack with co-author, Garth Lean:


The main difficulty with most secularists is to persuade them to examine the case for the supernatural. Cannon J.B.Phillips  recalls in the Ring of Truth 'hundreds of conversations with people, many of them of higher intellectual calibre than myself, who quite obviously had no idea what Christianity is about.' He concluded that 'they knew virtually nothing' about the New Testament. The Resurrection 'the most important even event in human history is politely and quietly by-passed. For it is not as though the evidence had been examined and found unconvincing; it had simply never been examined.'

Little appears to change!



Quote 24: p.83


The Roman Catholic Church on the one hand….




CATHOLICS' VULNERABILITY: Sainthood within the Catholic Church is an embarrassment as Richard suggests. It is, I suggest the Achilles heel of that institution – and there is the point, it is the workings of an institution and not part of any Biblical doctrine. All his ongoing comments about the Catholic Church do, is pillory that institution but in no way say anything about God being a delusion.


However it does open the way for him to slip into comments about miracles and answers to prayer getting ready for his next assault in the next part.


Quote 25: p.84


There are motorists who believe God saves them a parking space




CHILDLIKE PRAYING: I once had a friend who used to say, “Well all I know is that when I stop praying, the coincidences stop happening.” Praying for parking spaces or whatever else for that matter is an illustration of child-like faith, which the Bible commends but Richard derides. How unfair, he logically suggests. What about all the people who don't pray? Sorry, that's their choice.

At one point in the New Testament we find: “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.” (Jas 1:5) Now wisdom is simply the knowledge of ‘how to'. It is, in this context, God speaking to us to show how to do a particular thing. All I know, as a Christian, is that there are numerous times when I have not a clue about how to proceed, I ask God and immediately start getting ideas that work! Now Richard may object to that but that's how it works – regularly. He may try to reduce it to psychological happenings but, big deal, so what, my way works! Does his?

We'll pick up more on prayer in the next section.



Quote 26: p.85


a universe in which we are alone except for other slowly evolved intelligences is a very different universe from one with an original guiding agent whose intelligent design is responsible for its very existence.




FALSE OPTIMISM: We've commented on this before, but let's add some different aspects. Richard likes to use this romantic term ‘slowly evolved intelligences' to hide the emptiness of his position. It sounds like the human race is developing and improving – an optimistic viewpoint which is denied by the horrendous activities around the world (not in the name of religion!) over the past hundred years. It is estimated that there have been more premature violent deaths in this period than in any other period of history - and this is supposed to be in a time of history following what is called The Enlightenment!


Yet again he fails to reveal what he means by these distinctions. He may be clear in his mind but he has not conveyed it. Perhaps he will as we proceed.


Return to top of page



Part 6: The Great Prayer Experiment



Quote 27: p.85


An amusing, if rather pathetic, case study in miracles is the Great Prayer Experiment.




A GOOD EXPERIMENT: The first thing to say here is that I am surprised at his derogatory opening about this experiment which seemingly was carried out on strictly scientific grounds. Somebody came up with a hypothesis, tested it out and found it didn't work. Back to the drawing board! So what?


PRAYER: Our ignorance about prayer is just that, ignorance! I have pondered it for forty years and I can come up with just a few simple conclusions:

1. Most of the prayers recorded in the Bible are prayers in crisis. That might be what Oxford Theologian Richard Swinburne, who Richard quotes, meant when he spoke of ‘good reasons'. i.e. God looks for reality rather than ritual.

2. Prayer and answers to prayer are natural and not mechanical. There is no ABC of prayer logic. Perhaps this actually points more to the existence of a Personality than anything else. If prayer worked mechanically then, yes, you don't need a God, you have a mechanical system.

3. If we have, as the Bible says, a benign, all-wise and all-knowing God, then we must trust His intelligence over ours as to why we only sometimes get apparently positive answers to prayer. Sorry, I realise that is faith built on knowledge that comes from reading and experience.



Quote 28: p.88


in other parts of his paper Swinburne himself is beyond satire




STRUGGLING THEOLOGIANS: Richard identifies Swinburne as a theologian. Theologians try to order and understand the apparent ‘mysteries' and ‘big issues' of the universe – and don't always do a good job of it. Richard quotes this theologian on the problem of suffering where he presents some suggestion as to why God allows suffering. I would suggest that Swinburne omits the primary causes of suffering and only tries to pick up on some of the possible benefits that could come out of suffering.


BASICS OF EVIL: The basic doctrine of evil in the Bible starts out with the idea that evil is simply what mankind does wrong, and what emanates from that. The ‘doing wrong' is rejecting God and rejecting His design for mankind so we live in ways directly contrary to that design. When we do that, things ‘go wrong'. An observation of our own society is a good illustration of that.


The second point to be observed is that when God designed man, He gave us free will which He is hesitant to breach. Some rather unthinking individuals say, why didn't God make it so that we couldn't ‘do wrong'. That makes us robots and any thought about this for more than a few seconds realises that 'free will' could not be a characteristic we could have, and that would impinge on everything else we do as well.

Others, equally unthinking, say, so why couldn't He step in and stop men doing wrong? OK, stop murder, yes? Rape? Yes. Er, hitting people? Er…yes. Speaking nastily about people? Er…. Suddenly we realise there can be no cut-off point. One minute we're thinking about really bad people, the next about ourselves. Again, if you ask God to stop us doing, saying or thinking anything we might deem wrong, we've become robots, less than human beings, and we wouldn't want that!


The third point to observe when thinking about ‘evil' is that it is the cost of us being granted free will. When theologians and Bible teachers speak about 'The Fall', they refer to the point in time when the first two genuine human beings rejected God and everything else was affected. From that point on, things went wrong. But that didn't mean that it had to continue going wrong, as the whole history of Israel in the Old Testament, and the Church in the New Testament, reveals. A relationship with God can mean re-establishing the good, and that in turn has very practical implications for the world.


The fourth point to observe is what Swinburne was trying to say, that while we live in this Fallen World, yet we can still get value even out of pain. This is not to relish it or want it or applaud it, but simply to say that things like patience, perseverance and endurance are human characteristics which have been applauded in the past, and they only develop in the face of such difficulties as we face in this Fallen World.


LINK to pages on The Problem of Evil`


INABILITY TO HEAR: With these comments in mind, it is also worth observing that sometimes the clutter of our lives prevents us sensing God. Christian psychotherapist and writer, Larry Crabb, in his book about the Christian community entitled The Safest Place on Earth noted the following:

‘When my brother died in a plane crash, one speaker at the memorial service said this: “Don't be afraid to ask the hardest questions that rise up in your soul. But don't expect answers. Expect rather to experience God.” But that doesn't always happen, at least not right away, and perhaps not in the form we think it should.'

This is absolutely true. In the crisis we cry out but it appears so often that God seems to remain silent – because He knows that in pain, rational answers don't satisfy. Instead, somewhere along the path we become aware of God's presence and that is sufficient in itself, but the atheist will not be able to understand that, for it is one of the things to be experienced and not defined.


TAKE RESPONSIBILITY: A final point that is worth making here is that Richard never owns up to the responsibility of a world without a God. This world does go wrong, it is sometimes difficult, people are often nasty (even very intelligent people – that's why, to give a simple example, divorces occur), and despite incredible scientific and technological advances of recent centuries, we still continue like this. If there is no God, you have no one to blame; you just have a thoroughly nasty world which is depressing with no hope. Honour your conclusions please.


Quote 29: p.90


we've seen prayer works, we know it works




PRAYER THAT WORKS: Richard cites a certain Bob Barth from America and then derides his comments with “if the evidence fails to show we'll just soldier on until we finally get the result we want.” Well actually, no, that's not what he said. All he said was, we know it works, not like this prayer experiment, but in our own different experiences.


ANNOYING TESTIMONY: I feel sorry for our author here. He is just like religious leaders in Jesus' day, who came across a man who had been blind by birth and who had been healed and given sight by Jesus. These religious people had beliefs different to God (like our professor) and they were convinced that this was absolutely impossible, so they berated the man who can now see. Eventually after all their badgering the man came out with this statement: “One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!” (Jn 9:25). It was like he was saying, “I'm sorry I don't understand it, but it happened!” and for the skeptic that is truly sickening!


Return to top of page



Part 7: The Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists


Quote 30: p.91


evolution is in the front-line trench




FRIENDS TOGETHER: A summary of this section might be “let's be friends together against Creationists” In it Richard fires on his own colleagues, scientists who purport to be atheists but who see religion as non-threatening or science as non-threatening to religion. All this section does is show that scientists are divided among themselves and so I'm not making any further comment, beyond this: if a whole lot of scientists say it is not an open and shut case, why should Richard be right? His case in this short section does not reveal him as the Moses of the Scientific world, standing on Mount Sinai with THE answers.

LINK to Appendix 4 Evolution Quotes


Return to top of page



Part 8: Little Green Men



Quote 31: p.94 in outer space…




ALIENS: This last section might be summarised, I believe, as this: the odds are that there might be aliens out there and if they have super powers beyond anything we know of, or can comprehend, they could be gods. Here we join the school of freaky scientists, of whom there have been some, who have suggested that we are the result of aliens and that Jesus was an alien. Well, OK that's not quite what Richard is saying but not far from it. Within this section he comes in again with his mantra, “the God question is not in principle and forever outside the remit of science.” It is then that he goes on to postulate about super aliens and suggest that they too would be subject to scientific investigation, however great they may be to our eyes today.


Well, highly speculative stuff which does nothing whatsoever to pull down the historic evidence for Christianity. These have been an interesting forty eight pages of this chapter but they somehow seem to have completely missed the point and are nothing to do with the title of the book. Perhaps better things will follow.


Return to top of page




NB. In what follows Q stand for ‘Quote'


Part 5: Noma


The point about NOMA is that science and religion don't overlap, at least that is what Stephen Jay Gould maintains and Richard disputes. It is an area that scientists will no doubt continue to argue over for many a year, but it is important to Richard because he believes God must be open to scientific scrutiny. Perhaps in the next world he may be right - or perhaps he may be open to the fullest of scrutiny!


Along the way I have pointed out that:

  • I have no problem with the evidence being scrutinised scientifically. (Q.12)
  • Alister McGrath suggests there can be partial overlapping of the two. (Q.12)
  • Using snide quotes from obvious unbelievers does nothing to enhance the intellectual case we are waiting for him to make. (Q.13)
  • There is a scientific dishonesty in atheistic scientists who seek to create meaning and purpose our of purposeless chemical reactions. Moreover in a competition for who has thought most about these things, theologians win hands down over scientists. (Q.14)
  • ‘Why' questions are valid because we all have a desire for meaning and significance that goes beyond pure molecular activity. (Q.15)
  • Questioning of religions is valid and may certainly be resolved by clear investigation. (Q.16)
  • Richard reveals a great lack of knowledge and understanding about the Old Testament (Q.17)
  • This is especially revealed in his lack of thought about the Law (Q.18)
  • It is further revealed in his lack of understanding about which books have the Law (Q.19)
  • He simply writes off a colleague because he dares to say something contrary to Richard's beliefs. (Q.20)
  • He fails to follow up the consequences of a world without God. (Q.21)
  • He fails to think through the logic of miracles (Q.22)
  • He fails to understand the many evidences that are put forward in Apologetics (Q.23)
  • He has to resort to negative comments about the institutional side of Roman Catholicism, which many of us question anyway. Even these, though, say nothing about belief in God being a delusion. (Q.24)
  • Trying to scientifically analyse two people's conversations after it has happened and what happens as a result, is a futile exercise. (Q.25)
  • Leaning on ‘evolved intelligence' is embarrassing in the light of the world's recent history. (Q.26)


Part 6: The Great Prayer Experiment


Within this section Richard maintains that scientific verification of prayer doesn't work by citing a particular experiment that clearly didn't work out. He takes to task various theologians etc. trying to justify the experiment's answers.


Along the way I have pointed out that:

  • He is upset by a legitimate scientific experiment about prayer, that obviously didn't work. There is a lot more to prayer than he realises (Q.27)
  • There is considerably more to the problem of pain than he has thought through (Q.28)
  • It is impossible to argue with a person who has encountered a miracle. (Q.29)


Part 7: The Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists


This section could be subtitled, ‘Friends together against Creationists' and I have simply pointed out that this is a battle between scientists and has little to do with the main theme. (Q.30)



Part 8: Little Green Men


This is about the possibility of other advanced worlds, advanced aliens appearing godlike to us. I'm not sure how it is supposed to do away with the concept of the One God who is Creator-Sustainer of this present world and all of existence. (Q.31)



Overall Comment:


In this chapter, as seen on this and the previous page there seems very little to do with historic Biblical Christianity. Having seen in the media many of the supporting comments for Richard's writings, what I have found here conforms exactly with the image of those supporters. It is ironic that Richard so often berates believers for being ignorant and unthinking, and yet this is exactly what is conveyed by Richard's supporters in the media and indeed, his own writing in this long chapter.


To try to summarise my key criticisms of the things he says in this chapter they must include:


  • his failure to accept the philosophical, logical conclusions of his own position,
  • his use of snide comments by other unbelievers also exhibiting lack of knowledge about both the Bible and the Christian faith,
  • his own similar lack of knowledge,
  • his attack on half-believers, unsure believers, and his own colleagues who don't agree with him.


It is the last point that I find most strange because it makes him appear like a Don Quixote tilting against the shadows of windmills, not even the windmills themselves. I realise that Cervantes' windmills weren't what Don Quixote thought they were, but it just seems that Richard has been aiming at something so widely disparate from the title of his book, that that seems the only analogy possible. Sorry!


Return to top of page