Dawkins' God

Nick Spencer's avatar
Posted by Nick Spencer Fri, 10/12/2004 - 10:03am :: Books and Literature | more by Nick Spencer

Richard Dawkins, professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University, is a gifted individual. A man of considerable intelligence and erudition, with a passion for the truth and an enviable way with the English language, he has been one of the world’s leading scientific communicators for many years.

He is also an aggressive atheist, whose conviction that the scientific method and evolutionary theory utterly refute religious claims has bred years of vigorous anti-Christian polemic.

Although he has faced challenges in the past (the philosopher Mary Midgley wrote a famously hostile review of The Selfish Gene in Philosophy and Michael Poole engaged him in a more temperate debate in Science and Christian Belief), Dawkins has not received a book-length critique – until now.

Alister McGrath, director of the Oxford Centre for Evangelism and Apologetics, holds doctorates in molecular biophysics and historical theology and is thus well placed to criticise Dawkins' thought. His most recent book, Dawkins’ God, engages his subject on a number of fronts: his take on evolutionary theory, the atheistic conclusions he draws from it, his theory of memes (the supposed cultural equivalent of genes), his division of faith and proof, and his analysis of religion.

Throughout, McGrath maintains a balanced tone, treating Dawkins’ writing respectfully even when it is ignorant or nasty. He also contents himself by showing that Dawkins’ atheism is suspect rather than demonstrably wrong.

If that sounds odd, it is because we have been conned into the kind of over-simplistic thinking that Dawkins sometimes promotes and that McGrath criticises – specifically, the idea that unless something can be proved, it is false; that either you know something by proof or you don’t know it at all. McGrath shows that this is not so; that many theories are critically ‘underdetermined’ by evidence and that it is not just religious people who live by faith.

In doing so, he undermines Dawkins’ rhetoric. Evolutionary theory is no more necessarily atheistic than it is theistic. ‘Final adjudication on the God question,’ he writes, ‘lies beyond reason and experiment.’

This can seem an unsettling conclusion. As human beings, we like to feel we stand on unquestionably true and verifiable ground. But life is not like that.

In reality, it is the absolute conviction that we are demonstrably right that is the hallmark of infancy, not the religious claims that Dawkins rubbishes. Thinking adults live by faith.

Nick Spencer

Alister McGrath will speak at LICC on Monday February 21 on The Twilight of Atheism: The rise and fall of disbelief in the modern world. For more information and to book, visit www.licc.org.uk/events.

additional resources

Dawkins’ God is published by Blackwell Publishing - www.blackwellpublishing.com.

Read ‘God is not dead yet’ - an article by Alister McGrath on atheism and Richard Dawkins in the Times Higher Education Supplement: www.thes.co.uk.

World of Richard Dawkins: An unofficial but personally commended website dedicated to the life and work of Richard Dawkins: www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins.

Alister McGrath’s homepage - a brief, official site detailing McGrath’s current writing and research projects: www.users.ox.ac.uk.

‘The Increasingly Official Mary Migdley Homepage’, dedicated to the work of one of the UK’s leading philosophers and critics of scientific triumphalism (contains links to Midgley’s review of The Selfish Gene and the subsequent debate): www.geog.ucsb.edu.

The website for Science and Christian Belief, the excellent journal of Christians in Science: www.cis.org.uk. Some articles (including Poole’s debate with Dawkins) are available on-line free; all others to subscribers.

At the risk of side-tracking,
Posted by  Anonymous on Fri, 10/12/2004 - 1:08pm.
At the risk of side-tracking, re the last paragraph - is it really children who stand on their certainty and adults who live by faith? If so why do children ask so many questions? And why did Jesus not tell his bickering disciples (all convinced they knew who was top dog) to grow up?

I think that might have been my reaction - his was to tell them to become more like children in order to live in a Kingdom way. The evolutionist prejudice is built at least partly on an assumption that what develops out of something else is superior: and I suspect its origin is very close to that which inclines us to value adult over child in the way that Jesus inverts.
Incorrect
Posted by  Anonymous on Tue, 02/08/2005 - 3:35am.
"The evolutionist prejudice is built at least partly on an assumption that what develops out of something else is superior"

No. It isn't. It really, really isn't. It's true to say that evolution *appears* to generally drive arms races towards greater complexity and sophistication, but nothing is objectively "superior" except with respect to the current fitness landscape, which is unlikely to remain fixed. A structure that has evolved out of an old structure may appear to be an improvement, but a change in the fitness landscape may leave the older structure prospering more. For example, if the Earth had suddenly been invaded by alien flying machines that flew at a height of nine feet with whirling blades, giraffes with shorter necks would prosper whereas their taller conspecifics would suddenly find themselves at a major disadvantage. And some virus/immunity co-evolution appears to go in cycles rather than moving in any direction that might be seen as "forward". Humans might appear to be "superior" to ants by some metrics, but ants are currently a more successful design in terms of their genetic success, and they will probably outlast us as a species.
Yes, thinking adults live by faith
Posted by  Anonymous on Fri, 10/12/2004 - 3:52pm.
Yes, thinking adults live by - but that faith is not based on uncertainty. "Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1)

Fane
You write:
Posted by  Anonymous on Sat, 09/07/2005 - 1:04pm.
You write:
> snip the idea that unless something can be proved, it is false;
> that either you know something by proof or you don't know it at all.

There are at least 3 things wrong with this sentence.

Firstly, this is by no means Dawkins' oppinion. He says that the only legitimate reason to believe that something is true is that it is supported by evidence. He certainly doesn't say that unproven things are necessarily false - he freely admits that there are lots of things about the world (even about his own field) that we just don't know. This doesn't make them 'false'. If we make a hypothesis and there is no evidence for it, we say "there is no evidence for it *yet*. One day, there *may* be. Until then, the jury is out." We don't say that it is false. Dawkins does *not* believe you have to prove something for it to be true. I don't know whether this came from the book or whether it is your own interpretation, but I'm afraid it doesn't hold water. I know there are passages in some of Dawkins' books that explain this very well (I can't quote because I don't have them to hand, but you might want to look them up if you haven't already).

Secondly, you seem to misuse the word 'proof'. Dawkins knows very well the difference between evidence and proof and he certainly wouldn't insist on proof - science doesn't really deal with proofs, just with evidence. He would say that there is evidence for a theory or other. He might say that there is *so much* evidence for a particular theory that we may as well call it 'fact'. But I doubt he would ever insist that a scientific theory is *proven* or that he would insist on *proof* before believing in something. He knows perfectly well that he wouldnt be able to believe in *anything*, if he did that.

Thirdly, you seem to equate two completely different things: "unless something can be proved, it is false" and "either you know something by proof or you don't know it at all." These statements are by no means equivalent. I've dealt to some extent with the first (it is a fallacy, certainly - I doubt *anyone* would seriously claim it was true). The second depends on what you mean by 'know'. You don't *know* that god exists, for example. You may *believe* it. You may have *faith* in it, but you don't *know* it. I (and possibly Dawkins) would say that 'knowledge' as opposed to 'belief' ought to be based on evidence. This seems to be the chief difference between belief and knowledge. Carry on believing whatever you like, but if you say you *know* something, you'd better have evidence.

But my main concern here is the first one. Dawkins simply doesn't say stuff like that.

> Evolutionally theory is no more *necessarily* atheistic than it is
> theistic (emphasis yours)

Well, despite an obvious asymetry, I would agree. I think Dawkins would too. I don't think he would argue that there *isnt* a god running the show - but he *would* argue that there *doesnt need to be* (that is the asymmetry. 'Evolutionary theory' (whatever that means - it covers a *huge* amount of work over a couple of centuries) as a general rule doesnt require a god to be present. Thats what makes it a scientific theory. If it required a god, for which there is no evidence, then it wouldnt be considered science. This doesn't mean god doesnt exist, of course, it just means we cant devise scientific theories that invoke something we have no evidence for.

So I interpret Dawkins' work as meaning "there is no *need* to assume a god in evolutionary theory, so lets not" - certainly not as meaning "there is no need....therefore there is no god".

> 'Final adjudication on the God question lies beyond reason and
> experiment'.

Agreed. Im not sure whether Dawkins or McGrath wrote this, but I'm sure Dawkins would agree. Science can't answer the question of whether or not god exists without evidence. And since we don't have any, it lies outside science.

Does Dawkins 'rubbish' faith? I don't think so. Certainly, he has contempt for people who rely on faith without continuously asking questions. Scientific enquiry (the *practice* of scientific enquiry) needs a certain amount of faith. You need to hold on to your convictions while looking for evidence. But if the evidence doesn't turn up, you have to abandon the idea at some point. Faith in this respect is useful. But *only* if you give up that faith if the evidence doesn't seem to support it.

From this point of view, I suspect Dawkins would agree that everyone relies on faith to some extent. However, this is a world apart from having faith in something, without question, despite what the evidence is telling us. THIS is what he 'rubbishes' as you put it - the willful ignorance in believing something despite what the world is telling us - *this*, I think, is what Dawkins has little patience with. And I don't blame him a bit.

I'm aware that I'm putting words in Dawkins' mouth here and I apologise if I've misrepresented him.

Cheers

r
(Shakes head sadly.)
Posted by  Anonymous on Tue, 02/08/2005 - 3:27am.
"If that sounds odd, it is because we have been conned into the kind of over-simplistic thinking that Dawkins sometimes promotes and that McGrath criticises – specifically, the idea that unless something can be proved, it is false."

Dawkins has never said such a thing. It beggars belief that people can ascribe this interpretation to his work unless they haven't actually listened to what the man says.

Four words:
Google
Bertrand
Russell
Teapot
McGrath's qualifications
Posted by  Anonymous on Sat, 01/04/2006 - 11:02am.
To throw in my 2 cents worth:

I should point out that holding a doctorate in molecular biophysics no more qualifies him to critique Dawkins' work than it qualifies a manufacturer of ball bearings to repair a Honda Civic.

By the same token, Dawkins would certainly not be qualified to explain the finer points of molecular biophysics.

Possessing a background in both, all I'm saying is that while McGrath may be qualified to put forward the theological viewpoint, he is no more qualified that the lay-person to understand Dawkins' writing.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.

With love (and extra resources, group-work ideas and links...)
from
www.licc.org.uk/culture.