Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God [Paperback]

Scott Hahn (Author), Benjamin Wiker (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 1931018480 | ISBN-13: 978-1931018487 | Publication Date: May 8, 2008

The essential book for dismantling Richard Dawkins' atheistic agenda. Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker collaborate to debunk Dawkins' theories and show how inconsistent and illogical his conclusions truly are. This is the definitive book for college students or faithful Christians hoping to answer Dawkins' claims and assert the logic and beauty of their faith.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"It has been a great pleasure to me as a long-retired Professor of Philosophy to have been set the task of reading Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God by Dr. Scott Hahn and Dr. Benjamin Wiker. For this 'task' has been for me not a task but a sustained delight. Rarely, if ever, in my many years as a Professor of Philosphy did I ever have the opportunity to read such a compelling argument." -- Antony Flew, Author of There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

"Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker answer the arguments posed by the New Atheism effectively and decisively. They show, again and again, that atheists like Richard Dawkins are putting forth shoddy arguments, and once those arguments are dismantled by cool reason, there is very little left." -- Dinesh D'Souza, Richwain Research Scholar at the Hoover Institution; Author of What's So Great About Christianity

"In a better world than ours there would have been no need for Answering the New Atheism. But under the circumstances, I'm grateful to Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker for their essential service in cooly, rationally taking apart Richard Dawkins' inflamed rhetoric and exposing the absurdities, and the dangers, at its heart. Their final chapter is a particularly chilling, important reminder of what Dawkins' secular faith would lead to if it were more widely embraced." -- David Klinghoffer, Author of Shattered Tablets: Why We Ignore the Ten Commandements at Our Peril and Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History.

Answering the New Atheism is a superb exposé of the Dawkins Delusion. Systematically and lucidly, Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker dissect and dispose of the fundamental errors that riddle Dawkins' attempt to demonize the divine. Dawkins has declared a jihad against religion and his main weapons are diatribe and caricature. But the authors refuse to respond in kind and instead turn to reason, the one tool that Dawkins seems to disdain. As readable and humorous as it is rigorously reasoned, Answering the New Atheism is the best antidote in the marketplace for Dawkinitis." -- Roy Abraham Varghese, Co-author with Antony Flew of There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist changed His Mind, a book denouced by Dawkins. Editor of Cosmos, Bios, Theos, a work with 24 Nobel Prize winners that was described by Time Magazine as "the year's most intriguing book on God."

"Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker patiently, thoroughly pick apart the reasoning of Richard Dawkins until very little is left standing. I highly recommend Answering the New Atheism to anyone who wants to watch scientific atheist bullies get their comeuppance." -- Michael J. Behe, Lehigh University; Author of The Edge of Evolution

--Reviews

Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker patiently, thoroughly pick apart the reasoning of Richard Dawkins until very little is left standing. I highly recommend Answering the New Atheism to anyone who wants to watch scientific atheist bullies get their comeuppance. --Michael J. Behe

Product Details

• Paperback: 151 pages
• Publisher: Emmaus Road Publishing (May 8, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1931018480
• ISBN-13: 978-1931018487
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.3 x 0.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (52 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #205,165 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

348 of 471 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Only convincing from a cursory analysis, September 6, 2008

By 

Adam D. Shomsky (Detroit, MI USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God (Paperback)

I felt like large portions of this book were based on a few misunderstandings on the part of Hahn and Wiker. For instance, the authors wrote page after page explaining how exceedingly unlikely it is that a modern living cell could randomly jostle into place and come to life. Dawkins would agree with them on this point; even the simplest modern cells are extremely complex. But in The Blind Watchmaker (a book cited repeatedly by Hahn and Wiker in Answering the New Atheism) Dawkins devoted an entire chapter to the subject of the origins of life. Dawkins even wrote "the only machinery of replication that we know [DNA] seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection" [p. 200]. He went on to explain how simple pre-DNA replicators could have provided the scaffolding necessary to evolve modern DNA replication. Hahn and Wiker quoted Dawkins from this very same chapter but omitted his explanation of the origins of life and instead erected a straw man argument to knock down. It's hard to believe that they were unaware of Dawkins' explanation, especially seeing as how Dawkins also devoted another chapter on the origins of life in Climbing Mount Improbable, another book cited repeatedly by Hahn and Wiker. From Climbing Mount Improbable: "the original replicator probably was not DNA...unlike DNA, the original replicating molecules cannot have relied upon complicated machinery to duplicate them" [p. 285]. The (intentional?) omission of these arguments was disappointing.

The authors explicitly do not deny "that evolution is in very important ways a partial cause of human intelligence" [p 82]. However, they argue, there is "an enormous discrepancy between what is needed to survive, and the intellectual ability we've actually got" [p 50]. Human brains can figure out "what's going on inside atoms or inside black holes" which is "not at all necessary for Darwinian survival" [p. 50]. But various theories explain humans' intellectual capacities: for example, the use of language provided a significant benefit for those best able to use it, which led to more capable brains, which led to more complex language, which fueled a rapid self-sustaining upward spiral in mental capacity and language complexity. And there is no shortage of examples of evolved traits later being put to uses far different than those that provided the original benefits. There is little mystery here. Plus, human minds have great difficulty understanding and imagining quantum mechanics, for instance, because the concepts are very different than the familiar ones that we need to survive. This makes perfect sense in light of evolution.

Dawkins' main argument in The God Delusion is that "a designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right" [p. 136]. Hahn and Wiker assert that "it is only in Dawkins' treating God as having an evolved, material intelligence that allowed him the dubious luxury of discounting His existence as very, very improbable...since God is by definition purely spiritual, then the contingency of material atom-shuffling is inapplicable" [p. 65]. But if not atom-shuffling, then what? However God came to be still needs an explanation which is entirely side-stepped by the authors. Why would non-physical intelligence need any less explanation than physical intelligence? I can understand it would be a different kind of explanation, but the authors offer none at all and utterly fail to counter Dawkins' main argument. It's like answering "why is the sky blue?" with "it's not blue, it's light blue" and then failing to offer an explanation of why the sky is light blue.

Most of the authors' discussion of atheist morality is based on a simple assumption that is just false: that whatever is best for our selfish genes is by definition "moral". "Does it promote survival? If it does, it is `good'" [p. 118]. Thus, they question how Dawkins can condemn the brutal practices in the Old Testament as immoral since natural selection is equally brutal. Even granting their premise for the moment, they do not make any attempt to defend the atrocities described in the Old Testament as moral according to their own God-given standard of morality. They criticize morality based on natural selection as no better than that of the Old Testament, then go on to upbraid morality based on natural selection as repugnant. Does that mean the morality taught in the Old Testament is also repugnant? Because that was what Dawkins argued and all the authors effectively responded with was "oh yeah? Well your morality is repugnant, too!" But in doing so they assumed that what is good for our selfish genes is by definition "moral" according to the atheist. This leads to all kinds of wild conclusions that sound more like a caricature of imaginary outrageous "evil people" rather than real life atheists. Dawkins explicitly states in The Selfish Gene "I am not advocating a morality based on evolution" [p. 2].

Either Dawkins is right and there is no personal God, or he is wrong and there is one. If he is right, then all the moral principles of Christianity espoused by the authors must come from the very same sources as Dawkins' morality.

UPDATE:
Since writing this review, I've read a few books about the evolutionary origins of morality. I recommend The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation. The theory goes like this:

Our ancestors who were genetically predisposed to cooperate with each other were more likely to survive and pass on their genes than their selfish counterparts, presumably due to the efficiencies and advantages of teamwork. Similarly, our ancestors who refused to tolerate social injustice perpetuated by others were able to avoid being cheated and passed on the genes that built their judgmental brains. Those who felt guilty for committing actions that ruined cooperation were less likely to take those actions and were more likely to cooperate and pass on their genes. We are their descendants. We are no more free to decide not to feel guilty for betraying a friend than we are free to decide not to feel pain from slamming our hand in a car door. The emotion of guilt, like the feeling of physical pain, is an involuntary reaction that has a powerful influence on our behavior. And we all feel it, whether we believe in God or not, because we all share the genes that make the type of brains that act that way.

The final chapter is a truly ridiculous "warning" to all the faithful of the awful perversions of society that would surely befall any country who allowed an atheist any kind of political power. It is reminiscent of the ludicrous 1930's anti-marijuana propaganda film "Reefer Madness" which depicted mild mannered citizens transforming into raving lunatics, killing each other and jumping out of windows after smoking marijuana. The atheists will take your children away! They'll shut down the churches! They'll mandate abortions and euthanasia! The authors described Hitler, not Dawkins, and not atheists in general.

It would take another entire book to counter all the authors' arguments, so I have offered only a few here. But despite this books shortfalls, it is an interesting read which provides insights into Catholic philosophy and views of atheists.

47 of 77 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A sound, sensible rebuttal to "The God Delusion", July 21, 2009

By 

K. Harriger "K.R. Harriger" (Pennsylvania, USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God (Paperback)

It's refreshing to read such a well organized collection of thoughts and well-reasoned arguments, particularly when it addresses a collection of irrational, poorly-reasoned ideas such as those presented by Dawkins in "The God Delusion," a book so poorly written as an argument that even prominent atheist Michael Ruse said it made him "embarrassed to be an atheist." Harsh words, particularly when they're coming from a friendly camp. Ruse isn't the only "friendly" critic, by any means. I feel it's a shame, to be fair about it. I have always been impressed with Dawkins' skills as a writer dealing with popular and controversial ideas, and he just doesn't present a very smart argument in "The God Delusion."

This book was badly needed. Dawkins is a very persuasive writer and has a devoted following, so getting readers of all stripes to buy into his argument is a simple task. But for anyone looking for a reasonable, rational argument, Dawkins' book is something of an embarrassment, regardless of your worldview. Dawkins proposes to disprove the Judeo-Christian God, but knows next to nothing about Him. As the authors of this book point out, Dawkins creates a strawman God on his own terms, and then proceeds to beat the tar out of him. There's just one problem: this god that Dawkins is trying so hard to disprove isn't even remotely like the God found in the Judeo-Christian scriptures.

Anyone can prove or disprove something when they are allowed to invent the premise to fit their argument. If you would allow me to create my own definition of God, I'm pretty certain I could prove His existence using established scientific facts, as I'd simply invent a definition of God that allowed me to do so. As the authors point out, Dawkins has committed this same sleight of hand, and slipped it right past many readers, who apparently saw nothing wrong with it. For those who haven't read this book yet, I'll try to explain it as quickly as possible, as understanding it is critical to understanding the rest of this review.

To disprove the Judeo-Christian God, one must accept the description of Him found within the Judeo-Christian scriptures. This description suggests a God who existed before the creation event, and therefore outside of our four-dimensional world. He's also described as existing before our dimension of time began, and therefore not constrained by it. Additionally, this god-being is a spirit, not a physical entity. Dawkins dispenses with all of these annoying points, and moves forward with his own conveniently-designed definition of an evolved god. Dawkins believes that as our own intelligence is the result of evolution, then this God must have evolved as well. The numerous problems with this concept should be immediately clear. For starters, evolution works on physical beings with DNA, which, to the best of our knowledge, only exists within this 4-D Universe. How can you apply the powers of natural selection to a spirit? The problems then continue to spiral outward from this starting point, but you'll need to read this book as well as "The God Delusion" to fully enjoy them. As the authors point out, Dawkins tries to create an evolved, somewhat material god who's little more than an amplified version of himself. It's no wonder Dawkins couldn't find him.

The real meat of the authors' argument, however, comes near the end, which addresses the problems encountered with Dawkins' increasingly flawed argument regarding morality. Morality, Dawkins claims, is an evolved trait, the result of millions of years of evolution. The problem with this idea is that if morality is purely the result of Darwinian processes, then, from our human perspective, it's cold and heartless at its core, and not the type of social structure that Dawkins himself would want to live in, and he admits as much. But how can that be? In a totally material world, good and bad are simply subjective tags we give things. How can evolved, amoral behavior be cold and heartless, and why do we largely reject "Darwinian" social behavior in our societies? This is just one part of Dawkins' argument where he paints himself into a corner.

Even more bizarre is his attack on the God of the Old Testament. As the authors point out, Dawkins refers to this God as heartless, xenophobic, selfish and racist. Dawkins is now attacking both God (and by extension, the Jews) for behaving exactly as evolution would have Him behave; selfishly preserving His own at the expense of others. If Dawkins' God is an evolved entity, then He's behaving exactly as Dawkins would expect him to behave. The Jews, as described in the Bible, are brutally efficient at preserving their genes and their environment, qualities that Dawkins praises elsewhere in his arguments, but finds repugnant when actually applied by a particular group. The ancient Jews, by Dawkins evolutionary definitions, are genetic geniuses, and since there is no God in Dawkins purely physical world, how can you ascribe attributes such as good and evil to an "evolved" race that appears so brutally efficient at exploiting natural selection to its fullest advantages, a trait so strong in them that they've survived intact as a distinct group for over four millennnia?

As the authors point out, Dawkins wants to have his cake and eat it too. Pick your poison, say the authors of this book. Dawkins cannot argue in favor of evolved, amoral behavior as the basis for all morality, and then turn around and condemn it as unfair and biased elsewhere, particularly since his natural world, as its core, has no use for such subjective classifications. Evolved traits must be viewed as amoral, says Dawkins. So why does he feel he can change the rules to attack a race of people (and, by extension, their God) that simply came to be (claims Dawkins) as the result of blind, amoral evolutionary processes?

In summation, this book picks apart Dawkins' argument and shows its fatal flaws; flaws, I'll note again, that were roundly criticized by his own colleagues. That point alone should have been a warning sign to readers not to blindly accept Dawkins rhetoric, no matter how inflamed and stirring it may be. I sincerely hope that anyone who reads "The God Delusion" and who considers themselves to be a critical thinker will also take the time to read this excellent argument against it. If you're going to develop a rational basis for your beliefs, be they atheistic or theistic, you should be willing to entertain a sound argument against them. This book is a good place to start. The authors did their homework, and produced a sound rebuttal to an inflammatory book from an author who didn't.

And, if you're a theist who wants to develop a fair and balanced view of the God vs. naturalism debate, I would suggest you skip "The God Delusion," and instead read Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark as it's a far better argument than the one delivered by Dawkins. As a theist myself, I found Sagan's book to be far more compelling and thought-provoking, and it gave me much to consider in refining my own Christian worldview.

69 of 113 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Food for the ignorant, August 13, 2010

By 

KDR (London, Canada) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God (Paperback)

It makes me sad to post a one-star review of any book, but in this case, I walked away after finishing this book with a burning desire to educate people. Be warned: while it may feel satisfying to pummel Dawkins whose been much-aligned because of what many feel is an inflated ego, it's founded more on ignorance of what Dawkins actually writes than real, hard facts.

My main problem with Hahn and Wilker's book is that they use selective evidentiary methods when composing their chapters, picking and choosing bits of Dawkins' literary collection and setting them up as arguments and "GOTCHA" moments to be destroyed. If you are going to discuss an author's viewpoint, you must consider the whole of their argument in total not ignoring bits and pieces here and using what you like to support your theory.

What's even more unsettling is that it's part of a group of people -- many of whom are theologians -- who have sprung up to attack what's been dubbed The New Atheism and, in essence, refute and destroy its credibility. Yet among these works not one bothers to establish in the first place that THEIR suppositions are true. If you are going to attack Dawkins' view on evolution and his research into the creation of life on earth, then come up with a better reason than "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

That constitutes no more proof than that of the ancient Greeks who believed that the world was created out of Chaos. If all you can do is refute what evolutionists have worked for years to accomplish, present a viable, realistic alternative with hard evidence. Then perhaps I'll take you seriously.