prince - final final
TRANSCRIPT
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 1/46
Prince Joyous Lising Argumentation
3-LM
Richard Dawkins’ Theory of Morality is Highly Defective
CHAPTER I
Background of the Study
Being a student the hunger for knowledge is inevitable. Curiosity leads the way to new
grounds. I am a student of philosophy and as a student of it I was curiously motivated to
know why there are people who despise the idea that all things are created by God, but
what intrigues me most is the fact that most of them are scientists. Of course as a student I
look up to scientists and one of the most prominent in his own field of science is Richard
Dawkins. Richard Dawkins is the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at
Oxford University. He is an enthusiastic advocate of Darwin’s theory of evolution by
natural selection. But he doesn’t just stop there. He goes further to argue that God or a
superior being than us is not only untrue but moreover a delusion and the belief of this
superior being or a God through the teachings of religion is a virus of the mind and is
deeply damaging to the people and to our world.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this research is to show that Richard Dawkins’ theory of morality is highly
defective.
1
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 2/46
The following sub-questions will help me to conduct the research on this area:
1. What are the fallacious arguments used by Dawkins to support his claim?
2. Are the arguments given by Dawkins enough to support his theory of morality? What are
its defects?
Significance of the Study
Knowledge is abundant in these times because of the vast medium any person could use to
present their own opinion people should know and their eyes be opened to the fact that not
all opinion that are presented to them are to be accepted and are true.
Review of Related Literature
Richard Dawkins would want to occupy the role of the hero of the world that hates God
and His existence, and because of that he uses all of his strength and knowledge to
convince every people he can communicate with that his ideals are true and strong. And
what does he use to do this? All of his intelligence and life, and how is he doing this? Well
he throws arguments and questions that have been long answered and just reopening them,
remaking them into something like brand new to confuse people or worse to make them
believe that he is right. He is a man of science and science is his way to peoples’ hearts,
particularly biological science. He is orchestrating a choir to delete God from the minds of
every people in this world in every ways he can. And the song he is teaching to all the
2
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 3/46
people is almost very soothing to the ears of those who are not very vigilant and to those
who are in-tune with his music. But one thing that Dawkins did not think of is not all
people are laying their guard down at all times. Some are very observant and easily found
out that there are loops on his claims and have proven that he is simply out of tune.
One of the people who are very observant and have seen Dawkins’ off beam arguments is
Dembski. Dembski as what it partly reads in an article by Peter Williams
(http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_purposeoflife.htm) is the leading intellectual
theorist of Design. According to Edward Sission: ‘If Thomas Huxley was “Darwin’s
Bulldog”, Dembski is the man with the leash and the obedience training technique to bring
Darwinism into check.’ Dembski’s leash is an ‘Explanatory Filter’ that identifies intelligent
causation by detecting what chance and natural law alone are extremely hard-pressed to
produce, namely ‘specified complexity’ or ‘complex specified information’ (CSI): ‘the
filter asks three questions in the following order: (1) Does a law explain it? (2) does chance
explain it? (3) does design explain it?’ If something can reasonably be explained by chance
and/or necessity, then (by Occam’s razor) it should be so explained (it is, at most,
designoid ); but if such an explanation is inadequate, then an inference to the more complex
but more adequate hypothesis of design is warranted. Intelligence easily accomplishes
what unintelligent causes find all but impossible, the creation of specified complexity;
hence the detection of specified complexity, while it does not prove design beyond all
possibility of doubt, does prove design beyond all reasonable doubt.
3
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 4/46
According to Dawkins: ‘Complicated [i.e. complex] things have some quality, specifiable
in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by random chance alone. In the
case of living things, the quality that is specified in advance is, the ability to propagate
genes in reproduction.’ Dawkins thinks that random chance can produce CSI when
combined with a non-random law of natural selection. Dembski argues that natural causes
are not up to the task of creating CSI. First, he eliminates necessity: ‘Because information
presupposes contingency, necessity is by definition incapable of producing information,
much less complex specified information. . .’ Then he turns his attention to contingency:
‘Either the contingency is a blind, purposeless contingency – which is [random] chance, or
it is a guided, purposeful contingency – which is intelligent causation. . .’ With Dawkins,
Dembski argues that ‘pure [random] chance. . . is incapable of generating CSI.’ Whenever
we know the causal history of an object or event exhibiting CSI, we know it was produced
by intelligence. Hence we can infer that all examples of CSI are probably produced by
intelligence: ‘Chance can generate complex unspecified information [e.g. a random string
of scrabble pieces], and chance can generate non-complex specified information [e.g. a
short word in scrabble pieces]. What chance cannot generate is information that is jointly
complex and specified. . . [e.g. a book by Dawkins]’ Dembski’s argument requires one
more stage:
If chance and necessity left to themselves cannot generate CSI, is it possible that chance
and necessity working together might generate CSI [as Dawkins believes]? The answer is
No. Whenever chance and necessity work together, the respective contributions of chance
and necessity can be arranged sequentially. But by arranging the respective contributions
4
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 5/46
of chance and necessity sequentially, it becomes clear that at no point in the sequence is
CSI generated.
By a process of elimination, and on the basis of experience, intelligent design is the best
explanation for CSI: ‘Since chance, necessity, and their combination characterize natural
causes, it now follows that natural causes are incapable of generating CSI which is
contradicting unto what Dawkins proposes. (Is Life Designed or Designoid? Dawkins, Science and
the Purpose of Life by Peter Williams) http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_purposeoflife.htm
In these days of technological advances people have access to every inch of information
they need to get what they want or to say what their minds think of. But does this mean that
what they say is true? Well that goes to Dawkins to. It does not follow that a person
published a book and writes in the internet that says anything he wants and think of is true
or as true as what he wanted to portray to the people.
This is exactly what Terry Eagleton wants to convey in his article “ Lunging, Flailing,
Mispunching” his article is partly like this; Imagine someone holding forth on biology
whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough
idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists
like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand
Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since
they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth
understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious
faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion,
the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment
5
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 6/46
on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the
question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy
old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather
less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.
What, one wonders, are Dawkins’s views on the epistemological differences between
Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or
Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious
young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its
toughest case? Dawkins, it appears, has sometimes been told by theologians that he sets up
straw men only to bowl them over, a charge he rebuts in this book; but if The God
Delusion is anything to go by, they are absolutely right. As far as theology goes, Dawkins
has an enormous amount in common with Ian Paisley and American TV evangelists. Both
parties agree pretty much on what religion is; it’s just that Dawkins rejects it while Oral
Roberts and his unctuous tribe grow fat on it.
A molehill of instances out of a mountain of them will have to suffice. Dawkins considers
that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe
unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar
school thought that. For mainstream Christianity, reason, argument and honest doubt have
always played an integral role in belief. (Where, given that he invites us at one point to
question everything, is Dawkins’s own critique of science, objectivity, liberalism, atheism
and the like?) Reason, to be sure, doesn’t go all the way down for believers, but it doesn’t
for most sensitive, civilized non-religious types either. Even Richard Dawkins lives more
6
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 7/46
by faith than by reason. We hold many beliefs that have no unimpeachably rational
justification, but are nonetheless reasonable to entertain. Only positivists think that
‘rational’ means ‘scientific’. Dawkins rejects the surely reasonable case that science and
religion are not in competition on the grounds that this insulates religion from rational
inquiry. But this is a mistake: to claim that science and religion pose different questions to
the world is not to suggest that if the bones of Jesus were discovered in Palestine, the pope
should get himself down to the dole queue as fast as possible. It is rather to claim that while
faith, rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it. For my
claim to love you to be coherent, I must be able to explain what it is about you that justifies
it; but my bank manager might agree with my dewy-eyed description of you without being
in love with you himself.
Eagleton also added that Dawkins holds that the existence or non-existence of God is a
scientific hypothesis which is open to rational demonstration. Christianity teaches that to
claim that there is a God must be reasonable, but that this is not at all the same thing as
faith. Believing in God, whatever Dawkins might think, is not like concluding that aliens or
the tooth fairy exist. God is not a celestial super-object or divine UFO, about whose
existence we must remain agnostic until all the evidence is in. Theologians do not believe
that he is either inside or outside the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do. His
transcendence and invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case with the Loch
Ness monster. (Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching by Terry Eagleton)
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
7
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 8/46
Anybody can claim that he is saying the truth but most importantly he must show facts, real
facts that could really be the corner stone of his arguments and not like a bunch of papers
compiled and when you remove some piece of paper would all crumble down and has
become a bunch of trash.
Scope & Limitation of the Study
This study will pass through the theory of morality that Richard Dawkins convey,
especially in his book the God delusion. This study will not tackle the totality of evolution
but it will be partially included as to where Dawkins used the evolution theory.
Conceptual Framework
Methodology
Definition of Technical Terms
8
Richard Dawkins
Theory of
Morality
Defects of
Dawkins Theory
of morality
Fallacious
arguments by
Dawkins
Richard Dawkins
Theory of
Morality is HighlyDefective
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 9/46
Meme - constitutes a theoretical unit of cultural information, the building block of culture
or cultural evolution which spreads through diffusion propagating from one mind to
another analogously to the way in which a gene propagates from one organism to another
as a unit of genetic information and of biological evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Evolution - is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the
next. This process causes populations of organisms to change over time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Sociobiology - is a neo-Darwinian synthesis of scientific disciplines that attempts to
explain social behavior in all species by considering the evolutionary advantages the
behaviors may have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology
Zeitgeist - is originally a German expression that means "the spirit of the age", literally
translated as "time ( Zeit ) spirit (Geist )". It describes the intellectual and cultural climate of
an era.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zietgeist
Altruism - is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many
cultures, and central to many religious traditions. In English, this idea was often described
as the Golden rule of ethics.
9
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 10/46
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism
Darwinism - is a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of Charles Darwin
concerning evolution and natural selection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
Eugenics - is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary
traits through various forms of intervention. It is also regarded as a social
responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more
intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Natural selection - is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common
in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable
heritable traits become less common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Naturalistic fallacy - is often claimed to be a formal fallacy. It was described and named by
British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica. Moore stated that a
naturalistic fallacy was committed whenever a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about
ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural
properties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
10
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 11/46
Symbiosis - is used to express the relation of one organism to another from various degrees
of close relationship between organisms of different species. The term was first used in
1879 by the German mycologist, Heinrich Anton de Bary, who defined it as: "the living
together of unlike organisms".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis
Chapter II
The Fallacious Arguments Used by Dawkins to Support His Claim
Richard Dawkins is the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford
University and has published various books about science. Maybe that is why some people
cannot see pass through the outstanding achievement this man has acquired. And they
easily believe that all that he is saying are true. Well I do believe that what he is saying are
all lies; remember the strongest lies are half true and half false. But one thing is for sure a
lie may it be wholly or partially, is nonetheless a lie. And a lie is not true. However
soothing as it sounds like or even though it is so realistic that you may find it hard to tell if
it is a lie or not, there is a saying that goes “all lies will be revealed, in God’s time.” And
what do you know, there have been many times other people showed evidences that
Dawkins’ arguments are erroneous and they commit fallacies people might not be seeing.
Now lets start exposing the “magician’s secrets.”
Dawkins, in his book the God delusion particularly the chapter 4 of it says that it is his
most convincing argument that no gods exist. He calls this argument the "Ultimate Boeing
747 gambit." Dawkins asserts that the "The argument from improbability, properly
11
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 12/46
deployed, comes close to proving that God does not exist." Now is Dawkins correct in his
belief that his “Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit” is most convincing? We must start first
knowing what Dawkins calls as “Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.”
According to Rich Deem in his webpage ‘Debunking Dawkins: The God Delusion’, The
Boeing 747 allusion is from Fred Hoyle's famous argument against the probability of life
spontaneously assembling itself on the primordial earth. According to Hoyle, the
probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the probability that a tornado,
sweeping through a junkyard, would assemble a working Boeing 747 airliner. However,
Dawkins turns the argument around, and concludes that any designer must be even more
improbable:
However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the
designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.
Dawkins does not present the argument formally, but here it is extracted from the few
sentences he actually devotes to the argument:
• Premise #1. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer
superior to itself
• Premise #2. God shows evidence of design in himself
• Conclusion #1. Hence God requires a designer (another God) superior to himself
Argument #2:
• Premise #3. Infinite regressions are not possible
• Conclusion #1 implies an infinite regression (an infinite number of gods)
12
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 13/46
• Conclusion #2. Hence, Conclusion #1 is not possible, so no god can exist
Although Dawkins does not believe that premise #1 is true, he accepts it as such,
supposedly being a premise that all theists would accept as true. However, theists make no
such claim that all possible entities require design. Specifically, we can't know for sure if
God shows evidence of design, since He is not even a physical entity (God is a spirit). The
proof that the first premise is false can be shown by using it against Dawkins' own
preferred universe designer - the multiverse. Here is Dawkins' argument turned against
itself:
• Premise #1. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer
superior to itself
• Premise #2. The universe shows evidence of design in itself
• Conclusion #1. Hence the universe requires a designer (a multiverse) superior to itself
Argument #2:
• Premise #3. Infinite regressions are not possible
• Conclusion #1 implies an infinite regression (an infinite number of universes)
• Conclusion #2. Hence, Conclusion #1 is not possible, so no universes can exist
Obviously, the universe does exist, so there must be something wrong with Dawkins'
argument! Dawkins argument falls flat because premise #1 is false. Entities can be either
contingent or necessary. The Creator (or creator) of the universe is a necessary entity and is
not contingent upon anything nor requires a designer. This must be true or no universe
would exist at all. So, Dawkins' argument is formally fallacious. Dawkins' failure to
distinguish between necessary and contingent entities also assumes that cause and effect13
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 14/46
operates upon all entities. However, the evidence indicates that time itself began at the
beginning of the Big Bang. Without the existence of time, cause and effect do not operate.
So, whatever or Whoever created the universe lies outside of time and space and has
"always" existed. What was Dawkins thinking? (or was he?)
And as Rich deem concludes: Richard Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 argument is shown
to be formally fallacious, since premise #1 (every existing entity that shows evidence of
design requires a designer superior to itself) is shown to be false. Applying Dawkins' own
argument to his favorite universe designer (the multiverse) would show that no universe
exists, if the argument were valid. Obviously, we have observational evidence that
contradicts this hypothesis. (Debunking Dawkins: The God Delusion Chapter 4: Why There
Almost Certainly Is No God by Rich Deem)
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/the_god_delusion4.html
In the other chapter of Rich Deem’s article he continous to reveal Dawkins commiting
several fallacies and he goes like this:
Dawkins quoting out-of-context
Dawkins goes on to quote several founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, John
Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, who made statement against the religion of their time.
John Adams is quoted as saying, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there
were no religion in it." However here is the complete quote in an April 19, 1817, letter to
Thomas Jefferson:
14
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 15/46
"Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out,
'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!' But in this
exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this
world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell."5
In quoting John Adams out-of-context, Dawkins has made it seem that Adams said exactly
opposite of what he really intended. No wonder he left out the part where Adams said the
world would be "hell" "without religion." Adams directly refuted Dawkins' major premise
of the book - that religion is the great evil in the world - and affirmed the opposite - that
religion keeps the world from becoming completely evil. In fact, John Adams said some
things about Christianity that Dawkins probably won't be quoting any time soon such as,
"The Christian religion, in its primitive purity and simplicity, I have entertained for more
than sixty years. It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; it is the religion of the head
and the heart."
Dawkins also quotes James Madison out-of-context, "During almost fifteen centuries has
the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less,
in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both,
superstition, bigotry and persecution." The quote comes from his dissent of James Madison
to a bill introduced into the General Assembly of Virginia, to levy a general assessment for
the support of teachers of religions. Madison's objection was not to Christianity, but to the
establishment of state-sponsored "Christianity." This is evident from the first sentence of
the quoted section, which Dawkins conveniently leaves out:
15
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 16/46
"Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining
the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen
centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity..."
It is clear from the context that Madison objected to the "legal establishment of
Christianity" - not to Christianity itself, which he indicates has "efficacy." Dawkins fails to
quote some of the other things Madison has to say about religion and Christianity in the
same document:
•
"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only
as he believes to be acceptable to him"
• "Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be
considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe"
• "Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of
Christianity"
The really funny thing is that James Madison would have never accepted Richard Dawkins
"as a member of Civil Society," since he has not subjected himself to the "Governour of the
Universe."
Dawkins finishes chapter 2 with a discussion of the possibility of extraterrestrial life. He
maintains that we must remain agnostic on this issue, since there are many points of
ignorance regarding values that can be assigned to the Drake equation. Although it is true
that many of the values cannot be determined with much certainty, the results are coming
in - and they don't support Dawkins assertion that the "principle of mediocrity" applies to
16
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 17/46
our solar system/planet. Dawkins briefly mentions the anthropic principle, but dismisses it
by saying, "if our solar system really were the only one in the universe, this is precisely
where we, as beings who think about such matters, would have to be living." Dawkins
doesn't seem to understand that declaring our existence on this planet as the reason why our
planet is special is a logical fallacy (converse accident).
Dawkins describes the possible existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life as being
"superhuman" as opposed to "supernatural," and speculates that if we detect any other
advanced civilization that is must be vastly superior to ours (especially if their telltale
signal has been traveling through space for thousands of years (which seems likely at this
point). He says that if those beings appeared to us, they would seem to possess magic and
would "god-like." Dawkins even accepts the possibility that our existence is just part of a
computer simulation and says that "I cannot think how to disprove it." Dawkins ends the
chapter saying that all intelligences are the product of a form of Darwinian evolution. This
assertion, Dawkins proclaims, means that no gods can precede the evolution of natural life
forms. ( Debunking Dawkins: The God Delusion Chapter 2: The God Hypothesis
by Rich Deem )
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/the_god_delusion2.html
Now Dawkins’s basis for morality is what we would expect. Natural selection. The
problem though is that it does not imply an ought. What happens when I learn there’s
nothing outside of myself I am accountable to? Heck. What happens when I learn good
17
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 18/46
does not exist outside of me? What happens when I learn that good and evil are just
subjective?
An article published last February 15, 2008 which talks about “Dawkins on Morality in the
God Delusion”. And it goes like this:
Dawkins goes into moral dilemmas. Please be clear on this people. Moral dilemmas do not
destroy absolute morality. If there is no absolute morality, there is no such thing as a moral
dilemma. Moral absolutism does not claim that we know the best and right thing to do in
every situation. It just claims that there is one.
Dawkins speaks of a study of Hauser and Singer that shows that atheists and religious
believers seem to make the same judgments when predicted with these dilemmas. Dawkins
proudly says that this seems to be compatible with the view that he and many others hold
that you do not need God in order to be good - or evil.
At this point, D’Souza would say “This is what happens when you let the biologist out of
the lab.”
I read this and thought “It’s no shock to me.” Here’s why. As a Christian, I believe in the
natural law which is rooted in God and is in all of us as we bear his image. You do not need
to hold to a religious worldview to know that murder is evil. God places that knowledge in
you innately. As soon as you understand what life is and what murder is, you know that
murder is evil.
18
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 19/46
Now Dawkins asks if we really need moral surveillance to be good, and while he’s
skeptical, he tells a story of how in Montreal the police went on strike. Chaos had come
about by the end of the day. Dawkins simply asks why the fear of God did not stop most
people? I would answer it’s because most people don’t have it.
Dawkins later makes the claim that absolute morality is driven by religion. This is not the
claim of a natural law believer though. It can be revealed in religion, but the source is God
and one does not need a religion to know what is good and what is evil. Dawkins seems to
think that until the Ten Commandments were spoken, no one knew murder was wrong.
And in the end, Dawkins never gives one thing. He never gives an objective basis for good
and evil. He simply says that we know what actions are good and what are evil. By what
criteria? How does he differentiate? Without an absolute standard of good and evil, we
cannot say. The actions are either good in themselves or not good. It’s interesting Dawkins
says this while saying that it’s fortunate that morals do not have to be absolute.
Again, this is what happens when you let the biologist out of the lab. (Dawkins on Morality
in the God Delusion)
http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/dawkins-on-morality-in-the-
god-delusion/
19
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 20/46
A webpage made by Paul Taylor also detected fallacies on Dawkins claims here is a part of
what he wrote:
Ignorance of Scripture
Although The God Delusion is ostensibly about all religions, in practice it is about
Christianity—and evangelical Christianity in particular is the focus of Dawkins’ attacks. In
his arguments against Christianity, he makes much use of Scripture. However, his use of
Scripture is highly suspect. It appears that he has done very little research into the structure
or history of the Bible. This is unsurprising, as almost every statement he makes on the
Bible reveals that he has not approached it with an open mind. “The God of the Old
Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction”. (p. 31, The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins)
Statements like this are loaded with prejudice. He goes on to make several more specific
accusations about the character of God. Most of his accusations are unsubstantiated. Some
are due to Dawkins’ own presuppositions about what is right and wrong (for example, his
accusation that God is “homophobic”), some are due to his failure to have read the history
leading up to particular events, and some are just plain wrong. That an intelligent man like
Dawkins was so skimpy on his biblical research is incredible. One is reminded of Paul’s
quotation of the Psalms in 1 Corinthians 3:20: “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise,
that they are futile.”
We need to study a few examples by Dawkins of this lack of research regarding Scripture.
20
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 21/46
“The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal”. (p. 92 The
God Delusion by Richard Dawkins)
Some of the most striking evidence is not immediately obvious in English translation, but
would have stood out like a sore thumb to contemporaries. One of the clearest of the many
times Jesus claimed to be God is His use of the divine name, “I AM.”
This divine name was told to Moses, when he met with God (who appeared as a burning
bush).
And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the
children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you’.” (Exodus 3:14)
The Hebrew word translated here as I AM is often transliterated into English as YHWH.
The Name is usually translated as LORD, with four capital letters.
Jesus used the style “I am … ” very frequently, most notably in John 10.
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. (John 10:11)
Apart from the fact that God is frequently referred to as the Shepherd, the people listening
to Jesus would have been very familiar with the words of Psalm 23.
The LORD is my shepherd. (Psalm 23:1)
Remembering that the word LORD is basically the same as I AM, the people listening to
Jesus were in no doubt that He was claiming to be God. This is not a code, or an obscure
point. Jesus knew that His words were reminiscent of Psalm 23 and so did the people. This
21
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 22/46
is why in John 10:31, the people had picked up stones and were ready to stone Jesus,
accusing Him of blasphemy. Jesus’ claim to be divine was obvious to them.
Notice Dawkins’ misunderstanding of the lineage of Jesus.
In any case, if Jesus really was born of a virgin, Joseph’s ancestry is irrelevant and cannot
be used to fulfill, on Jesus’ behalf, the Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah should be
descended from David. (p. 95)
Luke’s gospel has a genealogy in chapter 3, which most commentators agree is the descent
of Jesus through Mary. Thus Jesus traces back an actual blood relationship, through Mary
to David, via David’s son Nathan. Jesus also traces an adoptive relationship through his
father Joseph, through the kings, to David, via David’s son Solomon (in Matthew 1). Thus
both Joseph and Mary are descended from David, but Jesus’ bloodline is only through
Mary—He truly is the “seed of the woman” prophesied in Genesis 3:15. However, Jesus
could inherit from Joseph, even if He was not a blood descendent. Therefore, Joseph’s
lineage is important, because, through Joseph, Jesus inherits the kingship. None of this is
very difficult to research, and Dawkins should have done so.
Circular reasoning
This fallacy occurs when your presupposition is actually what you wish to prove. Look at
this example:
Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore
cannot be responsible for designing it. (p. 31)
22
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 23/46
The logical fallacy is breathtaking. Evolution is first assumed, in order to prove that
evolution is true rather than intelligent design: “creative intelligences, being evolved … .”
It is Dawkins’ presupposition that all creative intelligences have evolved. It is an idea not
supported by, for example, information science.
Ad hominem
This sort of fallacy involves attacking the opponent instead of the argument. In the UK, this
is referred to as “playing the man instead of the ball”—a soccer reference, implying that
the tackler has deliberately aimed to kick his opponent, rather than attempting to kick the
ball.
There are several examples of this, such as a particularly nasty attack on a schoolteacher,
who happens to be a creationist. Notice, on page 95, how Dawkins describes certain
American educational establishments:
He moved up the hierarchy of American universities, from rock bottom at the “Moody
Bible Institute”, through Wheaton College (a little bit higher on the scale, but still the alma
mater of Billy Graham) to Princeton in the world-beating class at the top. (p. 95)
Why are the three institutions arranged hierarchically? What is the basis for Dawkins’
assessment of standards at each place? He doesn’t say, but we assume that it has to do with
belief in the Bible. Why is it implied that, because they number Billy Graham among their
alumni, this is a negative for Wheaton College? [Editor’s note: It is ironic that Dawkins
would have a problem with Wheaton College, since it does not adhere to a plain
interpretation of Genesis.]
23
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 24/46
Straw men
The well-known “straw man” logical fallacy occurs when the debater misrepresents (often
by oversimplifying) his or her opponent’s position for them, then argues against this
invented position, rather than against the actual arguments of the opponent. An example of
this is seen in the mocking tone used as he attempts to dismiss arguments based on
intelligent design.
I [insert own name] am personally unable to think of any way in which [insert biological
phenomenon] could have been built up step by step. Therefore it is irreducibly complex.
That means it is designed.
Although Dawkins uses this argument frequently, it is a complete misrepresentation of the
intelligent design position. A biological mechanism is not labeled as irreducibly complex
because it is complicated and the labeler cannot think how it could have evolved. It is so
labeled because it can be shown that it is not possible for it to have evolved.
Inconsistency
It is noteworthy that Dawkins’ arguments are very inconsistent. For example, Dawkins
frequently returns to a criticism of the so-called “God of the gaps” approach that uses the
supernatural to explain what science cannot currently explain. Compare that attitude with
his own, on page 132, where he comments on gaps in evolutionary knowledge:
A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I’m sure it will be.
24
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 25/46
In Dawkins’ view, it is inappropriate for a scientist to appeal to the Creator to make a
scientific explanation, even if that explanation is logically sound. On the other hand,
Dawkins writes as though it is perfectly acceptable, when faced with dilemmas that
evolution cannot explain, to suppose that an evolutionary scientist will have a naturalistic
answer someday, even if the science is consistent with a biblical approach. Such double
standards allow Dawkins to self-justify poor logic, while refusing to acknowledge the
strength of those who oppose him. (Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins by Paul Taylor)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1127dawkins.asp
CHAPTER III
The Defects of Dawkins Theory of Morality
25
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 26/46
Science has and always has fascinated the minds of many people in every generation
including now. Science has triumphed through the years become more advanced and as
they say this is the generation where science and technology have offered so much that
scientist have become a status where people have sometimes tagged with genius know-it-
all, the walking encyclopedia and such other that people have instilled in their minds that
whenever they hear a scientist’s name they feel like they are safe with them, all that they
say is true, and even trust their lives by following every thing they say. I have nothing
against scientist, but what I would like to say is that even if a person is a scientist and
science has offered us so much we should always be watchful to what scientist says. They
are still humans and we all commit errors. Now if what they say is and have been proven
then we have no reason not to accept them but as long as it is not, we should be wary.
Toby Baxen has written an article about Dawkins and titled it as “The Richard Dawkins
Delusion.” He dedicated this article to show the errors and defects of Richard Dawkins.
Baxen stated that Dawkins is a natural scientist and his method of reasoning is firmly
rooted in 20th century scientific positivism. Prior to Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific
Discovery (1959), it was assumed that a scientific proposition could only be maintained if
it accorded to established fact. Popper pointed out that no theory could be maintained if it
is refuted by some data of experience. Popper was contrasting say a mathematical proof,
which is entirely in the mind (such as 2 + 2 = 4) which needs no empirical testing to prove
it, with for example the fact that water will boil at a certain temperature, which needs to be
empirically expressed before one believes it. The next step in the process is to declare a
theory "un-scientific" if it cannot be refuted by experience. This is reasoning a posteriori
26
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 27/46
dependant on experience. In applying scientific method to the question "does God exist,"
the answer from Dawkins is a resounding NO!
If these are the rules of the game, then we can only but agree with him. Only the data of
experience will now prove to Dawkins that God exists. As we have none that seems
credible, it is a matter of Faith. Faith v Science, for the Modern Mind, places most
reasoning people in the camp of Science. The un-reasoning mind is therefore deemed to be
the religious and mystical mind and somewhat prejudiced and backward and or primitive.
Dawkins, in the name of science and what he understands as reason, proceeds to demolish
some of the more wildly mystical and witch doctor interpretations and commands of
religion with some aplomb. Fair play to the man for sure as they deserve to be savagely
attacked by an acute mind such as his.
However, as man can introspect as say a chemical or a stone, a gene or any subject of the
natural science can not, we have open to us another method of acquiring knowledge, that is
via reason independent of experience i.e. knowledge derived a-priori. It should also be
noted at this point, that for a thoughtful introspecting human, being capable of making
abstract deductions, experience is history and nothing else. It cannot tell us anything but
past history, past data series. It can yield up no irrefutable truth, just very good
associations, correlations etc. In fact as Dawkins points out, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
is very highly probable to be true, but it has the possibility of being refuted by other
experience. As such Darwinian Theory is scientific, but we cannot say for sure, for 100%
certainly, that it is true. Whilst Evolution has mounds of scientific data to support it, lots of
experience, lots of history, God does not. As Dawkins admits, this does not kill God off
27
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 28/46
stone dead; it just makes God very, very highly improbable whereas something like
Evolution, very, very highly probable. I would disagree with Dawkins on this point, God as
a scientific proposition is not a conjecture that is capable of being refuted: God is not open
to proving or disapproving via experience.
Indeed we have open to us introspecting beings the beauty of knowledge acquired a-priori.
Subjects of the natural scientist are denied this; the subject of the Human science is not.
God exists via the realm of the a-priori, independent of experience, and can never exist in
the realm of the a posteriori; by the data of experience or history.
What is a-priori correct reasoning? How do you correctly reason?
Aristotle worked out that there were three Laws of Logic the formal explanation is as
follows:
1. A=A: The Law of Identity. A table is a table because it just is so.
2. Not (A and not A): The Law of Non-Contradiction, if I am being boring, then it is
not the case that this talk is not boring
3. A or not A: The Law of the Excluded Middle, if you have two contradictory
properties i.e. green and not green, all things are either one of the two, green or not
green, and certainly not both.
Any argument that contradicts the above needs to be discarded.
A great example of how you can use logic to reason correctly is in maths. For example, we
all know that if 2 x X = 20, X must be 10; if you tried to argue it any other way, you would
28
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 29/46
conflict with the Laws of Logic. However, any which way you turn around the equation,
with a logical argument, will always lead to a truthful answer, as the premise is correct.
This is very powerful because we can establish truthful propositions in logic that can only
be refuted should their premise or the deductions from them fall foul of one of Aristotle’s
a-priori laws of logic. Not only are the truths of mathematics rooted on the a-priori, so are
the truths of the human sciences. For example; the Austrian polymath Ludwig Von Mises
shows in his masterful book Human Action (1949) how all the laws of economics can be
deduced from the axiom that humans act purposefully. As Mises shows, in order to be, we
act purposefully. Not being , we would not act , indeed we would not exist . We act upon
satisfying our most urgent needs first, then our second most urgent needs, and so on a so
forth. Ranking preferences, with the most urgent needs/demands being satisfied first, the
least urgent, the furthest away in time. From this hierarchy we derive the law of demand,
the downward sloping demand curve, the law of diminishing marginal utility (see here for a
good illustration) and on and on it goes. Lord Lionel Robbins in the masterful 1932 book,
The Nature and Significance of Economic Science shows in very clear terms how all the
laws of Economics are derived from the a-priori thought process. No data of experience is
needed to establish that a demand curve is always downward sloping. This has real
meaning in life and imparts upon how man acts in society. Experience cannot refute these
laws although many modern economists will produce sets of statistical data that seem to
contradict some of the Laws of Economics, but in reality, they have just got whatever they
are trying to correlate wrong. A-priori knowledge contains real truths that are not just
meaningless tautologies.
29
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 30/46
To try to refute it, you cannot, as you act purposefully to do so. Just as Pythagoras’s
Theorem is implied in the concept of a right angle triangle-and we knew about the concept
of the right angle triangle before Pythagoras "discovered" his Theorem, so, to do the laws
of economics flow from the one irrefutable axiom that humans act purposefully. It is a bit
like saying Darwin "discovered" the Theory of Evolution, when what he actually did was
articulate it and find very plausible data sets to help explain it to the sceptical mind.
Evolution was always there.
For all positivist science, it seems to rely on the very negative contention that the existing
state of understanding is correct only because nothing has refuted it. This does not mean
that what the laws that science rest on may well be truthful, full stop and unqualified. If
Euclidian geometry is tautological, as a positivist would argue, it can tell us nothing useful
about the world we experience. For example, in engineering, the laws of Euclidian
Geometry applied to construction. The fact that you would not want to knowingly walk on
a bridge not constructed within the confines of the laws of Euclidian geometry, as it would
fall down, implies that these laws have a great benefit to our understanding of the world
and are not mere tautological propositions that can deliver up no knowledge capable of
being acted upon. Likewise, the Laws that govern how this paper has been written on a
computer, or transmitted via the internet to someone-else will not be capable of disproving
and are therefore un-scientific, they are right otherwise this would never be written and
transmitted.
30
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 31/46
My contention is that God exists a-priori and that Dawkins in his dismissal of the
cosmological argument of Aquinas in particular, shows his lack of understanding of that
argument and the distinction between a-priori and a-posteriori knowledge.
Dawkins summarizes (page 77) three of the "five proofs" of Aquinas as "all involve an
infinite regress – the answer to a question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum."
In his own words, he proceeds to list the three as follows;
1. The Unmoved Mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads to a
regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move,
and that something we call God.
2. The Uncaused Cause. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause,
and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first
cause, which we call God.
3. The Cosmological Argument. There must have been a time when no physical thing
existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-
physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God.
He continues: "All three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God
to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is
immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a
terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is
absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed
to God."
31
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 32/46
So to Dawkins, it is an "unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the
regress." He does not say why. Why, Richard, is it unwarranted? If it is so self-evident (and
needs no further explanation to his readers) that this is unwarranted, why is it not stated? I
suspect it is because Dawkins does not know.
In the physical universe no physical property is infinite. If this was the case, only it would
exist. It does not, as you and certainly I exists along with countless other physical things.
So how did we come into existence?
The Unmoved Mover of Aristotle (introduced to us specifically in his Metaphysics Book
VI, X1, XII and in Physics, Book VII and VIII) comes into play here. The human mind
cannot conceive of anything physical without postulating another physical cause for that
thing. Cause and effect are a category of the human mind: absent it, and you have no
human mind. All material things have cause and effect; one physical thing bounds another
physical thing with nothing being infinite. If nothing is infinite, there simply must be a first
cause. Therefore logic clearly dictates that the first cause, if it cannot be physical or
material, must be immaterial. We call this God.
Unless you are prepared to boot out Logic as a valid system for ascertaining truth, then you
cannot escape the undeniable existence of God.
www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/baxendale2.html
Other defects of Richard Dawkins argument are stated by Peter Williams in his article
“Calling Dawkins’ Bluff”. Here he rebutted Dawkins' attack upon several other arguments
in favour of the existence of God.
32
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 33/46
The Ontological Argument
Jim Holt points out that Dawkins:
dismisses [Anselm's] ontological argument as 'infantile' and 'dialectical prestidigitation'
without quite identifying the defect in its logic. He seems unaware that this argument,
though medieval in origin, comes in sophisticated modern versions that are not at all easy
to refute. Shirking the intellectual hard work, Dawkins prefers to move on . . . Dawkins'
failure to appreciate just how hard philosophical questions about religion can be makes
reading [The God Delusion] an intellectually frustrating experience.'
Alvin Plantinga, a contemporary defender of Anselm's line of thought, defines God as a
'maximally great being' and argues that a maximally great being must exist if its existence
is possible because 'necessary existence is a great-making property.' (A great-making
property is one that is objectively good and allows for a logical maximum. The goodness of
existing per se is a great-making property that allows a logical maximum in necessary
existence. And although - as Hume and Kant pointed out - saying that something 'exists'
does not add to the list of its properties, to say that something 'exists necessarily' does add
to its list of properties.) Given the additional premise that 'the existence of a maximally
great being is possible', it follows that a maximally great being therefore 'exists, and exists
necessarily.' Contra Dawkins, the ontological argument can be expressed as a logically
valid syllogism:
Premise 1: By definition, if it is possible that God exists, then God exists
Premise 2: It is possible that God exists
33
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 34/46
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists
Faced with the ontological argument, the atheist does have a 'get out' clause; but embracing
this get out clause is not without its price. The ontological argument shows that 'the person
who wishes to deny that God exists must claim that God's existence is impossible.' That is,
denying the existence of God is not on a par with denying the existence of the Loch Ness
monster. To deny the existence of the Loch Ness monster, one needn't make the claim that
its existence is logically impossible, because one can coherently claim that Nessie simply
fails to exist despite being logically possible. However, to deny the existence of God one
does have to make the claim that God's existence is logically impossible, because one
cannot coherently claim that God fails to exist despite being logically possible. This seems
to be a price that many non-theists are willing to pay, despite the fact that no independent
argument has ever shown the concept of God to be incoherent. Nevertheless, Plantinga
argued that his version of the ontological argument at least showed that belief in God was
no less rational than disbelief :
It must be conceded that not everyone who understands and reflects on its central premise -
that the existence of a maximally great being is possible - will accept it. Still, it is evident, I
think, that there is nothing contrary to reason or irrational in accepting this premise. What
I claim for this argument, therefore, is that it establishes, not the truth of theism, but its
rational acceptability.
He has subsequently contended that the 'modal ontological argument', 'provides as good
grounds for the existence of God as does any serious philosophical argument for any
34
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 35/46
important philosophical conclusion.' The ontological argument may or may not be a sound
theistic proof, but it is not logically invalid.
The Cosmological Argument
In a quotation-free discussion of the matter, Dawkins claims that the famous five 'ways' of
Thomas Aquinas 'are easily - though I hesitate to say so, given his eminence - exposed as
vacuous.' Dawkins should have hesitated more and written less. For example, noting
Aquinas' use of the principle that a causal regress must terminate somewhere (lest, per
impossible, it becomes infinite), Dawkins complains that Aquinas' cosmological argument
makes 'the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress.'
Dawkins fails to recognize that the cosmological argument just is an argument for the
necessity of postulating the existence of a being that is 'immune to the regress'! Consider
the following cosmological argument:
Premise 1: Some things are caused (e.g. this sentence)
Premise2: It is impossible for everything to be caused
Conclusion: Therefore there must exist an uncaused thing
This argument is logically valid, and the first premise seems to be beyond dispute, so the
only question is whether or not it is possible for everything that exists to be caused. As
soon as one asks 'caused by what?' one can see the problem with hypothesising that
everything is caused. Outside of everything is nothing, and 'from nothing, nothing comes'.
35
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 36/46
The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
In the fourth 'way' of his Suma Theologica, Aquinas argued thus:
Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But 'more'
and 'less' are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different
ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more
nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something
best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being [i.e.
maximally ontologically secure]; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in
being, as it is written in [Aristotle's] Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the
cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being,
goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
In Aquinas' own words, the fourth way appears to be made up of two overlapping
syllogisms:
1. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like
2. But 'more' and 'less' are predicated of different things, according as they
resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum
3. so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest
and, consequently, something which is uttermost being
4. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus
36
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 37/46
5. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their
being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God
After merely summarizing Aquinas' fourth 'way', Dawkins attempts a reductio ad
absurdum (a 'reduction to absurdity'):
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, and we call him God.
Unfortunately, Dawkins fails to notice that Aquinas' argument works with 'great-making
properties', a class of properties into which 'smelliness' - the subject of Dawkins' rebuttal -
simply does not fall. Christopher F.J. Martin observes that Aquinas is concerned with the
existence of more and less in terms of properties that by definition allow for an intrinsic
and logical maximum, rather than a merely de facto maximum. As E.L. Mascall explains:
Goodness, so the argument claims, demands as its cause a God who is good; while heat,
though it necessarily demands a God whose knowledge of possible being includes an idea
of heat, does not demand a God who is hot as its cause, but only a God who can create.
In modern philosophical terminology, Aquinas is arguing along the following lines:
1. Things exist in the world around us that exhibit finite degrees of great-making
properties (e.g. being, goodness, truth, beauty)
37
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 38/46
2. The existence of something exhibiting a great-making property to a finite
degree implies the existence of something that possesses the property in
question to a maximal degree
3. Therefore, all great making properties possessed in finite degree by beings in
the world around us, including being, are possessed to a maximal degree by
something
4. An effect cannot exceed the greatness of its cause
5. Therefore, there exists a maximally ontologically secure being that possess
every great-making property possessed by its effects to a maximal degree; and
this we call God
It should at least be clear that Aquinas' argument is logically valid, and consequently that
this line of thought cannot be dismissed with a jeering reference to smelly people, which is
all Dawkins does.
Religious Experience
Dawkins' response to the argument from religious experience (which he never actually
bothers to spell out) is merely to point out that experiences can be delusional:
The brain's simulation software . . . is well capable of constructing 'visions' and 'visitations'
of the utmost verdical power. To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be
child's play to software of this sophistication.
38
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 39/46
This single observation concludes Dawkins' attempted rebuttal:
This is really all that needs to be said about personal 'experiences' of gods or other religious
phenomena. If you've had such an experience, you may well find yourself believing firmly
that it was real. But don't expect the rest of us to take your word for it, especially if we have
the slightest familiarity with the brain and its powerful workings.
This really is not 'all that needs to be said', since Dawkins' failure to advance more than one
premise means that his supposed rebuttal doesn't even rise to the level of an argument .
Merely observing that the brain can create illusions provides no support for the conclusion
that all religious experiences are illusions. Indeed, without a second premise that both links
and restricts the illusion-giving power of the brain to religious experiences, Dawkins'
rebuttal counts equally against all experiences; including those which lead him to believe
that human beings have brains 'capable of constructing “visions” and “visitations” of the
utmost verdical power.'
The Moral Argument
As Paul Copan writes, the moral argument urges that although, ' Belief in God isn't a
requirement for being moral . . . the existence of a personal God is crucial for a coherent
understanding of objective morality.' Here, then, are the two core claims made by the moral
argument:
1. Morality is objective
2. The existence of a personal deity is entailed by objective morality
3. Given these two premises it follows that:
39
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 40/46
4. Therefore, a personal deity exists
Dawkins' chapter on the roots of morality merely observes that belief in God isn't a
requirement for knowing about morality or for being moral, and fails to engage with the
central question of whether or not the very existence of objective moral values entails God's
existence. As Stephen Unwin comments:
As for Dawkins' assertion that moral behaviour for believers is simply 'sucking up to God',
or that morality doesn't need faith . . . such observations miss the more fundamental
question of why we have moral or aesthetic values at all - such as the ones by which
Dawkins, myself and others venerate rational analysis.
If the moral argument which Dawkins studiously ignores is sound, atheism entails moral
subjectivism (after all, one cannot be morally obligated to, or commanded by, anything
other than a person; but by definition no finite person can ground the existence of an
objective moral order). Self-inflicted defeat looms for Dawkins, since his dissection of
natural theology assumes that people ought to be rational.
Dawkins' critique of the arguments for God's existence in The God Delusion has received
wildly enthusiastic praise from some quarters. For example, biologist P.Z. Myers thinks
that:
The God Delusion delivers a thorough overview of the logic of belief and disbelief.
Dawkins reviews, dismantles, and dismisses the major arguments for the existence of the
supernatural and deities . . . The God Delusion is a powerful argument for how to think
about the place of religion in the modern world. It's going to be a classic, fit to stand with
40
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 41/46
Sagan's Pale Blue Dot and The Demon-Haunted World as a call to reason and
Enlightenment values.
Likewise, according to Jim Walker:
Dawkins has written, perhaps, the most powerful set of arguments against the alleged
supernatural god ever written . . . Dawkins leaves no quarter open for theists… No matter
how much the theist tries to run or hide, he will only run into the face of Dawkins powerful
arguments. At best he can only shout ad hominems . . . Dawkins quickly exposes each of
[the theistic arguments] as vacuous . . .
However, such glowing reviews are so way off base that a philosophical GPS (global
positioning system) would be calmly issuing repeated pleas to 'turn around when possible'.
In reality, Dawkins' unscholarly procedure takes the following illegitimate route to what
Terry Eagleton dubs a 'victory on the cheap':
1. Select a far from comprehensive sub-set of theistic arguments without giving a
hint that this is what you are doing.
2. Caricature the selected arguments, referring to (but not quoting) medieval rather
than contemporary versions (as John Cornwell observes, 'there is hardly a
serious work of philosophy of religion cited in his extensive bibliography'), or
simply failing to define the target.
3. Give the appearance of blowing away these arguments with an observation
(rather than an argument) or a charge of logical invalidity that either depends
41
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 42/46
upon the fact that you are attacking a straw man, or which completely misses
the point of the argument you are attacking.
Scientist turned theologian Alister E. McGrath has the measure of Dawkins' procedure: 'It
is perhaps his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and
rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking
analysis'. Many laudatory reviews of The God Delusion share the view, expressed by Tim
Gebhart in Blogcritics Magazine, that to believe in God means being devoid of critical
thinking skills:
If The God Delusion suffers a flaw, it is an inherent and perhaps ultimately fatal one. It is
almost impossible to use logic and reasoning to educate and persuade others on a subject
that requires ignoring and rejecting logic and reasoning.
However, the careful application of critical thinking skills demonstrates that such
comments exhibit wishful thinking rather than a sober assessment of the facts. As atheist
philosopher Thomas Nagel's laments concerning what he calls Dawkins' 'amateur' attempts
at philosophy:
Dawkins dismisses, with contemptuous flippancy the traditional . . . arguments for the
existence of God offered by Aquinas and Anselm. I found these attempts at philosophy,
along with those in a later chapter on religion and ethics, particularly weak.
Dawkins accuses 'dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads' of being 'immune to argument'. It is hard to
test this assumption using The God Delusion, since it's arguments against belief in God are
conspicuous either by their absence or by their invalidity. Dawkins hopes that 'open-
42
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 43/46
minded' religious believers 'whose native intelligence is strong enough' and who read The
God Delusion 'will be atheists when they put it down', because such people 'need only a
little encouragement to break free of the vice of religion altogether.' Unfortunately for
Dawkins' self-admitted 'presumptuous optimism'on this point, The God Delusion fails to
provide any rational encouragement to this end. Dawkins' critique of the arguments for God
is one long bluff that deserves to be called. The Emperor has no clothes .(Calling Dawkins'
Bluff by: Peter Williams )
http://www.damaris.org/content/content.php?type=5&id=503
Poor logic
In his article “Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins”, Paul Taylor added holes on Dawkins
arguments and said in his article that it must also be said that Dawkins’ arguments
show surprisingly poor logic. Examine this extraordinary sentence:
Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the
New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually
happened in history, and I shall not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of
deity. (p. 97 God Delusion by Richard Dawkins)
Look first at the use of the word “probably” in “Although Jesus probably existed.” Why is
Dawkins doubting this fact? There is no good reason to question that Jesus existed. It is
illogical to add the word “probably.”
Look next at the use of the word “reputable.” What is a “reputable biblical scholar”? The
test of reputation has been left undone by Dawkins, but presumably, a “reputable biblical
43
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 44/46
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 45/46
Chapter IV
Conclusion & Recommendation
Richard Dawkins makes numerous assertions, nearly all of which he fails to support with
either logic or data. Examples include the numerous names he gives to God, the claim that
Paul founded Christianity, the claim that Christianity is the bloodiest religion ever, the
claim that there are few strong atheists, all of which are shown to be false. Dawkins is
caught quoting out-of-context, when the original intent of the author was exactly opposite
of what he reported. I'm not sure how he thought he would get away with this kind of
despicable lying. Dawkins' most egregious example of failing to supports his claims is the
assertion that intelligences (including God) must be evolved. Dawkins doesn't seem to
apply his claim to the universe itself, which displays considerable evidence that it is
anything but average. In fact, an average universe would consist solely of thermal energy,
and no matter at all. It is clear that Richard Dawkins dislikes the God of Christianity
primarily because of His desire for moral accountability from people. Dawkins doesn't
want to be morally accountable, and finds a God who demands such accountability to be
evil, instead preferring the non-intervening god of deism.
Christians have nothing to fear from The God Delusion. Far from being a reasoned
argument for atheism, it is a rant. It would be appropriate for Christians to be aware of the
principal arguments of the book, and how they are countered. Maybe one day an atheistic
book will emerge that has more intellectual rigor, but even an intellectually rigorous
45
8/2/2019 Prince - Final Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prince-final-final 46/46
apology for atheism would not concern us for God is a God of wisdom and reason. Time
and again we find that a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is not just a doctrinal statement,
it is an intellectually satisfying position to take. But Dawkins’ new book is weak, even by
atheist standards.
To end this I would like to tell you one more secret that I have been seeing on what really
is Dawkins trying to do. He is conveying a message, an idea that God is a cosmic killjoy,
intent on denying us pleasure and good things, but this is not new to humanity. In fact, this
ploy is the exact one Satan used on Eve in the garden of Eden to convince her to eat of the
forbidden fruit. In his exchange with Eve, Satan indicated that God was a liar and that He
just wanted to keep something good (the fruit) from her, saying, "God knows that in the
day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and
evil.” Dawkins has bought into Satan's first lie - that God is a cosmic killjoy - even though
he does not believe God exists. I would like to would like to recommend to those who
would like to make another thesis on Richard Dawkins to tackle about The effects of
religion on people to refute Dawkins claims that Religion is the root of all evil. I hope
maybe just maybe this research conducted about the morality Dawkins is preaching did
help in giving the information needed by the people to unmask a certain Richard Dawkins,
because Dawkins’ theory of morality is highly defective.