Deluded by Dawkins? by Andrew Wilson

[Kate]

This book is a Christian response to Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion". At first glance one would think it will completely bash Dawkins' book, but it isn't like that. Yes Wilson does point out where Dawkins' is wrong and the flaws in his book, however he does give credit where it is due. Wilson is clear that this is a debate which will rage for years to come, and an issue that should be debated. He talks about what a good writerDawkins is and gives him all the credit he is due.

 

 

 

As mentioned, this is a Christian response to the debate. Wilson used theologians and the Bible to back up his argument. He uses different styles and techniques to explain where Dawkins went wrong, such as how he does not talk about the resurrection of Christ and how a lot of his arguments don't actually prove there is no God.

 

 

I found this a relatively easy and interesting book to read. It is only 112 pages long and there are some pages were the foot notes are longer than the actual paragraphs! This is an informative book which gives another side of the argument to the question of God and whether He exists.

 

 

My only criticism was the final chapter, which I did not find easy to read. The debate was centred around evolution and there were a lot of facts and figures I could not get my head around as science is not something I really understand. Apart from that, it was a good, short, detailed book, which presents another side to this ongoing argument.

 

 

8/10

[Raven]

Surely that should be subtitled "A Christian's Response to The God Delusion" - unless, of course, Wilson is claiming to speak for all Christians?

[Kate]

It is subtitled that, and he speaks in response to those who share his faith, which is Evangelical mainly - and he does state this in the book.

[Ben Mines]

But in The God Delusion, Dawkins nowhere claims to prove that God does not exist. The technical term for Wilson's argument (using, "theologians and the Bible", if you please) is therefore ignoratio elenchi.

[Talisman]

I will have to re read my copy, since I can't remember exactly what he did say - I do remember that I found most of it very interesting.

[Owen]

But in The God Delusion, Dawkins nowhere claims to prove that God does not exist. The technical term for Wilson's argument (using, "theologians and the Bible", if you please) is therefore ignoratio elenchi.

 

Isn't it in the title?

[Ben Mines]

It is, and herein lies the problem with Dawkins.

 

Science cannot prove that God does not exist. For this reason Dawkins (as a scientist) is constrained to stating that God, "almost certainly does not exist." It just can't be proved or disproved. God (to use Dawkins' word) is an "undisprovable" hypothesis. Clearly, that boils down to agnosticism, but Dawkins persists in billing himself as an atheist.

 

The problem with Dawkins, in a word, is that he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

 

But none of this alters the fact that Mr Wilson is disproving an argument that Dawkins did not assert.

[Freewheeling Andy]

Disagree with that. An understanding that gods are exceedingly unlikely to exist is clearly a position of atheism. A position of agnosticism is one of not having an opinion, of thinking of the positions as basically equal.

 

Dawkins is definitely not of the "Well, they're almost equal hypotheses" persuasion, and is therefore an atheist. Not a "hard atheist", as he can't state "god doesn't exist", instead he's a soft atheist saying "Given that any god's existence is pitifully unlikely, I think I'll assume there's no god, live as if there's no god, because that's by far the most likely scenario". But it's definitely atheism, not agnosticism.

[Ben Mines]

We risk splitting hairs and turning this into a dispute about semantics (after all, what's a "soft atheist", as you call it, but a "hard agnostic"?) but I think agnostic is a better word for Dawkins' view than atheist—at least, etymologically speaking.

 

I don't know where you got this definition of agnosticism as the position that both hypotheses are "equal". Agnosticism is simply the position that it is not possible to know (from a- "not", gnosis, "knowledge"). Dawkins says the God hypothesis is "undisprovable"—which amounts to the same thing: we can't prove or disprove it; ultimately, we can't know for a certainty whether He exists or not.

 

Dawkins admits this several times in The God Delusion.

 

Atheism, on the other hand, is the view that God does not exist (a- "not", theos "God"). Unless you are prepared to assert that the terms, "almost certainly does not exist" and "does not exist" are the same (it should be clear they are not) then Dawkins is an agnostic: he admits that ultimately he does not know.

 

And you yourself said it: Dawkins assumes there's no god, and to assume is to suppose to be the case, without proof. Agnosticism with a hunch is still agnosticism.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Ben Mines

[~Andrea~]

Well by that definition atheism is a meaningless term isn't it? I would say Dawkins is an atheist. I'm a believer but I can't be absolutely certain God exists - just 99.999% (or whatever). But I wouldn't count myself an agnostic. By this definition everyone ends up on a sliding scale of agnosticism.

[Freewheeling Andy]

I've got to agree with Fish and Chips. The terms is meaningless, because there can be no atheists by your definition unless they are being wilfully irrational.

[Raven]

. . . unless they are being wilfully irrational.

 

And nobody is ever that

[Ben Mines]

Well by that definition atheism is a meaningless term isn't it? I would say Dawkins is an atheist. I'm a believer but I can't be absolutely certain God exists - just 99.999% (or whatever). But I wouldn't count myself an agnostic. By this definition everyone ends up on a sliding scale of agnosticism.

 

You both make a valid point. The words are used imprecisely; and if they are used precisely, it looks like almost everyone is agnostic. And technically, most people are.

 

But not everyone. If you base a definition of each word on what someone claims to know, then a theist is someone who claims to be certain God exists, through faith, despite a lack of concrete evidence. An atheist is someone who claims to be certain God does not exist, despite the lack of concrete evidence. And there are people who take both positions; who claim to be certain that God does or does not exist. But Dawkins is not one of them.

 

I also think that terms like, "hard atheist" and "soft atheist" are misleading because there are no degrees of certainty, but only of uncertainty. I am certain that my name is Ben. If I were "less certain", it would not be certainty. There are no degrees. On the other hand, I am more uncertain of what will happen in ten years than I am of what will happen tomorrow. But that does not mean I am not uncertain of what will happen tomorrow. Whether you claim to be a little uncertain, or very uncertain, you're an agnostic. Scientific training may have greatly diminished Dawkins' uncertainty about God's non-existence, but until he comes out and says: "God does not exist" he is an agnostic.

 

Agnosticism, as Dawkins should realize, is the only position a scientist can take without evidence. As Carl Sagan once said when asked what his "gut feeling" was about extraterrestrial life: "I try not to think with my gut. Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in." Atheism and theism is thinking with your gut. Dawkins is too much of a scientist to do that. He does not claim to know. His only error is that of misusing words; billing himself as an atheist when his hypothesis is obviously that of an agnostic (or, "hard agnostic", if you prefer). Like I said, he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Ben Mines

[Freewheeling Andy]

As Carl Sagan once said when asked what his "gut feeling" was about extraterrestrial life: "I try not to think with my gut. Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in."

 

I think Carl Sagan's position is flawed, though. You reserve absolute judgement until all the evidence is in. But until then you can make a best-guess, and hold it as your de facto position.

 

In the case of extra-terrestrial life you can say: Well, the earth's been here for 4.5bn years. There's been life on it for 3bn years. In that period, there's only been "intelligent" life, capable of flight, long-distance communications, and so on, for maybe 100 years.

 

So only 30 millionths of the time that life has existed has there been any chance of communication with ETs. That suggests that only 1 in 30 million life-bearing planets will be of real interest, which itself suggests we'll never meet anything more than bacteria and microbes.

 

You make a best estimate.

[Ben Mines]

That's true, Andy.

 

I guess the real problem is that I am being pedantic. If only these words would behave according to my interpretation of them! Then an atheist would refer exclusively to that rare bird who claims to know there's no God. Everyone who allows for either possibility—however they apportion the probability—would be an agnostic. And that would leave a tidy remainder of religious zealots sitting under the umbrella of theism.

 

But never mind. Dawkins calls himself an atheist despite allowing for the possibility, however miniscule, that there is actually a God, and I will just have to accept it and get on with my life.

[crotalus_p]

 

But never mind. Dawkins calls himself an atheist despite allowing for the possibility, however miniscule, that there is actually a God, and I will just have to accept it and get on with my life.

 

 

 

Russell