Disarming Richard Dawkins’ Delusions (Part 1)

Ah, the Gospel of Atheism!
Atheism fascinates me. Not the kind of atheism in which someone simply says, “I don’t believe God exists,” and then just goes about living his life. I’m talking about the kind of atheism in which people see themselves positively evangelical about it. They bring lawsuits against towns that have any reference to God on public buildings; they sue restaurant owners who give an extra 5% discount on the bill if they see a customer prays; or they troll the internet, particularly young earth creationist websites like Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis, and verbally abuse anyone who voices support for Mr. Ham. Speaking out against Ken Ham is one thing–I certainly do that. But the verbal abuse unleashed by these “evangelical” (or dare I say “militant”) atheists is quite another.

Now the fascinating thing about these types of evangelical atheists is that if you ever try to engage with them, their understanding of the Bible as well as science is tremendously skewed. They know enough to see that the pseudo-scientific claims of young earth creationists are ridiculous, but they seem to think that Ken Ham’s peculiar heresy is, in fact, what Christians have believed for 2,000 years. They also proclaim that “science” has “proven” the Bible isn’t true, that “science” is the answer to all of life’s questions, and that “science and reason” should be the foundation of all moral and ethical issues.

When you press them on any of these statements, you soon find that the depth of their answers is the equivalent of Ken Ham’s “answers” that aren’t really in Genesis. This kind of evangelical atheism is a relatively recent phenomenon. There always have been atheists, but what we’re seeing today, I believe, can be attributed to the rise of the “New Atheist Movement,” and the media blitzkrieg of books by the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins.

I have already written a number of posts on both Hitchens’ book, god is not Great, and Harris’ book, The End of Faith. It’s time to finish the trilogy, so to speak, and address Richard Dawkins’ famous book, The God Delusion. Now what I want to state up front is that I am coming to see more and more that young earth creationists and these new atheists are really involved a conspiracy together: a conspiracy to make society dumber.

Alright, that is a bit tongue-in-cheek. But in all seriousness, if one ever takes the time to analyze the talking points and propaganda of the new atheist movement, and compare it to that of young creationist movement, you will find that, although each one’s ultimate conclusions are polar opposite, the fact is that both movement’s (1) share the same fundamental worldview, (2) read the Bible as biblical literalists, and  (3) base their arguments on a false and misleading caricature of the other: Ken Ham loves to claim evolutionary theory is a religion and a blind belief, and the New Atheists love to claim “religion” and the Bible are wholly irrational and the source of virtually all the evil in the world.

Simply put, if Ken Ham basically parrots the same old arguments of Henry Morris’ The Genesis Flood, evangelical atheists parrot the same old arguments of Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins. The fact is, there is very little critical thinking behind the pat answers and clichés that are regularly put out there.

In any case, over the next few weeks I will be going through The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. So sit back, read, and enjoy.

The Preface of a Delusion

In his preface, Richard Dawkins opens with a flourish by paying homage to John Lennon’s song “Imagine.” Dawkins imagines what a world without religion would look like. He writes:

“Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of the Jews as ‘Christ-killers,’ no Northern Ireland ‘troubles,’ no ‘honor killings,’ no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money. Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it” (24).

When you put it that way, that is quite an indictment of religion, isn’t it? Now, although it is true that throughout human history there has been a host of atrocities done in the name of various religions, the problem with Dawkins’ homage to Lennon’s song is that history isn’t that simple. Dawkins’ broad brush that condemns “all religion” fails to make any distinction between the different religions and fails to consider any, I repeat, any, political or historical factors that are always intertwined in such events like these.

What we will learn in the course of this critique of Dawkins’ book is that Dawkins displays a surprising lack of critical, even coherent, thinking on a host of issues ranging from religion, the Bible, history, politics, and yes, even science. He assumes, for instance, that the only reason the 9/11 hijackers flew those planes into the two towers was “religion.” While there is no doubt that Al Qaeda’s militant interpretation of Islam was a major factor in 9/11, one simply cannot separate their religious motives from their political motives. One must consider the cultural factors; one must consider the past 100 years of world politics. To say, therefore, like Dawkins, that “religion” was the only reason for 9/11, while extremely convenient, is still nevertheless incredibly shallow and uncritical.

But I guess this is a fundamental truth that is universally acknowledged that an ideologue, who is bent on crushing all opposition that threatens his ideology, be he atheist or young earth creationist, must most certainly not be in want of context and critical thinking. (Side note: you get a shiny new dime if you catch the allusion).

The same goes for most of the other atrocities Dawkins mentions. The Crusades, for example, were not just a matter of European Christians just deciding one day, “Hey, let’s go kill Muslims! God wills it!” History is a bit more complicated than that. They were just as motivated political circumstances as they were religious. Ask any historian—there was a lot more going on in the Crusades than simply “religion.”

In the course of the next few posts, we will no doubt touch upon a number of issues. As we do, ask yourself these questions:

1. Are Dawkins’ arguments logical and rational?
2. Are they supported by real evidence, or is all he has going for him is his own personal biases and opinions?
3. Is Dawkins being disingenuous?
4. Is what Dawkins proposes even more dangerous than the religion he condemns?

Simply put, is Dawkins truly convincing? No…not at all. Unfortunately, Dawkins, along with the likes of Ken Ham, has succeeded in poisoning the well of critical thinking and thoughtful, well-informed discussion on issues involving, science, reason, religion and faith.

Ideological Warfare…and the Challenge to Disarm the Bombs
I am reminded of what Paul says in II Corinthians 10:3-5: “Indeed, we live as human beings, but we do not wage war according to human standards; for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ.”

I believe the challenge for clear-thinking Christians is not simply to “throw bombs” into the stockpiles of verbal weapons that can be found in ideological camps like young earth creationism and the new atheist movement. When you do that, everything gets blown up, and you end up just hurting a lot of people, and probably yourself as well.

Instead, I think our challenge is to go in and disarm the bombs so they don’t blow up in the first place. And that means being methodical in how one addresses and confronts those ideological “weapons of warfare.” That’s what I’m going to try to do with Richard Dawkins.

It will take a few posts.