Musings Inspired by Dawkins' "The God Delusion" - Part 1

I started reading Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion today.  It has been on my 'to-read' list for a couple of years now.  I have now completed 3 chapters and have decided that I will blog on my thoughts, especially those that are interesting to me.  This post will focus on my thoughts concerning the first 2 chapters of the book.

Chapter 2 of the book is entitled "The God Hypothesis" and so far Dawkins has talked about polytheism, monotheism, and agnosticism.  He has clearly said that he, as an atheist, ascribes to the only reality is that which is physical.  He states clearly that there is no super-natural being (God) or souls.  He then spends time discussing 'probability' of the existence of a 'God' and lamenting over the fact that scientists are not considered a proper authority for disproving the existence of such a 'God'.  This chapter has much information in it, such as definitions and discussion of certain views.  However, I had to go back through after reading it the first time and try to figure out the 'point' or 'direction' of the chapter.  Even then, I did not find how the content of the chapter really went along with the title of the chapter.

I see a glaring problem with Dawkins main line of thought.  A current definiton of science is simply the study of "natural causes for natural phenomena".  The existence of 'God', who by Dawkins own definition, is a super-natural being would fall completely outside the realm of science.  Science is not equipped to answer such questions, yet Dawkins is spending a lot of time 'mushing' the 2 together.  In addition, Dawkins works to use the Scientific Method as the means by which to study/ investigate and ultimately disprove/ show a miniscule probability for the existence of 'God'.

In the Foreward of the book, Dawkins has already expressed his desire that all readers of his book would convert to atheism after its completion.  From other readings and interviews with Dawkins, it is clear that he believes that the only way to know anything is through science (which is the way we have chosen to learn about the physical world, which is Dawkins view, is all that exists).  So it should not be surprising that this is the vein in which he approaches this subject.  However, it seems that the basis of this argument is NOT sound, therefore the stability of the finished argument is in question.

I have found an area that I tend to agree with Dawkins on (I'm not surprised that there are some, although we part ways rather quickly).  He spends some time discussing NOMA - Non-Overlapping Magisteria.  He does not agree with Stephen Jay Gould's assertion that scientists cannot "affirm or deny" the existence or nature of God.  He spends a few pages talking about how religion and science DO overlap, and why scientists should be able to investigate the existence of God by the Scientific Method in theory - he does admit it would be difficult to do this in practice.  Dawkins might agree with the authors Morris and Petcher of Science and Grace who describe what they call a "peace treaty" between science and faith, that seems nearly identical to NOMA.   This is where the disagreements would begin - I would agree with Morris and Petcher that holding to NOMA may lead to a view inconsistent with Scripture (ie - a 'clock-maker God' similar to one held by a deist).  Dawkins can't decide if Gould really thinks NOMA is the appropriate way to think or if he was just being nice to those he did not agree with.  He wastes no time putting forth the reasons why he believes this is a silly argument, one of which is that the only reason NOMA exists is because there is no evidence to support religious belief. 

Turning to my own thoughts stemming from this reading, I will say that I struggle with my thoughts on the current methodological naturalism.  I have had discussions with several biologists that believe it is absolutely necessary for good science.  But I agree with Blaise Pascal's assertion that reason's last step is the acknowledgement that there are an infinite number of possibilities beyond it.  Regardless, I believe that there must be consistency in how we treat the super-natural within science.  While most scientists will say that science is "natural causes for natural phenomena", they operate in a way that seems to agree more with Richard Dawkins (who clearly is not holding to this idea).  This is one of those areas that I need more time to read and think about my exact view on this issue.

Going forward, I'll be interested to see what Dawkins will accept as 'evidence' as the book progresses.  He does not believe in the existence of anything but the natural world, and has already discounted certain historical writings with no or few reasons why.  The next 2 chapters are supposed to give the reasons for belief and those to not believe (all in the name of disproving the existence of 'God').  As I continue to read, I will post more.  Stay tuned if you are interested.....