Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins (Review of "The God Delusion")

Answers in Genesis ^ | November 27, 2006 | Paul Taylor

For my part, I was looking forward to encountering an intellectual
challenge

Ignorance of Scripture

In his arguments against
Christianity, he makes much use of Scripture. However, his use of
Scripture is highly suspect. It appears that he has done very little
research into the structure or history of the Bible.

This is unsurprising, as almost every statement he makes on
the Bible reveals that he has not approached it with an open mind.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant

in all fiction. (p. 31)
Statements like this are loaded with prejudice.

That an intelligent man like Dawkins was so skimpy on
his biblical research is incredible.

One is reminded of Paul's
quotation of the Psalms in 1 Corinthians 3:20: "The Lord knows the
thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."

We need to study a few examples of this lack of research regarding
Scripture.

The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status

minimal. (p. 92)

None of this is very difficult to research, and
Dawkins should have done so.

Notice Dawkins' misunderstanding of the lineage of Jesus.

In any case, if Jesus really was born of a virgin, Joseph's ancestry
is irrelevant and cannot be used to fulfill, on Jesus' behalf, the
Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah should be descended from

(p. 95)
Luke's gospel has a genealogy in chapter 3, which most commentators
agree is the descent of Jesus through Mary.

Space does not permit further examination of his errors in handling
Scripture, save to mention that the dreadful account of the horrific
events of Judges 19 are not recorded to imply God's approval, as
Dawkins thinks.

Rather, they show the depths to which God's people
are able to stoop when they reject Him.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1745411/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1745411/posts
Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins (Review of "The God Delusion")
Answers in Genesis ^ | November 27, 2006 | Paul Taylor
Posted on 11/28/2006 3:10:08 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger

Have you ever wondered why an atheist believes what he/she does?
Richard Dawkins wants you to know why he is an atheist. Dawkins, the
Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford
University, is arguably the world's best-known atheist. He is not
just any old atheist, however; he is atheism's great televangelist.

This year, he has been on the road throughout the UK and the US,
appearing on talk shows and news interviews. He had two hours of
prime-time television on the UK's Channel 4 network in January 2006.
In these programs (entitled The Root of All Evil?), Dawkins sought to
persuade his audience of the importance of his case-that not only
should his audience not believe in God, but they should actively oppose
any form of religion. (I reviewed these programs previously.) It was
not only evangelical Christians who were critical of the programs.
Writing in The Guardian, a left-leaning UK newspaper not noted for its
support of creationists, Madeleine Bunting described the documentaries
as "intellectually lazy polemic."1

With the publication of his new book, The God Delusion, we now have an
expanded version of his atheist manifesto. One would have hoped that he
would have taken the opportunity to present a more intellectually
rigorous case. Indeed, some may have been afraid of opening the book,
in case the sheer weight of evidence might have destroyed their faith.
For my part, I was looking forward to encountering an intellectual
challenge-but sadly I was to be disappointed. The book suffers from
the same intellectual laziness as the television programs.

Dawkins' arguments, far from having intellectual clout, mostly fall
back on, "The argument will be so familiar, I needn't document it
further." Dawkins' paucity of argument is best illustrated by his
ignorance of Scripture and by his faulty logic.

Ignorance of Scripture

Although The God Delusion is ostensibly about all religions, in
practice it is about Christianity-and evangelical Christianity in
particular is the focus of Dawkins' attacks. In his arguments against
Christianity, he makes much use of Scripture. However, his use of
Scripture is highly suspect. It appears that he has done very little
research into the structure or history of the Bible. This is
unsurprising, as almost every statement he makes on the Bible reveals
that he has not approached it with an open mind.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character
in all fiction. (p. 31)
Statements like this are loaded with prejudice. He goes on to make
several more specific accusations about the character of God. Most of
his accusations are unsubstantiated. Some are due to Dawkins' own
presuppositions about what is right and wrong (for example, his
accusation that God is "homophobic"), some are due to his failure
to have read the history leading up to particular events, and some are
just plain wrong. That an intelligent man like Dawkins was so skimpy on
his biblical research is incredible. One is reminded of Paul's
quotation of the Psalms in 1 Corinthians 3:20: "The Lord knows the
thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."

We need to study a few examples of this lack of research regarding
Scripture.

The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is
minimal. (p. 92)
Some of the most striking evidence is not immediately obvious in
English translation, but would have stood out like a sore thumb to
contemporaries. One of the clearest of the many times Jesus claimed to
be God is His use of the divine name, "I AM."

This divine name was told to Moses, when he met with God (who appeared
as a burning bush).

And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you
shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'."
(Exodus 3:14)
The Hebrew word translated here as I AM is often transliterated into
English as YHWH. The Name is usually translated as LORD, with four
capital letters.

Jesus used the style "I am ... " very frequently, most notably in
John 10.

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.
(John 10:11)
Apart from the fact that God is frequently referred to as the Shepherd,
the people listening to Jesus would have been very familiar with the
words of Psalm 23.

The LORD is my shepherd. (Psalm 23:1)
Remembering that the word LORD is basically the same as I AM, the
people listening to Jesus were in no doubt that He was claiming to be
God. This is not a code, or an obscure point. Jesus knew that His words
were reminiscent of Psalm 23 and so did the people. This is why in John
10:31, the people had picked up stones and were ready to stone Jesus,
accusing Him of blasphemy. Jesus' claim to be divine was obvious to
them.

Notice Dawkins' misunderstanding of the lineage of Jesus.

In any case, if Jesus really was born of a virgin, Joseph's ancestry
is irrelevant and cannot be used to fulfill, on Jesus' behalf, the
Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah should be descended from David.
(p. 95)
Luke's gospel has a genealogy in chapter 3, which most commentators
agree is the descent of Jesus through Mary. Thus Jesus traces back an
actual blood relationship, through Mary to David, via David's son
Nathan. Jesus also traces an adoptive relationship through his father
Joseph, through the kings, to David, via David's son Solomon (in
Matthew 1). Thus both Joseph and Mary are descended from David, but
Jesus' bloodline is only through Mary-He truly is the "seed of
the woman" prophesied in Genesis 3:15. However, Jesus could inherit
from Joseph, even if He was not a blood descendent. Therefore,
Joseph's lineage is important, because, through Joseph, Jesus
inherits the kingship. None of this is very difficult to research, and
Dawkins should have done so.

Space does not permit further examination of his errors in handling
Scripture, save to mention that the dreadful account of the horrific
events of Judges 19 are not recorded to imply God's approval, as
Dawkins thinks. Rather, they show the depths to which God's people
are able to stoop when they reject Him. Given that history is usually
written by the victors, it is noteworthy that the Bible contains
unflattering accounts of the transgressions of His people. This is
evidence in support of the truthfulness of Scripture.

Poor logic

It must also be said that Dawkins' arguments show surprisingly poor
logic. Examine this extraordinary sentence:

Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in
general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament)
as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and I shall
not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of deity. (p.
97)
Look first at the use of the word "probably" in "Although Jesus
probably existed." Why is Dawkins doubting this fact? There is no
good reason to question that Jesus existed. It is illogical to add the
word "probably."

Look next at the use of the word "reputable." What is a
"reputable biblical scholar"? The test of reputation has been left
undone by Dawkins, but presumably, a "reputable biblical scholar"
is one who agrees with Dawkins' attempts to rubbish the Bible. Logic
would require defining this term. Such people can be found, though
whether the adjective "reputable" is appropriate for such people is
a matter of opinion. We define a "reputable biblical scholar" as
one who at least approaches the Bible with respect, preferably
believing it to be the inspired, inerrant and authoritative word of
God, from the very first verse.

Thirdly, why is it "obvious" that the Old Testament should not be
regarded as reliable? He has clearly not read detailed apologetics of
Scriptural inerrancy, such as that provided by Brian Edwards in his
masterly book, Nothing But The Truth. That is again down to his
presupposition-that evolution is true, therefore Genesis is wrong,
therefore evolution is true. Merely making a statement, or using the
word "obvious," does not make a statement true! Just from these
three points, we see that there is no logical reason given by Dawkins
for rejecting the use of the Bible as evidence.

Articles on the use of logic are easy to find on the website. An
important element in the use of logic is to recognise logical
fallacies. Dawkins has committed several of these.

Circular reasoning

This fallacy occurs when your presupposition is actually what you wish
to prove. Look at this example:

Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the
universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. (p. 31)
The logical fallacy is breathtaking. Evolution is first assumed, in
order to prove that evolution is true rather than intelligent design:
"creative intelligences, being evolved ... ." It is Dawkins'
presupposition that all creative intelligences have evolved. It is an
idea not supported by, for example, information science.

Ad hominem

This sort of fallacy involves attacking the opponent instead of the
argument. In the UK, this is referred to as "playing the man instead
of the ball"-a soccer reference, implying that the tackler has
deliberately aimed to kick his opponent, rather than attempting to kick
the ball.

There are several examples of this, such as a particularly nasty attack
on a schoolteacher, who happens to be a creationist. Notice, on page
95, how Dawkins describes certain American educational establishments:

He moved up the hierarchy of American universities, from rock bottom at
the "Moody Bible Institute", through Wheaton College (a little bit
higher on the scale, but still the alma mater of Billy Graham) to
Princeton in the world-beating class at the top. (p. 95)
Why are the three institutions arranged hierarchically? What is the
basis for Dawkins' assessment of standards at each place? He
doesn't say, but we assume that it has to do with belief in the
Bible. Why is it implied that, because they number Billy Graham among
their alumni, this is a negative for Wheaton College? [Editor's note:
It is ironic that Dawkins would have a problem with Wheaton College,
since it does not adhere to a plain interpretation of Genesis.]

Straw men

The well-known "straw man" logical fallacy occurs when the debater
misrepresents (often by oversimplifying) his or her opponent's
position for them, then argues against this invented position, rather
than against the actual arguments of the opponent. An example of this
is seen in the mocking tone used as he attempts to dismiss arguments
based on intelligent design.

I [insert own name] am personally unable to think of any way in which
[insert biological phenomenon] could have been built up step by step.
Therefore it is irreducibly complex. That means it is designed.
Although Dawkins uses this argument frequently, it is a complete
misrepresentation of the intelligent design position. A biological
mechanism is not labeled as irreducibly complex because it is
complicated and the labeler cannot think how it could have evolved. It
is so labeled because it can be shown that it is not possible for it to
have evolved.

Inconsistency

It is noteworthy that Dawkins' arguments are very inconsistent. For
example, Dawkins frequently returns to a criticism of the so-called
"God of the gaps" approach that uses the supernatural to explain
what science cannot currently explain. Compare that attitude with his
own, on page 132, where he comments on gaps in evolutionary knowledge:

A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I'm sure it will be.
In Dawkins' view, it is inappropriate for a scientist to appeal to
the Creator to make a scientific explanation, even if that explanation
is logically sound. On the other hand, Dawkins writes as though it is
perfectly acceptable, when faced with dilemmas that evolution cannot
explain, to suppose that an evolutionary scientist will have a
naturalistic answer someday, even if the science is consistent with a
biblical approach. Such double standards allow Dawkins to self-justify
poor logic, while refusing to acknowledge the strength of those who
oppose him.

Conclusion

Christians have nothing to fear from The God Delusion. Far from being a
reasoned argument for atheism, it is a rant. It would be appropriate
for Christians to be aware of the principal arguments of the book, and
how they are countered. Maybe one day an atheistic book will emerge
that has more intellectual rigour, but even an intellectually rigorous
apology for atheism would not concern us for God is a God of wisdom and
reason. Time and again we find that a belief in the inerrancy of
Scripture is not just a doctrinal statement, it is an intellectually
satisfying position to take. But Dawkins' new book is weak, even by
atheist standards. We note that Dawkins is now planning to send atheist
material to government schools in the UK. That might be a good
opportunity for British school pupils to exercise their critical
thinking!

Reference

Madeleine Bunting, "No wonder atheists are angry," The Guardian,
January 7, 2006.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1745411/posts


Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins (Review of "The God Delusion")

Answers in Genesis ^ | November 27, 2006 | Paul Taylor


Posted on 11/28/2006 3:10:08 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger

Have you ever wondered why an atheist believes what he/she does?
Richard Dawkins wants you to know why he is an atheist. Dawkins, the
Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford
University, is arguably the world's best-known atheist. He is not
just any old atheist, however; he is atheism's great televangelist.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1745411/posts


Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins (Review of "The God Delusion")

Answers in Genesis ^ | November 27, 2006 | Paul Taylor


Posted on 11/28/2006 3:10:08 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger


Have you ever wondered why an atheist believes what he/she does?
Richard Dawkins wants you to know why he is an atheist.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1745411/posts

Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins (Review of "The God Delusion")

Answers in Genesis ^ | November 27, 2006 | Paul Taylor

Posted on 11/28/2006 3:10:08 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger

Have you ever wondered why an atheist believes what he/she does?
Richard Dawkins wants you to know why he is an atheist. Dawkins, the
Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford
University, is arguably the world's best-known atheist. He is not
just any old atheist, however; he is atheism's great televangelist.

This year, he has been on the road throughout the UK and the US,
appearing on talk shows and news interviews. He had two hours of
prime-time television on the UK's Channel 4 network in January 2006.
In these programs (entitled The Root of All Evil?), Dawkins sought to
persuade his audience of the importance of his case-that not only
should his audience not believe in God, but they should actively oppose
any form of religion. (I reviewed these programs previously.) It was
not only evangelical Christians who were critical of the programs.
Writing in The Guardian, a left-leaning UK newspaper not noted for its
support of creationists, Madeleine Bunting described the documentaries
as "intellectually lazy polemic."1

With the publication of his new book, The God Delusion, we now have an
expanded version of his atheist manifesto. One would have hoped that he
would have taken the opportunity to present a more intellectually
rigorous case. Indeed, some may have been afraid of opening the book,
in case the sheer weight of evidence might have destroyed their faith.
For my part, I was looking forward to encountering an intellectual
challenge-but sadly I was to be disappointed. The book suffers from
the same intellectual laziness as the television programs.

Dawkins' arguments, far from having intellectual clout, mostly fall
back on, "The argument will be so familiar, I needn't document it
further." Dawkins' paucity of argument is best illustrated by his
ignorance of Scripture and by his faulty logic.

Ignorance of Scripture

Although The God Delusion is ostensibly about all religions, in
practice it is about Christianity-and evangelical Christianity in
particular is the focus of Dawkins' attacks. In his arguments against
Christianity, he makes much use of Scripture. However, his use of
Scripture is highly suspect. It appears that he has done very little
research into the structure or history of the Bible. This is
unsurprising, as almost every statement he makes on the Bible reveals
that he has not approached it with an open mind.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character
in all fiction. (p. 31)
Statements like this are loaded with prejudice. He goes on to make
several more specific accusations about the character of God. Most of
his accusations are unsubstantiated. Some are due to Dawkins' own
presuppositions about what is right and wrong (for example, his
accusation that God is "homophobic"), some are due to his failure
to have read the history leading up to particular events, and some are
just plain wrong. That an intelligent man like Dawkins was so skimpy on
his biblical research is incredible. One is reminded of Paul's
quotation of the Psalms in 1 Corinthians 3:20: "The Lord knows the
thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."

We need to study a few examples of this lack of research regarding
Scripture.

The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is
minimal. (p. 92)
Some of the most striking evidence is not immediately obvious in
English translation, but would have stood out like a sore thumb to
contemporaries. One of the clearest of the many times Jesus claimed to
be God is His use of the divine name, "I AM."

This divine name was told to Moses, when he met with God (who appeared
as a burning bush).

And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you
shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'."
(Exodus 3:14)
The Hebrew word translated here as I AM is often transliterated into
English as YHWH. The Name is usually translated as LORD, with four
capital letters.

Jesus used the style "I am ... " very frequently, most notably in
John 10.

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.
(John 10:11)
Apart from the fact that God is frequently referred to as the Shepherd,
the people listening to Jesus would have been very familiar with the
words of Psalm 23.

The LORD is my shepherd. (Psalm 23:1)
Remembering that the word LORD is basically the same as I AM, the
people listening to Jesus were in no doubt that He was claiming to be
God. This is not a code, or an obscure point. Jesus knew that His words
were reminiscent of Psalm 23 and so did the people. This is why in John
10:31, the people had picked up stones and were ready to stone Jesus,
accusing Him of blasphemy. Jesus' claim to be divine was obvious to
them.

Notice Dawkins' misunderstanding of the lineage of Jesus.

In any case, if Jesus really was born of a virgin, Joseph's ancestry
is irrelevant and cannot be used to fulfill, on Jesus' behalf, the
Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah should be descended from David.
(p. 95)
Luke's gospel has a genealogy in chapter 3, which most commentators
agree is the descent of Jesus through Mary. Thus Jesus traces back an
actual blood relationship, through Mary to David, via David's son
Nathan. Jesus also traces an adoptive relationship through his father
Joseph, through the kings, to David, via David's son Solomon (in
Matthew 1). Thus both Joseph and Mary are descended from David, but
Jesus' bloodline is only through Mary-He truly is the "seed of
the woman" prophesied in Genesis 3:15. However, Jesus could inherit
from Joseph, even if He was not a blood descendent. Therefore,
Joseph's lineage is important, because, through Joseph, Jesus
inherits the kingship. None of this is very difficult to research, and
Dawkins should have done so.

Space does not permit further examination of his errors in handling
Scripture, save to mention that the dreadful account of the horrific
events of Judges 19 are not recorded to imply God's approval, as
Dawkins thinks. Rather, they show the depths to which God's people
are able to stoop when they reject Him. Given that history is usually
written by the victors, it is noteworthy that the Bible contains
unflattering accounts of the transgressions of His people. This is
evidence in support of the truthfulness of Scripture.

Poor logic

It must also be said that Dawkins' arguments show surprisingly poor
logic. Examine this extraordinary sentence:

Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in
general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament)
as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and I shall
not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of deity. (p.
97)
Look first at the use of the word "probably" in "Although Jesus
probably existed." Why is Dawkins doubting this fact? There is no
good reason to question that Jesus existed. It is illogical to add the
word "probably."

Look next at the use of the word "reputable." What is a
"reputable biblical scholar"? The test of reputation has been left
undone by Dawkins, but presumably, a "reputable biblical scholar"
is one who agrees with Dawkins' attempts to rubbish the Bible. Logic
would require defining this term. Such people can be found, though
whether the adjective "reputable" is appropriate for such people is
a matter of opinion. We define a "reputable biblical scholar" as
one who at least approaches the Bible with respect, preferably
believing it to be the inspired, inerrant and authoritative word of
God, from the very first verse.

Thirdly, why is it "obvious" that the Old Testament should not be
regarded as reliable? He has clearly not read detailed apologetics of
Scriptural inerrancy, such as that provided by Brian Edwards in his
masterly book, Nothing But The Truth. That is again down to his
presupposition-that evolution is true, therefore Genesis is wrong,
therefore evolution is true. Merely making a statement, or using the
word "obvious," does not make a statement true! Just from these
three points, we see that there is no logical reason given by Dawkins
for rejecting the use of the Bible as evidence.

Articles on the use of logic are easy to find on the website. An
important element in the use of logic is to recognise logical
fallacies. Dawkins has committed several of these.

Circular reasoning

This fallacy occurs when your presupposition is actually what you wish
to prove. Look at this example:

Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the
universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. (p. 31)
The logical fallacy is breathtaking. Evolution is first assumed, in
order to prove that evolution is true rather than intelligent design:
"creative intelligences, being evolved ... ." It is Dawkins'
presupposition that all creative intelligences have evolved. It is an
idea not supported by, for example, information science.

Ad hominem

This sort of fallacy involves attacking the opponent instead of the
argument. In the UK, this is referred to as "playing the man instead
of the ball"-a soccer reference, implying that the tackler has
deliberately aimed to kick his opponent, rather than attempting to kick
the ball.

There are several examples of this, such as a particularly nasty attack
on a schoolteacher, who happens to be a creationist. Notice, on page
95, how Dawkins describes certain American educational establishments:

He moved up the hierarchy of American universities, from rock bottom at
the "Moody Bible Institute", through Wheaton College (a little bit
higher on the scale, but still the alma mater of Billy Graham) to
Princeton in the world-beating class at the top. (p. 95)
Why are the three institutions arranged hierarchically? What is the
basis for Dawkins' assessment of standards at each place? He
doesn't say, but we assume that it has to do with belief in the
Bible. Why is it implied that, because they number Billy Graham among
their alumni, this is a negative for Wheaton College? [Editor's note:
It is ironic that Dawkins would have a problem with Wheaton College,
since it does not adhere to a plain interpretation of Genesis.]

Straw men

The well-known "straw man" logical fallacy occurs when the debater
misrepresents (often by oversimplifying) his or her opponent's
position for them, then argues against this invented position, rather
than against the actual arguments of the opponent. An example of this
is seen in the mocking tone used as he attempts to dismiss arguments
based on intelligent design.

I [insert own name] am personally unable to think of any way in which
[insert biological phenomenon] could have been built up step by step.
Therefore it is irreducibly complex. That means it is designed.
Although Dawkins uses this argument frequently, it is a complete
misrepresentation of the intelligent design position. A biological
mechanism is not labeled as irreducibly complex because it is
complicated and the labeler cannot think how it could have evolved. It
is so labeled because it can be shown that it is not possible for it to
have evolved.

Inconsistency

It is noteworthy that Dawkins' arguments are very inconsistent. For
example, Dawkins frequently returns to a criticism of the so-called
"God of the gaps" approach that uses the supernatural to explain
what science cannot currently explain. Compare that attitude with his
own, on page 132, where he comments on gaps in evolutionary knowledge:

A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I'm sure it will be.
In Dawkins' view, it is inappropriate for a scientist to appeal to
the Creator to make a scientific explanation, even if that explanation
is logically sound. On the other hand, Dawkins writes as though it is
perfectly acceptable, when faced with dilemmas that evolution cannot
explain, to suppose that an evolutionary scientist will have a
naturalistic answer someday, even if the science is consistent with a
biblical approach. Such double standards allow Dawkins to self-justify
poor logic, while refusing to acknowledge the strength of those who
oppose him.

Conclusion

Christians have nothing to fear from The God Delusion. Far from being a
reasoned argument for atheism, it is a rant. It would be appropriate
for Christians to be aware of the principal arguments of the book, and
how they are countered. Maybe one day an atheistic book will emerge
that has more intellectual rigour, but even an intellectually rigorous
apology for atheism would not concern us for God is a God of wisdom and
reason. Time and again we find that a belief in the inerrancy of
Scripture is not just a doctrinal statement, it is an intellectually
satisfying position to take. But Dawkins' new book is weak, even by
atheist standards. We note that Dawkins is now planning to send atheist
material to government schools in the UK. That might be a good
opportunity for British school pupils to exercise their critical
thinking!

Reference

Madeleine Bunting, "No wonder atheists are angry," The Guardian,
January 7, 2006.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1745411/posts


Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins (Review of "The God Delusion")

Answers in Genesis ^ | November 27, 2006 | Paul Taylor


Posted on 11/28/2006 3:10:08 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger


Have you ever wondered why an atheist believes what he/she does?
Richard Dawkins wants you to know why he is an atheist. Dawkins, the
Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford
University, is arguably the world's best-known atheist. He is not
just any old atheist, however; he is atheism's great televangelist.

This year, he has been on the road throughout the UK and the US,
appearing on talk shows and news interviews. He had two hours of
prime-time television on the UK's Channel 4 network in January 2006.
In these programs (entitled The Root of All Evil?), Dawkins sought to
persuade his audience of the importance of his case-that not only
should his audience not believe in God, but they should actively oppose
any form of religion. (I reviewed these programs previously.) It was
not only evangelical Christians who were critical of the programs.
Writing in The Guardian, a left-leaning UK newspaper not noted for its
support of creationists, Madeleine Bunting described the documentaries
as "intellectually lazy polemic."1

With the publication of his new book, The God Delusion, we now have an
expanded version of his atheist manifesto. One would have hoped that he
would have taken the opportunity to present a more intellectually
rigorous case. Indeed, some may have been afraid of opening the book,
in case the sheer weight of evidence might have destroyed their faith.
For my part, I was looking forward to encountering an intellectual
challenge-but sadly I was to be disappointed. The book suffers from
the same intellectual laziness as the television programs.

Dawkins' arguments, far from having intellectual clout, mostly fall
back on, "The argument will be so familiar, I needn't document it
further." Dawkins' paucity of argument is best illustrated by his
ignorance of Scripture and by his faulty logic.

Ignorance of Scripture

Although The God Delusion is ostensibly about all religions, in
practice it is about Christianity-and evangelical Christianity in
particular is the focus of Dawkins' attacks. In his arguments against
Christianity, he makes much use of Scripture. However, his use of
Scripture is highly suspect. It appears that he has done very little
research into the structure or history of the Bible. This is
unsurprising, as almost every statement he makes on the Bible reveals
that he has not approached it with an open mind.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character
in all fiction. (p. 31)
Statements like this are loaded with prejudice. He goes on to make
several more specific accusations about the character of God. Most of
his accusations are unsubstantiated. Some are due to Dawkins' own
presuppositions about what is right and wrong (for example, his
accusation that God is "homophobic"), some are due to his failure
to have read the history leading up to particular events, and some are
just plain wrong. That an intelligent man like Dawkins was so skimpy on
his biblical research is incredible. One is reminded of Paul's
quotation of the Psalms in 1 Corinthians 3:20: "The Lord knows the
thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."

We need to study a few examples of this lack of research regarding
Scripture.

The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is
minimal. (p. 92)
Some of the most striking evidence is not immediately obvious in
English translation, but would have stood out like a sore thumb to
contemporaries. One of the clearest of the many times Jesus claimed to
be God is His use of the divine name, "I AM."

This divine name was told to Moses, when he met with God (who appeared
as a burning bush).

And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you
shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'."
(Exodus 3:14)
The Hebrew word translated here as I AM is often transliterated into
English as YHWH. The Name is usually translated as LORD, with four
capital letters.

Jesus used the style "I am ... " very frequently, most notably in
John 10.

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.
(John 10:11)
Apart from the fact that God is frequently referred to as the Shepherd,
the people listening to Jesus would have been very familiar with the
words of Psalm 23.

The LORD is my shepherd. (Psalm 23:1)
Remembering that the word LORD is basically the same as I AM, the
people listening to Jesus were in no doubt that He was claiming to be
God. This is not a code, or an obscure point. Jesus knew that His words
were reminiscent of Psalm 23 and so did the people. This is why in John
10:31, the people had picked up stones and were ready to stone Jesus,
accusing Him of blasphemy. Jesus' claim to be divine was obvious to
them.

Notice Dawkins' misunderstanding of the lineage of Jesus.

In any case, if Jesus really was born of a virgin, Joseph's ancestry
is irrelevant and cannot be used to fulfill, on Jesus' behalf, the
Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah should be descended from David.
(p. 95)
Luke's gospel has a genealogy in chapter 3, which most commentators
agree is the descent of Jesus through Mary. Thus Jesus traces back an
actual blood relationship, through Mary to David, via David's son
Nathan. Jesus also traces an adoptive relationship through his father
Joseph, through the kings, to David, via David's son Solomon (in
Matthew 1). Thus both Joseph and Mary are descended from David, but
Jesus' bloodline is only through Mary-He truly is the "seed of
the woman" prophesied in Genesis 3:15. However, Jesus could inherit
from Joseph, even if He was not a blood descendent. Therefore,
Joseph's lineage is important, because, through Joseph, Jesus
inherits the kingship. None of this is very difficult to research, and
Dawkins should have done so.

Space does not permit further examination of his errors in handling
Scripture, save to mention that the dreadful account of the horrific
events of Judges 19 are not recorded to imply God's approval, as
Dawkins thinks. Rather, they show the depths to which God's people
are able to stoop when they reject Him. Given that history is usually
written by the victors, it is noteworthy that the Bible contains
unflattering accounts of the transgressions of His people. This is
evidence in support of the truthfulness of Scripture.

Poor logic

It must also be said that Dawkins' arguments show surprisingly poor
logic. Examine this extraordinary sentence:

Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in
general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament)
as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and I shall
not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of deity. (p.
97)
Look first at the use of the word "probably" in "Although Jesus
probably existed." Why is Dawkins doubting this fact? There is no
good reason to question that Jesus existed. It is illogical to add the
word "probably."

Look next at the use of the word "reputable." What is a
"reputable biblical scholar"? The test of reputation has been left
undone by Dawkins, but presumably, a "reputable biblical scholar"
is one who agrees with Dawkins' attempts to rubbish the Bible. Logic
would require defining this term. Such people can be found, though
whether the adjective "reputable" is appropriate for such people is
a matter of opinion. We define a "reputable biblical scholar" as
one who at least approaches the Bible with respect, preferably
believing it to be the inspired, inerrant and authoritative word of
God, from the very first verse.

Thirdly, why is it "obvious" that the Old Testament should not be
regarded as reliable? He has clearly not read detailed apologetics of
Scriptural inerrancy, such as that provided by Brian Edwards in his
masterly book, Nothing But The Truth. That is again down to his
presupposition-that evolution is true, therefore Genesis is wrong,
therefore evolution is true. Merely making a statement, or using the
word "obvious," does not make a statement true! Just from these
three points, we see that there is no logical reason given by Dawkins
for rejecting the use of the Bible as evidence.

Articles on the use of logic are easy to find on the website. An
important element in the use of logic is to recognise logical
fallacies. Dawkins has committed several of these.

Circular reasoning

This fallacy occurs when your presupposition is actually what you wish
to prove. Look at this example:

Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the
universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. (p. 31)
The logical fallacy is breathtaking. Evolution is first assumed, in
order to prove that evolution is true rather than intelligent design:
"creative intelligences, being evolved ... ." It is Dawkins'
presupposition that all creative intelligences have evolved. It is an
idea not supported by, for example, information science.

Ad hominem

This sort of fallacy involves attacking the opponent instead of the
argument. In the UK, this is referred to as "playing the man instead
of the ball"-a soccer reference, implying that the tackler has
deliberately aimed to kick his opponent, rather than attempting to kick
the ball.

There are several examples of this, such as a particularly nasty attack
on a schoolteacher, who happens to be a creationist. Notice, on page
95, how Dawkins describes certain American educational establishments:

He moved up the hierarchy of American universities, from rock bottom at
the "Moody Bible Institute", through Wheaton College (a little bit
higher on the scale, but still the alma mater of Billy Graham) to
Princeton in the world-beating class at the top. (p. 95)
Why are the three institutions arranged hierarchically? What is the
basis for Dawkins' assessment of standards at each place? He
doesn't say, but we assume that it has to do with belief in the
Bible. Why is it implied that, because they number Billy Graham among
their alumni, this is a negative for Wheaton College? [Editor's note:
It is ironic that Dawkins would have a problem with Wheaton College,
since it does not adhere to a plain interpretation of Genesis.]

Straw men

The well-known "straw man" logical fallacy occurs when the debater
misrepresents (often by oversimplifying) his or her opponent's
position for them, then argues against this invented position, rather
than against the actual arguments of the opponent. An example of this
is seen in the mocking tone used as he attempts to dismiss arguments
based on intelligent design.

I [insert own name] am personally unable to think of any way in which
[insert biological phenomenon] could have been built up step by step.
Therefore it is irreducibly complex. That means it is designed.
Although Dawkins uses this argument frequently, it is a complete
misrepresentation of the intelligent design position. A biological
mechanism is not labeled as irreducibly complex because it is
complicated and the labeler cannot think how it could have evolved. It
is so labeled because it can be shown that it is not possible for it to
have evolved.

Inconsistency

It is noteworthy that Dawkins' arguments are very inconsistent. For
example, Dawkins frequently returns to a criticism of the so-called
"God of the gaps" approach that uses the supernatural to explain
what science cannot currently explain. Compare that attitude with his
own, on page 132, where he comments on gaps in evolutionary knowledge:

A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I'm sure it will be.
In Dawkins' view, it is inappropriate for a scientist to appeal to
the Creator to make a scientific explanation, even if that explanation
is logically sound. On the other hand, Dawkins writes as though it is
perfectly acceptable, when faced with dilemmas that evolution cannot
explain, to suppose that an evolutionary scientist will have a
naturalistic answer someday, even if the science is consistent with a
biblical approach. Such double standards allow Dawkins to self-justify
poor logic, while refusing to acknowledge the strength of those who
oppose him.

Conclusion

Christians have nothing to fear from The God Delusion. Far from being a
reasoned argument for atheism, it is a rant. It would be appropriate
for Christians to be aware of the principal arguments of the book, and
how they are countered. Maybe one day an atheistic book will emerge
that has more intellectual rigour, but even an intellectually rigorous
apology for atheism would not concern us for God is a God of wisdom and
reason. Time and again we find that a belief in the inerrancy of
Scripture is not just a doctrinal statement, it is an intellectually
satisfying position to take. But Dawkins' new book is weak, even by
atheist standards. We note that Dawkins is now planning to send atheist
material to government schools in the UK. That might be a good
opportunity for British school pupils to exercise their critical
thinking!

Reference

Madeleine Bunting, "No wonder atheists are angry," The Guardian,
January 7, 2006.