The Ramblings of a Deluded Mind

[s0teric]

Had to write a paper a while back on a book of my choice, so I chose the God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. I wanted to see if you all think I am sane when refuting Dawkins's arguments. I aptly entitled it "The Ramblings of a Deluded Mind". I deal wi th the first couple hundred pages of the book in this essay, addressing the main thrusts of his arguments against Christianity, and his arguments for natural selection as its replacement. This was a paper for an ethics class, with specific questions that I was required to answer. Simply keep that in mind when reading, say, the conclusion. Here you are, then.

The Ramblings of a Deluded Mind

When reading the back cover of the book “The God Delusion”, one finds a hint of truth, of which one cannot find within its pages. The back cover reads, “In the roiling debate between science and religion, it would be hard to exaggerate the enormous influence of Richard Dawkins.” From this quote one can conclude two things. The first is that people believe that science and religion are discordant. The second conclusion is that Richard Dawkins is a very influential person. The latter is evident, as it is a New York Times Bestseller. Therefore, many people must have read his work. However, Dawkins’ supposed “refutation” of God leaves much room for thought. As one digests the theories that Dawkins puts forth for his standpoint, questions must be asked and considered in order to come to a conclusion about his theses.

The goal of this book is to steer people away from religion and toward hardcore atheism, in the matter of a couple hundred pages. In the first couple chapters of Dawkin’s book, he puts words in the mouths of dead people, explains how all of the founding fathers were Deists, and refutes a separate coexistence of science and religion (Non-Overlapping Magisteria). During these two chapters there is much name calling and very little evidence. If he provides examples, they are so obscure and misrepresentative, that they are not worth mentioning. However, when one reaches the third chapter he begins his refutation of the existence of God, which is the dilemma Dawkins attempt to address. He starts with arguments for God’s existence. The most notable of these arguments are Aquinas’ Proofs, arguments from scripture, and Pascal’s Wager.

First there are Aquinas’ Proofs. This set of proofs rely on the idea of an infinite regress. The argument states that there needs to be a mover in order for a thing to move. This would lead us to ask the question, “Who moved that mover?” Dawkins seizes this opportunity and applies it to God. He says that God is subject to this same logic and goes on to quote Karen Owens who says, “Can omniscient God, who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change His future mind?” He continues to state that if one is to conjure up an end to an infinite regress, why give it such attributes as omnipotence? However, what Dawkins fails to realize, is that God legitimizes his own existence through his attributes. If He is an eternal, infinite, omnipotent God, then He has always existed. If such a God is all knowing and has always existed, He will not change his future mind, as he is not bound by time. He created it. Even if He were bound by time, being all knowing he would consistently choose that which is within his own character, that being perfection. In that sense, God’s character legitimizes His own existence, while His existence defines His character. As a result, God is not subject to this infinite regress, as he circularly legitimizes His own existence.

The second argument that Dawkins attempts to refute is the argument from scripture. The specific aspect Dawkins is arguing against is the legitimacy of Jesus and his Deity. He references C.S. Lewis’s trilemma, which says that based on Jesus’s life, he must have been either a lunatic, a liar, or Lord. However, Dawkins attempts to throw the Bible’s accuracy into question, in an attempt to deconstruct this argument. He claims that our four gospels were written long after the events actually took place. He makes this claim without a scrap of evidence to support it. He also makes the claim that the Bible was copied and recopied by biased and fallible scribes. These arguments can simply be refuted through archeological evidence. Copies of the Gospels were discovered within 50 years of the time of their origin. Moreover, several thousand have been discovered within 100 years of their writing, all containing only minor wording differences. If this is the case, then if changes had been made, they could be refuted by eyewitnesses, or those with the original copy. Also, based on the history of Jewish societies, Jewish scribes copied with such scrutiny that if an error was made, they would rewrite as much as several pages. This was because these lines had touched the error, and to remove it they rewrote large amounts of text to ensure its accuracy. Lastly, based on evidence such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians have evidence, not previously available, that confirms the accuracy of books dating back to 700 B.C. The book of Isaiah was found and is considered to be one of the first copies and is almost an exact replica of what Christians have today. This only further illustrates that Jewish scribes were, indeed, not biased, but extremely scrutinous.

The last argument Dawkins attempts to refute is Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s Wager states that the atheist has everything to lose if he is wrong and nothing to gain if he is right. The inverse is true for the Christian. Dawkins’s conception of this argument is that he merely sees it as a bet. However, it is more than that. It is a tool to point out inconsistencies in the atheist’s worldview. As a result of this misconception he continues to say that if one follows this argument one can only ever feign belief in God. This is true, as one is only believing in God out of self preservation. He also raises the question why is it that one has to believe in Him, as opposed to some other act. Next, he postulates that if there are multiple gods, wouldn’t it be safer to assume no god rather than choose the wrong god? Finally, Dawkins introduces his superior Anti-Pascal Wager which claims that one can live a better life assuming God doesn’t exist than if one assumes He does. First, if God exists, one should believe because he instructs us to. He has done so in the Bible. As to Dawkin’s second argument, it is based on conviction as well as discretion. I believe conviction and evidence are what causes us to choose a god. Conviction being the dominant factor, reason only demonstrates the lucidity of that conviction. Even so, if that god has not made his desires known, that one may please him, his judgment is inevitable. This is assuming the god wants something and he is capable and exercises his judgment. Therefore, choosing a god based on conviction and evidence is all one can do. Lastly, Dawkins’s Anti-Pascal Wager displays Dawkins’s inability to answer the question. A refutation of that argument would go something like, if one seeks a better life, he should avoid suffering of any kind. If ultimate suffering is waiting for him after his life, it is to his benefit to believe, as if one truly chooses the most beneficial action, then it is impossible to wind up with the worst form of suffering. Therefore, the most beneficial action is to believe in God, contrary to what Dawkins states. This is, by the way, a simple restatement of Pascal’s Wager.

In addition to refuting the Christian’s arguments, Dawkins attempts to give evidence for his own viewpoints. Much of his evidence hinges on one principle. That principle states that the more complex something is, the more unlikely that it exists. Since God is infinitely complex he would be infinitely unlikely, based on this principle. However, as was stated earlier, God can’t be unlikely. He legitimizes his own existence, so either he exists or he doesn’t. From this point one is only left to judge by the evidence. Since, this was practically the only thing Darwin established to prove the unlikelihood of Christianity, the odds shift heavily in favor of Christianity. This is illustrated by Dawkins himself when he quotes the 747 argument. This is an argument developed by a Christian scientist named Fred Hoyle who measured the statistical likelihood of evolution. He equates evolution to a hurricane sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a fully functional 747 passenger plane. This, however, doesn’t even do the argument justice, as it assumes there are materials to work with, which an atheist cannot assume such a thing. Dawkins also puts forth the notion that natural selection is not a matter of chance. Natural selection, being the means that humans evolved. He actually gives no evidence that it is a guided process. He merely expresses his opinions on how he believes it is the only logical conclusion. These are Dawkins’s arguments for his own viewpoints.

Through this book Dawkins changes many lives. This simple fact is concerning, as there is much one can question in his thinking. Taking the time simply to simply think over his propositions may reveal his inconsistencies. The book is for anyone and everyone who is seeking truth, and it unfortunately gives some a false truth. The book is beneficial for those mature enough, in their faith and reasoning, to have good reason not to side with Dawkins. This is because Dawkins puts forth arguments that requires knowledge of Christian doctrine to refute. A certain familiarity of scripture and maturity are required to read this book and benefit from it. This book would not be beneficial to someone having doubts about the legitimacy of Christianity, as it may supplement them. This could sway them to make a decision without properly thinking it over and abandon their only source of truth and life. This book gives a good overview of what an atheist believes and their views on Christianity. If one is to minister to an atheist, this book is beneficial to understand their point of view. That is the context in which this book should be read.

[Monad-Gnostis]

This story it holds meaning to plenty people who may be having a hard time realizing what life mandates of them, but I dont believe you should go through life not suffering over anything, because if you dont suffer then how will you be proud of living a human life?

[s0teric]

This story it holds meaning to plenty people who may be having a hard time realizing what life mandates of them, but I dont believe you should go through life not suffering over anything, because if you dont suffer then how will you be proud of living a human life?

which story?

[Monad-Gnostis]

which story?

Not wich story, but, wich life, I find living one of the hardest things to go through, and I'm not even 21 yet, but I'm going to try and find out if things can be intervened if necessary.