I recently read Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins, in case you don’t know, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University in England. He is an evolutionary biologist, and radical Atheist.
In this book, he goes to great lengths to paint the Christian faith as “irrational and potentially deadly,” while depicting Christians as ignorant oafs. I am not sure I have ever read a book more directly insulting to those who believe in God. Of course, he doesn’t limit his disgust to Christianity, he has the same revulsion toward any person who believes in any god.
As I read his book, it became very clear to me that Dawkins is, himself, the one who is delusional. Now don’t take this wrong. In saying he is delusional, I do not mean to imply in any way that he is an ignorant person. Quite the opposite. He is, obviously, a very intelligent man and is quite well read. That said, the evidence he produces and the conclusions he draws literally shout against the truth of his pronouncements.
To begin with, he positively asserts that natural selection is proof that a creator is not needed to account for life as it currently exists on earth. He states that once a life form initially comes into being, natural selection is perfectly capable of creating the variety of life forms that have come to exist. Well, there are a couple of deadly problems with his assertion.
The first problem has to do with the initial existence of life itself. He admits that there is no actual science to account for how it happened, but insists, based purely on his naturalistic beliefs, that it must be possible because here we are – and, there is no other possibility. He then goes on to account for it happening based on probability. There is no science to back it up, just his belief that it had to be that way because he accepts no other possibility.
The second problem is that he makes no distinction between micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution is what is generally known as natural selection. It is the small changes that happen within a particular type of organism as it adapts to its environment. Botanists and farmers actually tap into this process to create varieties of plants and animals that emphasize different characteristics. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is the evolutionist’s belief that evolution can move beyond natural selection to allow less complex organisms to develop into more complex life forms in a way that is able to account for all of the life forms that now exist in the world.
Dawkins, for his part, sees the process as one and the same, lumping both micro and macro evolution all under natural selection. This is actually the common belief of pretty much all of the people who believe in naturalistic evolution. They believe that evolution is a continuous process, and are convinced that even making a distinction between micro and macro evolution is improper. Again, however, Dawkins has no scientific basis for making this claim. His reasoning is that there simply is no other possibility, because Naturalism is true. The truth is though, there is no biological mechanism known to man that demonstrates even the possibility of macro evolution.
Once he establishes his premise, Dawkins then uses most of the rest of his book to attack the beliefs of Christians by misinterpreting the Bible, overgeneralizing concerning both science and the Bible, misinterpreting history, and simply accusing Christians of being stupid and delusional. In his musings about the creator, he talks as if God himself must be governed by the laws of the natural universe, and claims that if he really existed, we could account for him and his work using science. And as for his treatment of the Bible, Dawkins asserts that it is not true because it is not based on naturalistic beliefs – and all of this without ever even trying to validate naturalistic beliefs. He thinks it does not need validation because it simply is represents the way reality is actually structured. In fact, he is so dismissive of any belief that does not correspond with his own, that he will not even debate those who disagree with him (personally, I think he is just afraid of being shown up).
Expanding a little more on Dawkins’ claims, his arguments don’t even adhere to the criteria of his own worldview beliefs. He blasts Christians for believing things not based on science, then promotes a different set of beliefs that are not based on science. He accuses Christians of believing in a “God of the gaps” (where he says Christians simply attribute everything not yet understood by science to the work of God), while at the same time advocating for a “nature of the gaps” (where he acknowledges that there is a lot science cannot account for, but claims that we will figure it all out when science advances far enough). His belief is no less a faith (religious) position than Christian beliefs.
It is important to understand, though, that the information that has been shared here about Dawkins are not limited to him. This point of view is quite widespread. In fact, I recently posted a video about Dawkins’ beliefs on the MarketFaith Ministries website (http://www.marketfaith.org/2020/02/the-evolution-delusion) saying many of the things I have shared here. While my videos are produced specifically for the website, they are hosted on YouTube and the public can view them there. When I posted this one, almost immediately I had people attacking me for saying belief in naturalistic evolution is not true. One of these people went the whole nine yards insulting my intelligence, disrespecting me personally, and attempted to defend naturalistic philosophy. Interestingly, he used almost the exact same arguments as Dawkins used in his book.
I would be remiss if I didn’t go on and share a little more about the implications of this belief. While the most common direct arguments tend to concern the Theory of Evolution, the implications of a naturalistic worldview extend much further. In fact, all of the social sciences as taught in most public schools and universities are attempts to use naturalistic presuppositions to understand other parts of life and society.
To these people religion is not a real thing because they believe the natural universe is all that exists – there is no God. So, when they look at the topic of religion, they say it exists simply because there is some advantage to the survival of the human species by having religious beliefs – even if the advantage is difficult to determine. They fully believe that religion is false on its face, and once individuals understand that, there is nothing left but to try to understand why this kind of useless thinking exists. They apply the same principle to human social development, human psychology, the development of law, and on and on. Every part of human existence is analyzed as if it emerged in human society merely as a means for giving some kind of survival advantage to humanity.
But it all goes back to whether or not naturalistic belief is true. If it is, then Dawkins and his followers are right, and human beings are nothing more than animal creatures with a highly evolved brain. Based on this belief, there is no such thing as God or any kind of transcendent reality. There is, though, no scientific evidence that can prove that to be true – and Naturalism requires that kind of proof. And until Naturalists like Dawkins can show it to be true, their beliefs are nothing more than an assertion of their “beliefs” – it is a religious position. Dawkins likes to bash Christians and talk about how people are delusional who believe in God. But in fact, it is Dawkins who is delusional with his beliefs about evolution that cannot be supported by his own belief requirements.
© 2020 Freddy Davis