Musings Inspired by “The God Delusion” – part 2

This post will focus on Chapters 3 – Arguments for God's Existence and 4 – Why There Almost Certainly is No God.

Probability and statistics are a major theme of Dawkins discussion, especially in Chapter 4. He says in multiple places that according to the laws of probability that simple things are more probable to come into existence than complex things. He then argues that a God capable of designing and upholding the universe must be complex. I would not disagree with this assumption, as I don't think I would try to argue that God was simple. Because of this complexity, Dawkins declares the likelihood of this type of complex God is terribly unlikely. But as you read, you see that Dawkins mind is firmly in the natural world. He cannot fathom something that does not follow 'natural laws' of chemistry, biology and physics. If we asserted that the God of the Bible were within that realm, this argument might hold water. But all of the 'things' that Dawkins uses to measure the existence of God are those useful in the natural world only.

In some places, Dawkins seems to define what is true by popular opinion. He spends a good bit of time with statistics on the beliefs of scientists and 'less educated', and then uses the fact that the inverse relationship between education and religious belief as a 'proof' that God does not exist. This also leads him to continue to question statements and beliefs of other scientists. He did this with Gould in Chapter 2, saying that surely he really didn't mean what he wrote. He continues this line of thought by questioning whether certain scientists in history were actually Christian. He has the audacity to say that perhaps these men were 'closet atheists' and just didn't know that they could choose to not believe in God.

Another recurring theme for Dawkins is that a universe with a personal Creator would be a very different universe than one without one. He then says that "our sense of goodness would be the way it is with a God and without a God." These 2 statements seem contradictory to me. Why would our sense of goodness be the same in a completely different universe? And how can you compare these 2 types of universe when you only live in one of them? How do you KNOW which you find yourself in?
The biggest thing that keeps coming into my mind as I contemplate Dawkins arguments is his narrow view of the theoretical. Philosophers of science point out that there are an infinite number of theories that are possible to explain any possible natural phenomena.

I often show this photograph to my class and ask the question "What happened right before this picture was taken?" As you might imagine, there are lots of ideas and many of them seem possible and reasonable. The job of science is to try to eliminate which 'theories' could be correct and which are certainly not correct. And just because you eliminate all of the possibilities on your original list, that does not mean there is not another possible theory that you have not yet thought of and tested. Even then, you have not "proven" your theory – you have either supported the theory or not. It is clear that Dawkins believes there are only 2 options out there for the existence of everything – Darwinism by means of natural selection (he even stretches this to the realm of physics in one example) and a special creation by God. I would have expected Dawkins to be a little more versed in the philosophy of science, because he is totally ignoring other possibilities, not to mention all of the possibilities of the "how" within these 2 theories. Of course the beginning of everything or any natural phenomena (the cause of cancer, the transportation of steroids in the body, etc.) have an answer and it is possible the accurate and real answer is one that has not been thought of yet.

After finishing the last paragraph, I think of a statement I have read and heard from Christians that say that belief in God/ creationism/ etc. leads to intellectual laziness. I think this is a load of trash! A Biblical view of man's purpose in the world is that of steward of creation. This view is easy to fit in a career in the sciences, which is the study of the natural world/ God's creation. How in the world is it consistent with being a good and faithful steward to not seek to learn anything and everything you can about your subject?? Any Christian who would hold this view would either not take God's call on their vocation seriously or would not understand the Bible's teaching on the subject on what we are to be about until His return. This does seem in line with a "God of the Gaps" idea, which was discussed in this section of the book. Here I find another instance where I agree with Dawkins. I agree with both Dawkins and Dietrich Bonhoffer on this point. Holding to such a view might lead to scientific laziness, because if the only place we see God in the natural world is in those things we don't understand, God will disappear when we explain everything.

Taking this idea a bit further, I want to finish this post by sharing a paragraph from Dawkins book that I thought was very interesting. "I am continually astonished by those theists who, far from having their consciousness raised in the way that I propose, seem to rejoice in natural selection as "God's way of achieving his creation". They note that evolution by natural selection would be a very easy and neat way to achieve a world full of life. God wouldn't need to do anything at all! Peter Atkins…takes this line of thoughts to a sensibly godless conclusion when he postulates a hypothetically lazy God who tries to get away with as little as possible in order to make a universe containing life. Atkins's lazy God is even lazier than the deist God of the 18^th century Enlightenment: deus otiosus – literally God at leisure, unoccupied, unemployed, superfluous, useless. Step by step, Atkins success in reducing the amount of work the lazy God has to do until he finally ends up doing mothering at all: high might as well not bother to exist." (pg. 118) Morris and Petcher's book, Science and Grace, does a wonderful job of responding Biblically to the idea of a 'lazy' God by looking at God's relationship to His physical creation. I would highly recommend the book to anyone!