This past Christmas, I was given a book by my wife Amy. This is nothing unusual; I enjoy reading and often receive books as gifts. It was unusual however, that Amy would purchase for me a book by one of the world's foremost atheists, Richard Dawkins. It was indeed his latest book, the subject of some controversy lately,
The God Delusion.
I was intrigued; not by the book so much as by its very shiny cover (I like shiny things). It was a shimery silver and looked almost like a mirror. However, after seeing Dawkins interviewed on The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos and deciding that he was quite intelligent and witty, I decided that it might be worthwhile to spend some hours looking at the pages of the book as well as the cover.
My favourite book of all time (and I think it would be even if I did not agree with most of it) is
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Dawkins' book is sort of an anti-
Mere Christianity; presenting an argument in favour of atheism. It falls roughly into three sections: the first deals with the philosophical arguments for God's existence that have been presented throughout history; the second provides a plausible alternative to a designed universe; and the third addresses some of the authors own concerns about religion. Dawkins, a trained biologist, presents very convincing scientific arguments; however, I was disappointed to find that his arguments against men like Aquinas and Lewis lacked any real substance or thought.
Two passages in particular demonstrate the weakness of Dawkins' arguments. The first of these is spoken in reference to this passage from Saint Thomas Aquinas'
Summa Theologica:
"There are degrees of...goodness or perfection. But we judge these degrees only by comparison with a maximum...Therefore there must be some maximum to set the standard for perfection, and we call that maximum God."
Dawkins' reply is, "That's an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker..."
In addition to being merely an appeal to ridicule (this fallacy, actually, is ubiquitous in the book), this is clearly a false analogy. Goodness is an abstract entity, while odour is concrete. Therefore Dawkins' comparison does not work and his criticism is invalid. C.S. Lewis addresses the same issue in Mere Christianity saying:
"Everyone has heard people quarrelling...They say things like this: 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?'...Now what interests me about these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about."
Dawkins' argument is invalid because odours are non-absolute. To say the odour of a person is bad is, in Lewis' words, merely saying that the odour does not happen to please you. However to say something (or someone) is good or bad in and of itself is to appeal to an absolute standard outside of yourself. The God Delusion, therefore fails to properly address Aquinas' (or Lewis') argument. I suppose there's no shame however, in failing to compete with Aquinas; he was after all (with the possible exception of Isaac Newton) the greatest genius who ever lived.
The second passage that I think best demonstrates Dawkins' inability to address the philosophical arguments for God's existence is this one:
"A common argument, attributed among others to C.S. Lewis (who should have known better), states that, since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, he must have been either right or else insane or a liar." Dawkins continues, "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal. But even if that evidence were good, the trilemma on offer would be ludicrously inadequate. A fourth possibility, almost too obvious to need mentioning, is that Jesus was honestly mistaken."
Dawkins is speaking of a passage in Mere Christianity that, in addition to proving that indeed Christ did claim divinity, states this:
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell...Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse."
And Lewis is right. He (correctly) presupposes what Dawkins does not: that it is impossible to be "honestly mistaken" about whether or not you are the omnipotent creator of the universe. We have names for people who think so; we call them, as Lewis does, madmen. Or Lunatics. Or bonkers. Or a thousand other names which we have applied to men like David Koresh. The trilemma that Lewis poses therefore remains intact.
Dawkins' does make some valid criticisms of arguments for God's existence. He wittily refutes, for example, St. Anselm's ontological proof. In addition to that, he makes some well-founded, appropriate criticisms of the Bible.
In any case, I have concentrated on what I found lacking in the book because, to me, that is most interesting. If I were to review the book more fully I could mention any number of praiseworthy attributes such as Dawkins' wit, style, clear and well written prose etc. etc. etc. Indeed the book is quite enjoyable and thought-provoking and I recommend reading it regardless of your personal viewpoints or religion.
