The
God Delusion: An Overview, Chapter by Chapter
Chapter
1: A deeply religious non-believer
This
chapter simply points out that various scientists you might have previously
thought were Christians were probably (possibly?) not. There have
been lots of arguments by all sides as to whether some of these famous
men were atheists or theists. The jury is still out and will remain
out.
The
chapter goes on to demand that religion shouldn't warrant the respect
that is so often given to it. As an opening round to suggest belief
in God is delusional, it is a total non-event. It doesn't go anywhere
near the subject. Perhaps he doesn't mean it to.
Return
to top of page
Chapter
2: The God Hypothesis (a
big chapter of 48 pages)
This
starts out by insulting God, saying a few brief things about Polytheism,
even less about Monotheism, then suggests that America wasn't founded
on Christian faith, and says that agnosticism is a poor place to stop.
I
cover that on one page and note a complete lack of understanding of
historic Christian faith by Dawkins, an inappropriate use of quotes
by others who are similarly uninformed, and observe that his only
means of scoring points validly seems to be pointing fingers at the
Catholic Church.
In
the second half of the chapter he goes to great lengths to say that
religion should be subject to the scrutiny of science. I haven't got
a problem with that as far as it can go, so what's the point of it?
He derides an experiment in prayer that shows you can't experiment
with prayer, he chews up his colleagues who should be uniting against
Creationists, and ends up speculating about advanced alien races.
Again
as a second round to suggest belief in God is delusional, it is, again,
a total non-event and again, it doesn't go anywhere near the subject.
So far he has done nothing to show that belief in God is a delusion!
Return
to top of page
Chapter
3: Arguments for God's Existence
Here
Richard first fires at Thomas Aquinas and Anselm, both scholars in
the church of an earlier age, neither of whom sought to provide proofs
as Richard suggests, but merely show that orthodox Christian belief
is reasonable in a philosophical way, so the first two parts of this
chapter were missed shots. He then moves on to decry the argument
that there must be a God because of beauty, but again misses the point
that is one of the clear distinctions between atheism and faith. A
further ‘missed shot'!
His
next port of call is ‘Christian experience' which he puts down as
mind games, and in no way explains the multitude or variety of experiences
which he doesn't in any way even think about. Missed shot number four.
He then moves on to deride Scripture but all he manages to do is reveal
his dubious sources – Gnostic theologians – and his own paucity of
knowledge of the Bible. A definite shot in the foot! From there he
considers the variety of scientists, from believers to unbelievers,
with little point, and concludes with two pointless and meaningless
short parts, one of which he acknowledges is a bit of a joke and the
other of no substance. Rather odd really.
Alister
McGrath summarised this chapter by saying, “He
is clearly out of his depth, and achieves little by his brief and
superficial engagements with these great perennial debates, which
often simply cannot be resolved empirically.” As a chapter
that is supposed to form a serious part of an argument against a belief
in God, it is rather like steam coming out of a kettle which quickly
dissipates and is lost without effect.
Return
to top of page
Chapter
4: Why there is almost certainly no God
McGrath
describes this chapter as “a loosely collated
series of assertions” and a “rambling pastiche” which is “poorly structured,
making it quite difficult to follow the basic argument which seems
to be an expansion of the ‘who made God, then?' question.”
And that's an academic speaking!
It
is a strange chapter that starts out with an enticing suggestion that
he has a new theory to win our hearts, but it takes a while for him
to tell us that it is about raising our consciousness in respect of
natural selection. He ranges over the areas of intelligent design
and the outdated idea of the 'God of the Gaps' and then ensues a long
and convoluted argument whereby by the most illogical logic of statistics
tries to (unsuccessfully) con us into believing in the staggering
improbability of life coming into being from nowhere! He concludes
with some recollections from Cambridge.
In
this chapter it is the bizarre use of statistics that stands out.
Not in a million years, sorry a billion, billion years does his argument
go anywhere near proving the title of the chapter.
Return
to top of page
Chapter
5: The Roots of Religion
This,
intriguingly, is a chapter about anthropology from a biologist, which
may be why it is so speculative. If you ever read this chapter, please
note the absence of valid scientific evidence and the amazing amount
of speculation. He takes us down a path to explain how mechanically
natural selection created religious ideas. However 'ideas' have always
seemed to me to be things that can change easily, so this argument
held even less water than the previous chapter. (read Appendix
7 - Philosophy or Science)
He
tries to show how the benefits of religion could get built in through
our genes, which seems embarrassing for him as he has to acknowledge
benefits. To offset that he goes through tortuous speculations that
are quite unconvincing and which leads one to conclude a biologist
should not venture into speculative anthropology.
Return
to top of page
Chapter
6: The Roots of Morality. Why we are Good
This
chapter starts off with hate mail but soon moves on to speculations
about why we should be good, and Richard isn't too sure! He
gives us four reasons from watching animals, why for self-serving
purposes we may be good, but that doesn't leave a very good taste
in the mouth. He goes on to show good examples of how people deliberate
over moral issues and concludes that you don't have to believe in
God to be moral, to which I ask, who said you did? The Christian (Biblical)
idea of us all being moral beings made in the image of God
means we wonder why he wasted his time writing this chapter. It seems
because he wanted to convince himself you could be moral without God.
We could have reassured him if he had asked.
In
his last part he reveals again his lack of understanding about Christianity
as he wonders if Christians are always trying to please God. He naively
thinks that mankind doesn't need policing but does give illustrations
of how lawlessness broke out when law was removed. When he speaks
about absolutes he accepts that there can't be absolutes without God,
so his (not so scientific) logic says well there can't be absolutes.
He is left with fluctuating standards, usually on a downward spiral.
Most unsatisfactory. Along the way he gets into a complete twist trying
to be an economic-sociologist, and fails because he is a biologist
in foreign fields! Again a very messy, unclear and confused set of
thinking that produces a very unsatisfactory chapter for anyone who
will bother to think about the issues raised.
Return
to top of page
Chapter
7: The 'Good' Book
Have
you ever watched someone trying to sing in public who clearly cannot
sing? You sit there squirming thinking, "You really shouldn't
be doing that!" I'm afraid that's what I'm left feeling
about this chapter. If your knowledge of the Bible is sketchy you
might think what he says is wonderful - but it's not, it's tragic.
In a long Part on the Old Testament he gives a series of examples
of people who totally got it wrong and a number who he just didn't
understand, with the aim of showing that we don't get our morals from
them. To which I answer, "So?" No one studying the Bible
does that, so I'm afraid I've had to spend a lot of time explaining
this. If you are unsure of your Bible, then please read these pages
(it stretches over two pages) carefully. He then displays either his
ignorance or his lack of understanding in the New Testament. It is
a painful experience. (For basic genuine Christian beliefs you might
like to go to Appendix 2)
Return
to top of page
Chapter
8: What's Wrong with Religion? Why be so Hostile?
At
the outset Richard seeks to excuse his rudeness by comparing himself
favourably with religious bombers. It doesn't make him less rude!
He feels strongly that believers in the Bible will reject the evidence
of science in favour of the book and cites a confused American scientist
to support his thesis. He doesn't understand that there isn't a conflict.
He makes sweeping and derogatory statements about such believers.
He cites extremes of religion in Islam and in America to bolster his
argument but ignores the vast middle ground of Christianity. A very
poor way of arguing.
He
starts a discussion on homosexuality that is one-sided and biased.
He moves on to talk about abortion and euthanasia and makes a number
of points that those in the Christian world would do well to consider
as the 'think-through' to intelligent assessments of the subjects.
He shows how the stories about Beethoven used to bolster the sanctity
of life position, are urban legend. Finally he declares he will show
how even moderation leads to fanaticism but all he can quote meaningfully
are the Islamic bombers of Britain.
Return
to top of page
Chapter
9: Childhood abuse and escape from religion
Starting
from an account of a nineteenth century abduction, he moves into a
discussion about protecting children from the mental abuse of religion,
cites bad examples of over-zealous religious extremists, berates a
Christian school in England for having a science department that dares
to mention an alternative to evolution, declares against labelling
children and ignoring their cultural upbringing but concludes with
a desire for the Bible to be taught as literature without realising
that it is all about God and that some will see the truth if they
read it. A messy and scrappy chapter that uses extremists to make
his point and shows that he will brook no challengers to his beloved
'evolution'.
Return
to top of page
Chapter
10: A much needed gap
He
ponders on whether religion fills a gap and wonders if something else
would do it as well. He suggests that belief in God may have come
about by the desire children have for an imaginary friend but fails
to realise that such friends tend to be like us, whereas God is staggeringly
different. He acknowledges that religion does console people
in need and talks optimistically about death without realising its
significance.
He
speaks about euthanasia again and talks about Christians who fear
death, and that group who believe in purgatory. In these he doesn't
see the significance behind such fear or the fact that purgatory is
only an add-on belief for Catholics only. He goes to speak about inspiration
without religion but really has nothing to say. He finishes the book
with a picture of reality as being much much bigger than any of us
realise. Yet really none of this has anything to say about the belief
in God being a delusion. A very weak and disappointing chapter to
conclude the book.