God, Aquinas, and Dawkins: Chapter 1 The God Delusion (Part 1)

Before I begin discussing Chapter 1 of the book, let me describe the method I will use in this and the following posts. There are many statements, premises, arguments that Dawkins makes throughout the book. Some have counted upwards of 160 separate premises. The book is written in conversational style marked by strong passion and even polemics. It is clear that Dawkins did not mean to write a philosophical treatise but wrote in a manner to reach the greatest number of people. As such, he often makes bold statements that are not supported by evidence or fact as well as making provocative and denigrating statements about religion in general.


I will be posting my response to each chapter in the book. For each chapter, I will provide a very brief synopsis of the chapter. Then I will outline or delineate the major premises Dawkins makes in the chapter. Finally I will respond to each premise. In my response I will try to outline the philosophical history/roots of each idea. I will also show the fundamental error or mistake underlying each idea. I will then discuss the correction to each of these ideas. I will try to limit my posts to addressing one premise (or a very few if appropriate). Thus for some chapters there will be more than one post.

*******************************

Summary of Chapter 1

In Chapter 1, Dawkins begins laying the foundation upon which he will build the remainder of the book. Chapter 1 draws a sharp dichotomy between modern science and religion. The title of the chapter, "A deeply religious non believer" is a partial quote from Albert Einstein, who described his "religion" as an awe of nature and its "magnificent structure." The main thrust of the chapter is that science deserves respect (which it doesn't get) whereas religion deserves little or no respect (which it receives).

The first section of the chapter uses Einstein to illustrate that awe and wonder at the grandeur of the universe and its underlying structure are not necessarily religious sentiments – religious in the sense of believing in a Creator God. He goes to great length to show how Einstein sometimes used religious language to capture the powerful emotions he felt. But quotes from Einstein show that even though he used “God-talk” to describe these feelings he personally did not believe in a personal God. Dawkins quotes Einstein, “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Dawkins argues that such transcendent wonder at the universe has been monopolized by religion in past centuries but is not necessarily characteristic of only religious believers. Many modern scientists who are avowed atheists hold such feelings at heart.

He defines atheists as philosophical naturalists. Dawkins writes, “An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles - except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural. As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful.” A quote from Julian Baggini further illustrates his point: “What most atheists do believe is that although there is only one kind of stuff in the universe and it is physical, out of this stuff come minds, beauty, emotions, moral values - in short the full gamut of phenomena that gives richness to human life."

Dawkins also writes, “human thoughts and emotions emerge from exceedingly complex interconnections of physical entities within the brain.”

He then defines terms:

“A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think of doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.”

He sums up part one and sets the stage for the chapter’s second part: , “I wish that physicists would refrain from using the word God in their special metaphorical sense. The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miraclewreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason.”

In the second part of the chapter, Dawkins seeks to convince the reader of the irrationality of religion and its “undeserved respect” in the West. He rattles off a litany of violence, atrocities, and evil performed in the name of religion throughout the years especially in the late 20th-early 21st centuries.

Major Premises

1. The deep appreciation and wonder at the structure of the universe is not just characteristic of religious believers.
2. Nothing exists outside the material, physical universe.
3. Human thoughts, emotions, arise out of the physical features of the brain.
4. And a corollary to this, there is no immaterial soul.
5. Modern science, especially Darwinian evolutionary science, explains the origins and workings of the universe.
6. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, science will eventually understand it and embrace it within the natural.
7. The theistic belief in a personal God who created the universe, oversees and influences it, and is intimately involved in human affairs is false. No God exists.
8. Atheistic science is rational.
9. Religion is irrational.
10. Religion is a major source of violence and evil in the world.

In the next post, I will respond to these major premises.