Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. What does Richard Dawkins say in The God Delusion?

 Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. What does Richard Dawkins say in The God Delusion?

 

pdf Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion

#Richard_Dawkins' book The #God_Delusion

What does Richard Dawkins say in The God Delusion?

The God Delusion - 

THE GOD DELUSION Richard Dawkins

In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator, God, almost certainly does not exist, and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.

Why is God Delusion a good book?

A Long Review of Dawkins' The God Delusion – Neil Shenvi ...

Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion is immensely popular and has been hailed as a convincing defense of atheism. Dawkins sets out not only to defend atheism but to portray its worldview as morally and aesthetically pleasing in a way that atheist thinkers of the past (say, Nietzsche) didn't.

A Long Review of Dawkins’ The God Delusion

Islamic mullahs, both Shia and Sunni, are misogynistic and have anti-human and misogynistic ideas.

This essay was originally written as a guest post for an agnostic friend’s blog.

Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion is immensely popular and has been hailed as a convincing defense of atheism. TheGodDelusionDawkins sets out not only to defend atheism but to portray its worldview as morally and aesthetically pleasing in a way that atheist thinkers of the past (say, Nietzsche) didn’t. In fact, the majority of the book is not actually an argument against the existence of God, but rather a polemic against the origins, abuses, and beliefs of religion (in Chapters 1,2,5-10). (At this point, let me briefly apologize to anyone reading this post who, at the hands of professed Christians, has experienced some of the hatred that Dawkins describes. It makes me very ashamed, not of Christ, but of those of us who follow him and bring his name into such ill-repute). However, since I have limited space, I’ve decided to focus only on the rational arguments for atheism since, to rephrase Dawkins: atheism’s (or religion’s) power to comfort (or offend) doesn’t make it true (or false).

Let me focus explicitly on the end of Chapter 4, since Dawkins presents in it what he calls “the central argument of [his] book” (p. 157; all quotations and page numbers are from the 2006 edition). His argument is as follows:

Life is too complex to have come about by pure, random chance

It is therefore tempting to believe that it was created by an “intelligent designer”(p. 157) like other complex things

However, this belief is false because a designer would be more complicated than the thing designed, and “the whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability” (p. 158)

Darwinian evolution shows how life “with [its] spectacular statistical improbability” could have been produced (p. 158)

There is no analogous argument for physics, but the anthropic principle allows us to take “more luck” into account than we normally would in most arguments (p. 158)

Probably a better argument for physics does exist

Therefore, “God almost certainly does not exist” (p. 158

I’d like to point out two central inconsistencies in this argument. In addition, I’d like to examine whether Dawkins’ arguments are purely empirical and derived wholly from scientific evidence and reason, or whether they contain an element of “faith.”

First, let’s note that Dawkins’ argument is essentially one of probability. What Dawkins has attempted to show is not that God’s existence is disproved but merely rendered very, very improbable. In the section Irreducible Complexity, Dawkins points out that “Chance is not a solution [to the problem of biological complexity], given the high levels of improbability we see in living organisms, and no sane biologist would ever suggest that it was.” (p 119-120) We need to be very careful here. Technically speaking, chance is a possible solution to the problem of biological complexity in the sense that it is physically possible that in 40 million B.C. a random fluctuation of molecules accidentally assembled the entire Eocene ecosystem. In the same way, a hurricane in a factory just might assemble a 747. There are no physical laws that are actually violated by either process (not even the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; e-mail me later). But what Dawkins is saying is that no scientist in his right mind would believe a theory that depended on such a small probability. In contrast, says Dawkins, natural selection provides an elegant mechanism for the production of complex lifeforms: “natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces” (p. 121). In other words, given that some primitive form of life exists, natural selection provides a mechanism which ensures that the development of complex life is, if not guaranteed, at least very very probable.

What about the origin of life? Dawkins freely admits that “in once sense, it is a bigger gap” and that the origin of life may have been an “extremely improbable event” (p. 135). When he has to conjure up odds for the sake of argument, Dawkins throws out a truly improbable number (1 in a billion, p. 138), although he does say later that he “doesn’t for a moment believe the origin of life was anywhere near so improbable in practice” (p. 138). Doesn’t this mean that complex life existing at all is incredibly improbable? No, says Dawkins, because of the anthropic principle (Dawkins is actually invoking the weak anthropic principle as opposed to the strong anthropic principle). There are a billion, billion planets in the universe. Even if the chances of life evolving spontaneously on a random planet is one in a billion, that means that there are a billion planets on which life began, and given natural selection, nearly all of them will have evolved complex life. 

Of course we are on one of the lucky ones, because if we were on one of the unlucky ones, we wouldn’t be sitting here wondering why there is life on our planet.

Let me try to summarize Dawkins’ argument thus far: given the (weak) anthropic principle, and natural selection, it is not at all surprising (i.e. it is probable) that there is a planet (perhaps many planets) somewhere in the universe which contain complex, sentient life like humans; there is no need to invoke a designer. Now we come to the problem: what Dawkins has presented thus far is not an argument, but a framework. He set out to show that there is a natural and probable explanation for the origin of complex life in the universe. If P is the probability for the existence of sentient life somewhere in the universe, then he claims that P is large (say > 50%), so we need not look for a creator God. According to his argument, P = p * N where p is the probability of spontaneous biogenesis and the subsequent evolution of life on a random planet and N is the number of planets in the universe. Since astronomers and cosmologists tell us that N = 10^20, the final, conclusive step in his argument is to provide an estimate of p and to show that p * N is large. So what is the probability that Dawkins calculates? He doesn’t provide one. Although this number is the cornerstone of his argument, he makes absolutely no attempt to calculate it.

Since this number is such a crucial piece of his argument, let’s try to estimate it using Dawkins’ (admittedly low) number 1/10^9 for the probability of the spontaneous genesis of life on a random planet and his estimate of the number of planets in the universe, 10^20. If these numbers are correct, then the probability that sentient life evolved somewhere in the universe is essentially 100%. But are we missing anything? Later in the chapter, Dawkins mentions that “it may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck, anthropically justified. For example, my colleague… has suggested that the origin of the eukaryotic cell was an even more … statistically improbable step than the origin of life. The origin of consciousness might be another major gap whose bridging was of the same order of improbability” (p. 140). But if we take Dawkins at his word, something interesting happens. If -as he suggests- each of those steps were equally unlikely (1/10^9), then the probability of overcoming all three would be 1/10^27. Given that there are 10^20 planets, that leaves only a one in ten million chance that there is any planet, anywhere in the universe that contains sentient life like us.

Let me be clear that I am not a biologist, nor am I claiming that the probability of spontaneous biogenesis is one in a billion or one in a trillion, or any other number (if any molecular biologists are reading this, I would be very interested to know your estimate; I’ve asked biologists that I know and there doesn’t seem to be a consensus). My point is that Dawkins does not provide any number at all because he is taking his argument the wrong way around. If you are trying to prove that P is large and find that P = p * N, the next logical thing to do is to estimate p and N using what we know about physical laws from astronomy and biochemistry (see p. 137). It is a specious argument to instead assert “since we know P is almost 1, we can estimate p.” Unfortunately, this is precisely what Dawkins does. On page 140, at the end of his argument about biology, he says “The anthropic principle states that, since we are alive, eucaryotic and conscious, our planet has to be one of the intensely rare planets that has bridged all three gaps”. But the anthropic principle (as Dawkins is using it) doesn’t exactly say that. It says that we have a certain number (10^18) of planets to work with. If the probability of conscious life evolving spontaneously is greater than 1/10^18, then whatever our theory of biogenesis is, it is a probable one. But conversely, it also says that if the probability is significantly less than 1/10^18, then our theory is very unlikely indeed. It simply does not say “since we’re here, we must be a very probable event” (the strong anthropic principle does make this argument, but Dawkins doesn’t invoke it, presumably because it undermines his argument that there is a probable, natural explanation for the universe). Dawkins has constructed an elaborate framework, but has left out the final step which is the very crux of his argument.

My central objection to Dawkins’ reasoning is essentially this: he has mistaken one of his assumptions for a conclusion. What was his assumption? That there is a natural, probable explanation for the origin of life. If this statement is accepted as a postulate then, and only then, does his reasoning make sense. If there is a natural, probable explanation for the origin of life, then we can assert (indeed, must assert), as Dawkins does, that “our planet has to be one of the intensely rare planets that has bridged all three gaps” (p. 141). However, if we are trying to determine whether there is a natural, probable explanation for life, we certainly cannot use this reasoning. Well, why does Dawkins’ believe that there is a natural, probable explanation for life? I assert it is part of his faith in naturalism. At this point, this statement might appear a bit excessive, but I believe that further justification emerges when we examine Dawkins’ next argument regarding the values of the fundamental physical constants.

Dawkins points out that there are (at least) six  fundamental physical constants, which, if any of them were altered very, very slightly from their current values, would prohibit the existence of a life-supporting universe (usually due to the collapse of the universe within a few attoseconds of the Big Bang). Of course, this presents a similar puzzle as the origins of complex biological life and, in a sense, is a precondition for it: if these constants hadn’t lined up and the universe had collapsed, complex life wouldn’t exist.

Let’s stop for a moment at this point. We have been trying thus far to determine whether or not there is a natural, probable explanation for the existence of complex life somewhere in the universe. Let us assume that Dawkins’ argument about biology is correct: natural selection provides a mechanism that explains how otherwise highly improbable-looking evidence (biological life) has a very probable explanation. Dawkins takes great pains to show that the beauty of Darwinian evolution is that it provides such an elegant mechanism, without which the existence of life would be highly suspect. But what if we did not have an elegant theory like natural selection which purported to account for the complexity that we observe? Would not the existence of a finely tuned, complex ecosystem then be highly suspect?

That is precisely the case we find ourselves in when it comes to the fundamental constants. To quote Dawkins in what is a bit of an understatement: “we don’t yet have an equivalent crane [i.e. mechanism] for physics” (p. 158). In other words, given our current understanding of the laws of physics, there is no objectively verified theory which explains the coincidence of the fundamental constants. If they were determined by pure chance, then the probability that the universe would have been able to sustain life is ridiculously small (Roger Penrose apparently estimated the probability to be 1 in 10^(10^123) ). I think it is at this point that Dawkins’ presuppositions become most apparent. For instance, as far as I’m aware there is not a single piece of experimental evidence for a multiverse (see the recent review of Susskind’s book in Nature). In a preface to his treatment of multiverse theory in The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene states that “No one knows if these ideas are right or wrong, and certainly they currently lie on the outskirts of mainstream science” (p. 366). That is not surprising since the infinite universes postulated by multiverse theory are usually tucked away in black holes or in other dimensions where we can’t observe them. In the face of no concrete evidence and overwhelmingly negative odds, Dawkins states that “We should not give up hope of a better [mechanism] arising in physics” (p. 158). Perhaps we should not. But again, my objection is not about whether some alternate theory of physics exists that will explain life. My argument is that any belief that such a theory exists rests, as Dawkins says, on “hope” (p. 158), not on evidence.

A fundamental postulate of the naturalist (I use the word descriptively, not pejoratively) worldview which Dawkins espouses is that: “everything in the universe can be feasibly explained by natural laws”, a statement to which I think Dawkins would readily assent. But is this assertion based on solely on empirical, objective evidence? There is an easy way to find out. Can everything in the universe currently be explained by natural laws, as we now understand them? In the case of physics, at least, the answer is a resounding no. The immediate objection is that we would be able to explain these phenomena if we had the right theory. But how do you know there is such a “right theory”? Such an assertion merely brings us back to the original postulate. The assertion that “at some point in the future, we will have a theory of that explains everything” is no more or less evidence-based than the assertion that “at some point in the future, we will live on the moon”. Both of these statements are plausible; they may even be true. But they certainly are based, at root, on faith. That is, these statements form a set of axiomatic beliefs or presuppositions. We do not derive them from evidence; rather, they are part of our worldview.

Let me be clear that I am not disparaging Dawkins’ for having a worldview. I have one too. Everyone has one. You can’t do science or mathematics or anything unless you begin with a set of assumptions about the nature of reality. These assumptions may appear very reasonable and almost unavoidable, but it is important to recognize that they are assumptions, not conclusions. I also have deliberately avoided the question of God’s existence. I do happen to think that science gives us very clear reasons to question naturalistic assumptions and to believe in the God who has revealed himself in the Bible. Historical evidence regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ gives us even more. I also think that Dawkins’ philosophical arguments against God’s existence (for instance, his statement in Point 3 on page 158 that God is improbable because he is complex) are simply wrong. But for the purposes of this essay, I have limited myself to Dawkins’ scientific arguments in order to show that they are not as clear-cut as he claims and that scientific evidence does not necessarily lead us to naturalism. Rather, we import naturalism, or deism, or theism into our reasoning about evidence.

RICHARD DAWKINS’

GOD DELUSION

To restate my central objection, I believe that Dawkins is failing to distinguish between his assumptions and his conclusions. As a result, he is unable to see how much his worldview is coloring his interpretation of the evidence. When it comes to physics (and as a consequence to biology), the evidence we face is a set of fundamental constants which all conspire to permit the existence of life in a manner currently so improbable that it defies description. What is it that makes Dawkins so confident that such a coincidence has a natural explanation? What makes him sure that multiverse theory, or many worlds quantum theory, or a grand unification theory which so far have no objective justification will explain the universe? What makes him certain that, in the end, we will find a solution that does not involve a personal, omnipotent, creator? Faith. A set of basic, presuppositional, axiomatic beliefs through which we evaluate the evidence. Dawkins, like all of us, possesses faith. As human beings, we cannot decide whether to have faith; we can only decide what or whom to put our faith in.

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 9 CHAPTER 1 SCIENCE AND GOD ...................................................................14 ‘The God Delusion’ ................................................................................. 17 Argumentation .......................................................................................... 19 Proving the non-existence ..................................................................... 24 The infinite regress.................................................................................. 25 ‘The teapot’ ................................................................................................ 26 Likehood and God................................................................................... 27 Abstaining from the judgement ........................................................... 28 ‘The atheistic constant’ ........................................................................... 29 Logic, God and evolution ...................................................................... 30 The unproven statements....................................................................... 33 About the complexity and improbability of God............................... 35 Who designed the Designer? ................................................................ 36 The Book of Genesis, the Gospels and the creation, other dimensions........................................................................................... 37 The claim of Porphyry of Tyre............................................................ 37 Conclusion.................................................................................................. 39 CHAPTER 2 IS CONSISTENT ATHEISM THE SOURCE OF EVIL?... 40 Moral Darwinism...................................................................................... 41 Consistent atheism vs. moral Darwinism.......................................... 41 The apogee of morality of consistent atheism ............................... 43 Absolutism vs. the opposing views..................................................... 47 Atheistic moral Darwinism vs. Christian morality in practice .... 51 Abortion...................................................................................................... 51 Euthanasia .................................................................................................. 55 The moral Darwinist and the Christian, can you be both at the same time? ............................................................................... 60 About the inconsistent atheism and the inconsistent Christianity........................................................................................... 61 About education in religion................................................................... 62 Redundant statements............................................................................. 63 Derision....................................................................................................... 65 Richard Dawkins vs. Mother Teresa of Calcutta ............................ 66 Delusional views of Richard Dawkins............................................... 71 Conclusion.................................................................................................. 72 CHAPTER 3 ATHEISTIC MORALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF TOTALITARIAN REGIME ....................................................... 73 Communism............................................................................................... 74 Lenin and his work................................................................................... 78 The ruined temples.................................................................................. 83 Censorship.................................................................................................. 84 National socialism, Adolf Hitler vs. religion.................................... 86 The tool of totalitarian evil .................................................................101 Pius XII and the National Socialists.................................................104 Conclusion................................................................................................114 CHAPTER 4 WHO A CHRISTIAN IS? ...........................................................115 A Christian................................................................................................115 About the behavior of a Christian ....................................................118 Where do crimes ascribed to the Church come from? ...............121 Conclusion................................................................................................126 CHAPTER 5 HISTORICAL SOURCES OF CHRISTIANITY..................127 The canon of the Gospel.....................................................................127 The genealogies of Jesus......................................................................138 Further questions concerning Jesus’ origin ....................................140 The registration during Quirinius’ government ............................141 Whether population census was conducted according to the families of Israel?............................................................................144 The inconsistency of the evangelical descriptions of the birth and the early years of the life of Jesus......................................148 Herod the Great and ‘the massacre of the innocents’ ................150 Josephus Flavius, history and the Gospels .....................................152 Jesus preaches to the world .................................................................159 The interpretation of the New Testament .....................................160 The salvation of man ............................................................................163 Conclusion................................................................................................164 SUMMARY ....................................................................................166 BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................170

INTRODUCTION There is such a concept that has accompanied human civilization since the dawn of time. It has fascinated and attracted millions of people from time immemorial. It became the subject of reflection of philosophers, artists and scientists. This concept is God. Many wonder: Does He really exist? If so, what is His role in human life? If not, why does He have so many followers? The endless dialogue continues between two great stances of philosophy. The correlated concepts of God and atheism are constantly arguing about the truth and crossing in the battle for human beliefs, generating feelings of fascination and controversy at the same time. This dispute, which caused great hopes and disappointments, the one that engaged numerous philosophers, the one of a considerable signification in human life, is fundamental to the present cogitation. Recording the past, we discover that the religious beliefs played an essential role in the history of civilization. However, the value of these beliefs has declined due to the powerful front of the anti-religious movements, which emerged in the recent centuries. There appeared many literature writers, who expressed religious skepticism in the pages of their works. Currently, at the beginning of the twenty first century, this front is represented by a number of the prominent and renowned leaders. Richard Dawkins, the Oxford professor, who endeavored to support the achievements of 10 RICHARD DAWKINS’ GOD DELUSION his predecessors with his personal opinion and promote atheistic beliefs around the world, is included in this group. His book, The God Delusion, has become popular among thousands of readers, who accepted its content with great enthusiasm. Nevertheless, there is a number of such readers, who express strong criticism for Richard Dawkins’ view, recognizing it as the unjustified and based on false premises attack on religion. Reading the title of the book written by the Oxford scientist – The God Delusion, it is worth highlighting that the notions of God and religion as delusion were already known in the literature of past eras. Such a formulation may be found in the works of one of the fiercest atheists of the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth century, DonatienAlphonse-François de Sade, known as the Marquis de Sade - the man completely devoid of values, deprived of elementary fairness, claiming to be guided merely by egoism, pleasure and moral corruption. This philosopher wrote: ‘The God Delusion is just a chimera and his unreasonable existence was accepted exceptionally by the insane’1 . Karl Marx – the preeminent representative of the communist theory also appeared on the horizon. The leaders of the world’s largest systems of the collapse of humanity and the enslavement, employed his ideology. Marx, a professed atheist, wrote: ‘The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness’2 . Are marxism and sadism sources of the 1 Donatien-Alphonse-François de Sade, Justyna, czyli nieszczęścia cnoty, tłum. M. Bratuń, wyd. II, Wydawnictwo Łódzkie, Łódź 1989, s. 212. 2 Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, trans. Joseph O'Malley, Oxford University Press, 1970, [introduction]. INTRODUCTION 11 contemporary literature and the commonly respected, scientific authority? Does professor Dawkins draw his inspirations from the works of these thinkers? Do the concepts of God and religion as the delusion tie these authors with the joint theme? Who has delusions and what kind of delusions does he have? Let the book by the professor Richard Dawkins, in the context of criticism, answer the aforementioned questiones. ‘Lysias wrote a defence for some accused person, and gave it to him, and he read it several times, and came to Lysias in great dejection and said, "When I first perused this defence, it seemed to me wonderful, but when I read it a second and third time, it seemed altogether dull and ineffective”. Then Lysias laughed, and said, "What then? Are you going to read it more than once to the jury?"’3 . Dawkins’ God Delusion can be compared to the Lysias’ speech since it it gives the impression of being phenomenal, however, the deeper insight into its content reveals the lack of precision as well as superficiality of the analysis of the discussed terms. Reading The God Delusion one may have mixed feelings. On the one hand, the reader desires to acknowledge, with great curiosity, strong contradictory evidence4 , which are mentioned by the author, and which indicate the non-existence of God; on the other, looking at the large book, one may get the impression that it employs methods of deceptive sophistic rhetoric, which are known for centuries. As a matter of fact, this book may be criticized for the con- 3 Plutarch’s, Morals. On Talkativeness, trans. Arthur Richard Shiletto, Chiswick Press, 1978, p. 218. 4 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Transworld Publishers, London, 2006, p. 28. 12 RICHARD DAWKINS’ GOD DELUSION cealment, reducing to ridicule, the distraction, failing to provide the complete information on the issue, drawing conclusions that are not based on reliable evidence, and even presenting absurd, illogical reasoning. The reader, inundated with a torrent of words and an avalanche of incidental cases, gets the impression that the presented statements are equitable, whereas, the delivered opinions are not factual and objective. Reading The God Delusion, one may notice that the professor Richard Dawkins’ conclusions are not based on ‘strong contradictory evidence’5 , but on his subjective worldview system. Furthermore, while attentive reading, it is observable that the book fails to tackle, except for several references, the issue of the existence or the nonexistence of God. The content of the dissertation primarily concerns problems related to God in the sociological, and not metaphysical sense. The believers frequently fear questions regarding their own views and convictions. They prefer life of pure faith that is not based on any source of cognition. This attitude is connected with anxiety about losing fundamental beliefs since a particular person would have to separate from them once they are proved to be unjustified. The depicted inclination is wrong, however. It may lead to the approval of contradictions that should not be accepted. Similarly, the second side, i.e., the atheistic, tends not to be prone to deeper reflections, due to the lack of interest in this field, rather than because of fear. The atheistic worldview is sufficient for the existence and its followers frequently do not seek anything else. They isolate in the consumer society and 5 Ibidem.

INTRODUCTION 13 hermetically dissociate themselves from any spirituality. This attitude also seems wrong since it aims exclusively at the biological persistence and lacks the element of the philosophical depth. Regardless, such principal issues should not be avoided as they are so strongly linked to the sense of the human existence. CHAPTER 1 SCIENCE AND GOD While searching for the answers to the most fundamental questions of man as well as the sources of knowledge, from which he derives his inspiration, it is necessary to refer to science, the reliable verifier of truth and falsehood. There is a contradiction between concepts of theism and atheism. Either God ‘is’ or He ‘is not’. According to logic, one statement is true and consequently, the second, is clearly false. This seemingly simple structure encompasses significant obstacles, as it became the subject of the centuries-old dispute, which has not been resolved yet, as a number of great philosphers maintain. Does atheism justify the sense of the human existence? Theists indisputably claim that not. They cannot accept the existence for the sake of existence, ‘the struggle for survival’, the ultimate emptiness6 as the philosophy of life. Or perhaps atheism proclaims the inconvenient truth? Maybe emptiness is the ultimate goal of our life? Theists maintain that there exists the Entity, who gives the sense and significance to the human life. They seek the Absolute that would justify human fate and human desires. Mo- 6 Ibidem, p. 403. SCIENCE AND GOD 15 reover, they find the meaning of their existence in God, the soul and morality. Dawkins’ atheism implies the acceptance of the philosophy, which assumes that ‘there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe’7 . God comprehended in such a way does not exist, besides, religion is the false element that should be rejected. ‘An atheist [...] is somebody who believes there is [...] no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles – except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand’8 . Thus, there is no God, no world beyond the physical one, no supernatural phenomena, no human soul (there is no afterlife, there is only emptiness9 ). Furthermore, in his dissertation, Dawkins recognizes pantheism as the kind of atheism10, since the idea of God, understood in terms of the laws of nature, nature itself, or the universe, represents the atheistic worldview, although it is named differently. Atheism presented by this philosopher is the type of atheism that regards the theory of evolution as the final explanation of the origin of life processes, and even morality11 . 7 Ibidem, p. 35. 8 Ibidem p. 35. (Dawkins’ atheism is associated – as he claims himself – with defence of ‘contradicting opinion’ concerning ‘the God hypothesis’. The God hypothesis, however, he formulated as follows: ‘there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us’ – p. 52). 9 Ibidem, pp. 35, 403. 10 Ibidem, pp. 39-40. 11 Ibidem, chap. 4, 6. 16 RICHARD DAWKINS’ GOD DELUSION Theism is the view, according to which God exists. Some people claim that God, as the ultimate subject of the faith, is the greatest personal power and justification of every life form12. According to others, God is the principle and the final foundation of any reality13. And yet others consider God as the supernatural person, or the personified entity, that is the reason for the existence of the entire universe, and primarily, the destiny of the human life14. Dawkins maintains that ‘the word »God« [...] should be [...] understood [...] to denote a supernatural creator that is »appropriate for us to worship«‘15 . If one defined God through the prism of Jesus Christ, it should be concluded that God is the highest entity from ‘a different dimension’. As a matter of fact, Jesus claimed to be King and He taught about His kingdom, which is not from this world. God is good by nature since Christ was merciful and just. He has self-awareness and the ability of the existence beyond life on the earth, because He reasoned like all people, He was resurrected and went, as He declared, to His kingdom. God has the potential to induce supernatural phenomena, because Jesus healed and made signs that we are unable to explain in a natural way. The 12 Religia. Encyklopedia PWN, red. nauk. T. Gadacz, B. Milerski, t. 2, Warszawa 2001, hasło opracował J.A. Kłoczowski, Warszawa 2001. 13 Encyklopedia chrześcijaństwa. Historia i współczesność. 2000 lat nadziei, red. H. Witczyk, Jedność 2001, s. 109. 14 Encyklopedia katolicka, Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL, wyd. I, t. II, pod red. F. Grylewicza, R. Łukaszyka, Z. Sułowskiego, Lublin 1976. 15 R. Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 33 (Dawkins presents similar uderstanding of God also on pp. 52 and 82). SCIENCE AND GOD 17 present study requires understanding of God through the figure of Jesus Christ. ‘The God Delusion’ In ten chapters of his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins presented assumptions that, as he believes, form the powerful argumentation in favor of the denial of the faith in the name of atheism. Already in the introduction16 , Dawkins reviews his work: Chapter 1 and chapter 10 ‘explain in their different ways, how a proper understanding of the magnificence of the real world, while never becoming a religion, can fill the inspirational role that religion has [...] usurped’. Chapter 2 deals with agnosticism and the view that the God hypothesis is the scientific hypothesis, which should be analysed sceptically. Chapter 3 concerns counterargumentation with the so called evidence for the existence of God presented by theologians and philosophers in the history. Chapter 4 discusses issues related to life and the world origins with no references to God. Darwinian theory of the natural selection constitutes the basis of the consideration. Chapter 5 explains why this belief is so ubiquitous. Dawkins wonders if God exist due to the universality of religion. Chapters 6 and 7 argue with the belief that religion and God are ‘necessary in order for us to have justifiable morals’. In Chapter 8 Dawkins indicates that ‘religion is not such 16 Ibidem, pp. 24-26. 18 RICHARD DAWKINS’ GOD DELUSION a good thing’. In turn, chapter 9 tackles the problem of the education in religion. Dawkins maintains that religion persists ‘despite strong contradictory evidence’17, however, the above conclusion does not follow from the review of The God Delusion. In chapters 1 and 10 Dawkins wrote about the possibility of the understanding the world without any reference to God - when, in fact, this stance does not contradict the possibility of the existence of God. Chapter 2 discusses agnostics and, what is more, the concept of God in terms of the scientific hypothesis, that should be approached with some scepticism – however, the above statement does not exclude the properness of the belief in God. Chapter 3 encompasses the theological and philosophical proofs for the existence of God – that do not affect either the properness or improperness of religion. The issues pertaining to Darwinism are discussed in chapter 4. Nonetheless, Darwinism is not inconsistent with the faith since this theory does not deny the existence of God as well as the creation of life by God, as confirmed by Darwin himself18. Chapter 5, which describes the population of the believers, is not in opposition to the dogmas of religion. Chapters 6, 7, 8 and 9 deal with morality, religious ‘benefits’, the problem of the education in religion, and not the existence or nonexistence of God. 17 Ibidem, p. 28. 18 Karol Darwin, O powstawaniu gatunków drogą doboru naturalnego, czyli o utrzymaniu się doskonalszych ras w walce o byt, tłum. S. Dickstein, J. Nusbaum, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Rolnicze i Leśne, Warszawa 1955, s. 515.