Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. This means that not only does he study the structure of living things, but also the origin for said structure. The theory of evolution explains why humans have five fingers on each hand and horses have hooves, but both have similar hearts, lungs and livers. So, as an archaeologist, I had two preconceived ideas about a book entitled The God Delusion written by an eminent evolutionary biologist like Richard Dawkins:
- What is the cause of religion? Are we biologically predisposed to believe in supernatural things? If so, then what is the evolutionary benefit thereof?
- Where did current (mainstream) religions come from? Did they just drop, fully developed, from the sky? Or did they evolve from simpler thoughts and cross-pollination with other belief systems? If so, then what is the reason for fundamentalism, sects and huge cathedrals?
It is my view that Dawkins should be perfectly capable to answer these questions. Why else would an evolutionary biologist write a book refuting the existence of any and all gods? But he doesn’t answer these questions and instead tries his hand at logic to prove that God doesn’t exist and then to explain why the structures of all religions are evil.
Logically God doesn’t exist, so Dawkins states. In good scientific manner, he first discusses the various proofs for God’s existence, before explaining his viewpoint to the contrary. The ontological argument is pure rubbish anyway and most of the others provided are weaker than a house of straw in a hurricane. It is, however, the ‘five proofs’ asserted by Thomas Aquinas that is more interesting. Dawkins quickly dismisses three of them in that it’s just too convenient to call the terminator in the infinite regress “God”, rather than blaming it on a “big bang singularity,” or some other physical concept as yet unknown
(pp.101-102). He fails to understand that Aquinas defined the beginning of the universe using the mindset of his time and whether we call it the Big Bang Theory or some thirteenth century monk calls it God is irrelevant and pure semantics. What is important is that both Aquinas and Dawkins, albeit unintentional, admit to the necessity and existence of a primum movens.
The (il)logical proof for God’s non-existence is summarised on page 188, in that if an omnipotent being called God created the universe, then who created God? This question begs the rhetorical answer: Who cares, but perhaps God’s parents? What happens when we apply this same logic to the Big Bang Theory, which Dawkins admits is quite possible and even shows an affinity for the ‘universes giving birth to other universes’ theory (pp.173-175)? If the universe started with a big explosion of an infinitely minute thingy, then where did this thingy exist before it exploded? What is it expanding into? Is there a tangible edge to the universe? Blah blah blah... Logic states that God doesn’t exist, because who’re his parents? Thus, if the Big Bang Theory is correct, the universe doesn’t exist, because what’s it expanding into? So either the Big Bang Theory is wrong or Dawkins’s logic regarding the non-existence of God is flawed or we simply don’t exist. Bummer, if you believe Dawkins.
The rest of the book is spent explaining why religion is evil and creationism is stupid. Sure, people do evil things in the name of religion and tell downright lies to keep their followers faithful. If you look at religion in isolation from the rest of the social structure, then it doesn’t make sense. You have to look at religion in context with the relevant political, economical and kinship systems within the society. Dawkins doesn’t and therefore makes no sense of it. It is not religion that is evil, but our biological predisposition for belief that is dangerous. Any belief, whether religious, political or scientific, has the potential to breed fanaticism. Why? He doesn’t say. The fact is evil people don’t need religion to do evil things. An evolutionary biologist must surely find this scientifically interesting? Apparently Dawkins doesn’t and simply blames religion.
Fundamentalist creationism derived from the Bible really is stupid, but isn’t the Big Bang Theory in essence not also creationism? If creationism is wrong, then the Big Bang Theory is wrong. Phew, never mind God, at least now we exist again.
This book was, self admittedly (p.14), written for the general public and Dawkins ad nauseam mentions that people like Thomas Jefferson, Bertrand Russell and Douglas Adams were (apparently) atheist and thusly, after you come to grips with your and their non-existence, you’ll be in good company. Are we to be individuals gaining conscious enlightenment or just sheep changing flock?
In the end, after 420 pages, we’re still left with basically the same sticky situation as before: Either God created the universe as a failed science project for school one Monday morning (deism); or God is the universe (pantheism); or, because the universe does not exist, neither does God (atheism). God the kibbitzer (theism) is hopefully off somewhere else playing dice, leaving us with free will. Contrary to what Dawkins says, evolution does not prove the non-existence of God; nor is religion and evolution mutually exclusive. Overall, Small Gods by Terry Pratchett is theologically more satisfying.