RECOMMENDED READINGS

"We Believe in God" -- The Greatest Minds Believed

Is God Cruel?

The Dawkins Delusion?

There Is a God

Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis

Darwin on Trial

The Edge of Evolution

Darwin's Black Box

Intelligent Design

The Fingerprint of God

The Creator and the Cosmos

Creation As Science

God and the New Atheism

Answering the New Atheism

The Cell's Design

Understanding Intelligent Design

Icons of Evolution

The Language of God

What's So Great About Christianity

MORE BOOKS

HOME

RICHARD DAWKINS: THE GOD DELUSION- ANALYSIS

Have you ever heard of Richard Dawkins? No? Then type, “Richard Dawkins” on Google, and you will find about 7,000.000 results. Richard Dawkins is no lightweight; he is the modern High Priest of the philosophy of Atheism. He is adored by millions of fans who revere him like… a god.

But who is Richard Dawkins, really. He is an Oxford professor with a long list of credentials, either earned or honorary and an impressive list of books and articles on scientific topics and, most of all, on Atheism and the evils of Religion. His most recent work, The God Delusion, has been for weeks on the New York Times bestseller list and has earned him a big bundle.

On the other side of the fence, there are millions who loathe and despise him and consider him to be a child of the Devil and an Antichrist.

The view of this author is that this impressive academic is not impressive at all. If one looks superficially at the buildings he builds (his arguments), he seems to be unassailable—until one looks closely at the bricks one by one, and it is then that one realizes that Richard Dawkins is in fact an intellectual “illusionist.” He is able to create “illusions” of reality, thanks to a combination of pseudo-logic, subjective judgments, a dismissive approach, distortions, false facts, inebriating figurative language and disarming self-assurance.

Let’s look together at some of Dawkins illusions in his latest work, The God Delusion, starting with the Preface.

On page one, he tells the reader that reading his book will be a “positive” transformational experience. His overall aim is to raise the “consciousness” of the reader to the fact that Atheism is “a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one.” It takes bravery to join Atheism, and it is a “splendid” decision. Why would one not want such an honor…

He then proceeds to reassure the reader that one can be an atheist and be “happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.” That might be; but what does he mean by those terms? Can a person be truly “happy” in seeing the suffering in this world day by day and in believing that it is all for naught. How can one be happy as illness and death reap havoc among friends and relatives, while one has no hope or faith to cushion the blows?

He also uses the word “balanced.” Perhaps so; but how many people can be balanced by embracing the belief that life is short and that one only takes with himself what one can garner from day to day? Why be balanced, if you could die at any time? Why not “eat and be merry” instead?

“Moral?” Which morality, Richard? You and I know that when there is no “fixed” moral code to be guided by, what follows is a self-chosen, “flexible” morality that one can “adjust” at will. After all, who is to decide what is right and wrong, if no Higher Power is there to determine it? And if one is tempted to “cheat” on his moral code, who will be there to stop him? Who will he answer to? Will he need to worry about guilt? How? His conscience has been silenced by his subjective determination of right and wrong. What guilt?

The kind of morality many atheists gravitate to, once they leave God, is listed on my web page “Not So Moral Atheists.” These are the fathers and mothers of Atheism—the role models that atheists have to look to for guidance. What did they stand for? Check it out. You may be quite surprised.

As for being “intellectually fulfilled,” that may also be. Atheists have an unparalleled way of becoming “intellectually lofty” and “superior,” once they embrace Atheism. They have now joined the rank of the “enlightened” and the “brilliant.” Everybody else is seen as blind, stupid or close-minded. Perhaps a better phrase would be, “filled with pride and arrogance,” as this is a trait so many of them exude in very large quantities.

On the same page, he also lists the many negative results that Religion has brought upon humanity. The list is long, and it encompasses centuries and many different lands. How would the world be without religion? The answer is obvious, according to Dawkins: a much more peaceful place.

But has he forgotten what really drives human nature? He is free from religion, and yet he is filled with pride, arrogance, animosity and an acerbic offensive spirit, which provokes anger and defensiveness in others. Is this not the list of traits that saturate human beings of every color and nationally, that has been at the heart and core of human conflicts for millennia?

He is free from religion, but is he really clean from ulterior motives? Is he only mass publishing and roaming around the world giving well-paid lectures because of altruistic motives? Is he taking all his massive profits and giving them to charity? Is he immune from feelings of vanity and superiority? Is his all-too-human ego unaffected by the throngs that live by his word and are energized by his tirades? Bet you are not Richard; bet you are not.

Further down, Dawkins prepares the reader to another one of his aims: convert the poor agnostics who, as he later stresses, are essentially gutless “fence-sitters.” – a theme also propagated by his arch-atheist predecessor Madeleine O’hair. The tone is again one of superiority, and acerbic criticism -- even of those who are so close to his views. But to Dawkins you either go all the way and accept his ideology or you are a nobody. Sorry agnostics; it's all or nothing with this man.

Page two introduces us to Richard’s baby: “The power of cranes such as natural selection,” as the satisfactory explanation for almost anything in the universe. Dawkins tells us that Darwinian “Natural Selection” explains the “illusion of design…with far greater economy and with devastating elegance.” Devastating to any belief in design, of course, and according to his “divine” assessment.

On page three, we are told that “a proper understanding of the magnificence of the real world, while never becoming a religion, can fill the inspirational role that Religion has historically – and inadequately – usurped.” Dawkins admits that the natural world is “magnificent,” but please, don’t look for a "supernatural" cause, as the ultimate Source. The trial and error of natural selection has blindly brought it all to pass. Look at the magnificent Sistine Chapel Ceiling of life, he tells us, and know that blind non-directed energy transformed itself in the molecules that turned into the ceiling, the paint and the brushes that ultimately created the magnificent natural painting—without any painter. Don’t praise the painter, praise “blind” energy and its stunning ability to create magnificence without a mind and without an aim. Most of all, don’t ask where the energy came from. Simply start there and worry about the fact that if you believe in God then you have to explain His origin, which you’re better off not trying to do.

On page four and five, Dawkins informs us that Atheists are more numerous than Jews in America, yet they are politically weak, because they dare not come into the open to get organized so as to influence politics. The reason? Atheists “tend to think independently and will to conform to authority.” How true. This is one of the fruits of atheism. Once one is free from human and divine authority, one becomes "the authority." One’s ego becomes the guiding force, the supreme guide. Now imagine a world made up totally of atheists. If everybody on earth would have that kind of mental set, what would happen to society? Could there ever be any form of government? Could there ever be any harmonious society? Would anything ever get done? Think of the pride, arrogance, competition, intolerance and animosity. What a world that would be, Richard, what a world…

On page five, Dawkins invests a significant amount of space to explain the title of the book. A “delusion” according to Microsoft Word Dictionary, he quotes, is “a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence…” Thus, he adds, this definition “captures religious faith perfectly.”

Of course that depends on the point of view. Many of us would say that the definition applies instead “totally” to atheists who are deluded enough to believe that blind energy can bring into existence all the “magnificence” of the universe. It’s all based on the point of view, Richard, and your point of view is not divine.

On page six, he sarcastically warns us believers not to open the book, as it has the potential of transforming our minds. All it takes is an “open mind” and the rest is unavoidable. Well, Richard, some of us have read your book and are laughing. Your efforts have been a waste. You have only succeeded in strengthening our views, in showing us how little you have to offer our intellect and how sad an attempt at converting believers you have put together.

Interestingly, by perusing the various comments about your book on the Internet, it appears you have succeeded in turning off even some of your more intelligent fellow atheists, who see your latest work as a sad intellectual exercise that only served to harm the philosophy you are so enamored with.

Ironic, isn’t it, Richard…

M. Caputo

Chapter by chapter analysis.

We Believe in God

The Greatest Artists, Musicians, Philosophers, Scientists, Writers and Poets Believed in God...(And a great many Nobel-Prize winners).

Unlike what atheists propagate, the greatest minds of the past believed in God. Read the fully-referenced proofs in this book.
AVAILABLE IN BOTH PAPERBACK AND E-BOOK FORMAT ON AMAZON.