Still, I await the devastating critique of religion alleged to have been offered by Richard Dawkins. Instead all I have found is a book of terrible philosophy which outlines a central argument that unless the reader has an emotional motivation for abiding can easily be dismissed as silly. (See my article titled 'Who Designed The Designer?')
This is far from a bias examination. Gentlemen like Doctor William Stenger, despite that he is wrong, raises a formidable intellectual opposing case. But Richard Dawkins critique of religion and the philosophy of God is dubious at best. He is quite clearly a laymen in matters of philosophy. Which is why I find it so perplexing that his book is so popular.
It is my opinion that it comes down to purely iconic atheism. He is a great biologist, and thus I have no qualms about deferring to his opinion in matters of biology. He is also, for what my opinion is worth, a skilled writer. It is in these two elements, and perhaps matters such as his popularity or his rather likable personality that people are willing to blindly follow his word. It gives me little hope for humanity that we accept the teachings of those we admire without a second thought. 'The God Delusion' if considered philosophically should have never made it onto the open market, because quite frankly, upon examination it is glaring that a biologist with no grasp of philosophy wrote it.
Not the worst of the unfounded philosophy within Dawkins' work (That title is of course reserved for the central theme of his books.) are his jests. I would not even bother criticizing something such as this, but it just so often repeated, and I think people are actually persuaded by it. "We are all atheists," he asserts. "Some of us just go one God further."
Dawkins has publicly stated that the means of his body of work serve an end that is converting everybody into an atheist. I am not sure what tricks he has up his sleeve, but throughout his work, I find nothing so potent. However it does seem that in abiding his own definition of an atheist, his work is complete. Everybody is an atheist in that nobody believes in every god.
It is a bizarre form of atheism to concede that God exists. But that is exactly what Richard Dawkins proposes. I believe that the Christian doctrine is reflective of reality and I believe in God, yet, according to Dawkins, I am an atheist. How in the world does he get away with this?!
Imagine the dialogue wherein one person explains that they are an atheist and the other person replies, "But do you believe in God?" This is utterly absurd. It's like some bizarro universe or something you might hear on Opposite Day. It is logically inept. Yet it is what Richard Dawkins proposes and it is what is widely regarded as sound logic.
I do wonder what else we might find in the world that Dawkins imagines. In this universe of atheists believing in God and everybody saying goodbye upon arrival and hello upon exit, what else do we find? Perhaps we will find that refutations of the Kalam Cosmological argument are validated.
I have no problem discussing religion with atheists. However I do become a bit annoyed when I hear Richard Dawkins work repeated. Only because it becomes grossly apparent that the person that I am speaking with is not thinking.
Atheists: want to discuss religion or the philosophy of God? I'm up for it. But please do not approach me with the rhetoric that Richard Dawkins imagines.
To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here