"You could possibly persuade me that there is some kind of creative force in the universe; that there was some kind of physical mathematical genius who created everything; the expanding universe, device quantum theory, relativity, and all that. You could possibly persuade me of that.
But that is radically and fundamentally incompatible with the sort of God that cares about sin; who cares about what you do with your genitals, or the sort of God who has the slightest interest in your private thoughts, and your wickedness and things like that. Surely, you can see that a God who is grand enough to make the universe is not going to care what you think about, or your sins."
- Richard Dawkins Click here, and skip to 37:40
This is indeed a rather extraordinary claim. Thankfully, however, the proposition that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence has been refuted beyond any reasonable doubt. So I will offer rather ordinary evidence, and I think, formulate a rather powerful inductive case for the conclusion that Richard Dawkins is actually a closet deist.
Before I begin, it is best that I define my terms. Who is Richard Dawkins? Richard Dawkins is the author of several books on atheism, most prominetly, The God Delusion (The central argument of which, I reviewed in the article titled 'Who Designed The Designer?'). Professor Dawkins is widely regarded by younger generations as the world's leading apologist of atheism.
What is deism? Deism is a class of theism. It is the belief that God created the physical universe, and stepped back. Deism is the belief that God exists, but is not causally active in the world, nor can it even be said that he cares for the world.
As I write this, all of the logical inadequacies of this view are presenting themselves. However, I will leave that alone for now, and begin to justify my radical claim that Professor Richard Dawkins believes in a deistic God.
Point One: Dawkins perspective allows for belief in a generic, deistic God.
In listening to Professor Dawkins' lectures, he seems to be awe-struck by the magnitude and complexity of the universe, and by the biological complexity of the human being. He has been known, on occasion, to refer to it all as beautiful, and he has explained that crediting all of it to a designer massively subtracts or degrades the beauty of it all.
Essentially, Richard Dawkins' objection is that God, as designer, negates the beauty of the universe. However, this leaves room for God, as an uncaused cause of the universe. This would allow for the universal beauty that Dawkins wants to maintain.
Point Two: In his debate at the Oxford Museum with Doctor John Lennox, Professor Dawkins conceded, remarkably, "A rather reasonable case can be made for deism," but obviously, he was not as generous as to leave it at that. "Not one that I would accept," he concluded.
Richard Dawkins has given extensive critiques of religion, Christianity, and belief in God as an explanation of the universe. He has also been known, on occasion, as a street de-evangelist. He confronts people, as street evangelists do, in an effort to lure them into considering atheism.
He has even gone as far as to say that religious people are irrational. Yet now, he retreats from that position, to the position that a reasonable man could be justified in adopted deism.
Point Three: Dawkins is too intelligent to neglect to recognize the defeater of his 'Who Designed The Designer?' argument.
This man is potentially one of the most intelligent men in the world. He is a brilliant writer, and a brilliant biologist, and seems to be deeply interested in questions of philosophy. The question of "but who designed the designer?' if it were a firm objection, would negate the cosmological argument.
The problem is that it is obviously not a firm objection. Sophisticated literature, even from the atheist camp discredit this argument. "I do not want atheists to use this argument, because it is so easily refuted," writes CommonSenseAtheism.com. Michael Ruse, a noted atheist philosopher of science writes that the central argument of The God Delusion shames atheism.
This argument is trivially easy to refute, which I demonstrate in my article, "Who Designed The Designer?"
Yet this man continues to defend this argument despite its' obvious logical inadequacies. I do not believe that this is derivitive of stupidity or ignorance. I am certain that a man of Richard Dawkins' intelligence knows that his objection to the cosmological argument is faulty, and that therefore, he also knows that this argument stands firmly.
Point Four: In his book, The God Delusion, he writes, "Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity, to say nothing of listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading thoughts."
This is a remarkable concession on Richard Dawkins' part. He does not deny that the Cosmological Argument effectively demonstrates the existence of an uncaused, spaceless, timeless, personal Creator of the universe. He merely complains that this argument does not also demonstrate that this Creator is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, creative, listens to prayers, forgiving of sins.
To this I would merely reply: that's fine. The argument does not aim to demonstrate that. It is but one part in a cumulative argument. It only aims to demonstrate precisely what Richard Dawkins neglects to deny; the existence of an uncaused, spaceless, timeless, personal Creator of the universe.
This concession fits remarkably with my claim that Richard Dawkins believes in a deistic God, as he, more or less, agrees that this argument successfully demonstrates the existence of God.
Point Five: His analysis of what morality would be, if atheism were true, stands in stark contrast with what he affirms.
In The God Delusion, he writes, "[If atheism is true] there is at bottom, no design, no good, no evil; nothing but pitiless indifference."
The problem with this is that Professor Dawkins is a stubborn moralist. While he accepts that contingently upon atheisms' truth, objective moral values would not exist, again and again, he affirms the existence of objective moral values. He even goes as far as to write his own revised version of the Ten Commandments.
Professor Dawkins is morally appalled by the persecution of human beings out of religious interest. His is an end that serves a world of peace, prosperity, and the general flourishing of the human race. It seems to me to be reasonable to conclude that he loves his fellow man, and treasures this, while condemning cruelty and persecution. In doing this, he appeals to objective morality despite that if atheism were true, he has no right to do so.
He borrows from the theistic worldview to support his own. He appeals to objective morality despite that he has agreed that it does not exist. In his writing, it is clear that he would, more or less, agree with my article, "Objective Morality And Naturalism Are At Logical Odds".
However, I submit that Richard Dawkins is too intelligent to make such a mistake. He appeals to a standard of objective morality beyond himself, not out of ignorance, but because he believes in a standard of objective morality beyond himself.
But that entails that he believes that God exists.
Why?: From all of this, the obvious question that imposes itself is, why? Why would Richard Dawkins maintain this charade, if he believes that a deistic God exists?
I believe that he sees the evil that religion produces. Essentially, he believes that the world would be a better place without religion. But if he were to attack it in asserting the existence of a deistic God, he would be no better off than the other religions of the world. People would not listen to him any more than they listen a Pastor or an Imam.
On abstract deism, there is no salvation, and perhaps, there may not even be an afterlife. But since there is no salvation, and possibly no afterlife, neither of these are dependent upon belief in God or trust in God. In his worldview, while God does exist, there are no negative consequences of ridding people of that belief.
Rather it seems to him to be a positive endeavor, when considering the evil that religion furnishes. So the "why would Richard Dawkins do this?" question is trivially easy to answer. Atheism is more arguable and more emotionally fulfilling than abstract deism, and therefore more likely to be accepted and more effective in serving his ends.
To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here