Customer Reviews

Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God

5 star:		(23)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(18)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

Dawkins and his like-minded associates have written what many consider to be polemics rather than sound, scientific arguments against the existence of God. Dawkins, in particular, seems to write more out of anger and frustration than on the basis of sound critical thinking and detailed factual analysis. That is not to say that he fails to ask key questions and to point out weaknesses and fallacies in much of Christian thinking. Alas, his snide, condescending, and pretentious style so puts off many of his readers that they fail to consider the possible worth of his arguments. Thereby, he does himself and other proponents of reasoned atheism a great disservice.

Into the frey marches then Scott Hahn, a prolific and pablumesque purveyor of conventional Roman Catholic doctrine. (Forgive the disgusting alliteration.) Dr. Hahn is a popularizer of the Roman Church who attempts to subject Dr. Dawkins to a thrashing based on the basis of old Roman arguments in not-quite-so-acid tones of dismissal.

Neither author is especially successful. Dawkins because he picks the low-hanging fruit of doctrinaire Christianity and assumes that by poking holes in some of its more simple-minded assertions he has destroyed theism in toto. Hahn because, like Aquinas, his reasoned deconstructions of Dawkins' thought begin with a number of basic assumptions that he puts forward with little or no effort at proof.

If only philosophers and theologians would recall that their disciplines are invariably retrospective and reductionist, it would be easier to focus on the underlying question of whether or not there is a sentient generative force in the creation. Lacking the tools to research that ultimate question very effectively,we use the tools that we have, often without realizing just how frail and flawed they are.

The strongest argument that human beings have for appreciating the reality and presence of God is experience of the divine. So long as Dawkins considers that he can vitiate such experience by declaring it irrational and delusional, and so long as Hahn can parlay that experience into the glories of the Roman Church, neither will be of great help to the seeker. They will only serve as cheerleaders and propagandists for their respective followers.

I was amazed at the loose argument put together by the authors. Everybody should just fast-forward to the last chapter and have a good laugh at the backwards thinking associated with these religious supporters.

Stem cell research is actually equated to an evolved form of cannibalism. Smart a@@ remarks are made about Dawkins. A hyperthetical King Dawkins is dragged through the mud and for some reason they bring his wife into the discussion in an attempt to irritate Dawkins. Clearly nothing is sacred to the writers.

Yes, that last chapter really shows the true colors of our religious authors. It is clear that by the end of their book they must have realized, as I did, that they had better throw some sticks and stones because the words used surely did nothing to dent Dawkins' argument.

For me they actually reinforced Dawkins argument. Pity they couldn't just turn the other cheek. Instead they apparently are going to take it on the nose.

I have never written a review before, but I felt so strongly about this book not because it is a defense of religion (it does not directly advocate any form of theism), but because it is a fully rational response to Dawkins and set out according to the very terms he has laid forth in his arguments against God.

This book is written in a calm, collective, and fully rational way. It does so not by citing the Bible, but by playing on the same field as Dawkins and according to his own terms of evolutionary biology. This book demonstrates very effectively how Dawkins's unsound (but apparently sound for him) argumentation for the non-existence of a supernatural Being amounts to little more than soaring and highly influential rhetoric and oftentimes just plain bad science. It does all of this in a respectful and relaxed way, unlike the hostility, sneering tone, and sharp ridicule found in "The God Delusion".

If you have read parts or all of "The God Delusion", or if you have heard about the book and are somewhat unsure exactly what Dawkins is all about, I very highly recommend this book. This book is NOT another "religious" book frantically written to help readers save their respective religion out of fear of atheism. It is a book of cool reason, the very reason that Dawkins himself, I imagine, would advocate but evidently doesn't practice.

After reading some of the reviews on "The God Delusion" on this website, I noticed that there is a short video clip of Dawkins speaking about his book. In it he says, "I give in the book the argument, I think it is a rather strong argument, that there is no supernatural, supreme Being." And further, "The existence of God is a scientific question." If you have not seen this clip, I would highly recommend viewing it after reading "Answering the New Atheism".

I very kindly urge reading "Answering the New Atheism" in order not to instantly become a devout believer, but in order to think and to reason logically. Please do not let Dawkins's rhetorical masterpiece undermine your intelligence.

I didn't expect to be convinced by this book given the failure of the religious to so far prove their own beliefs or shoot down criticisms, but I'm open minded (I was once a Christian before I actually read the Bible properly) and given the positions of the authors and the praise of their reviews I was surprised, disappointed and appalled at just how dishonest it was.

Rather than properly engaging with Dawkins' arguments they deliberately side-stepped, misinterpreted or ignored his real points. Straw men were set up and attacked (often not that convincingly) and on regular occasions their arguments reduced to "Look! Evil atheists! Booooo!" Particularly laughable is the claim to treat Dawkins with more respect than he treats his foes, while putting such a hideous caricature of him on the front cover. Somehow I can't imagine Dawkins sinking so low - he'd rather illustrate the beauty of nature than to demean opponents he so easily out argues.

Just as a final note - yes Dawkins can come across as arrogant, scathing and cold, but that doesn't make him wrong! Also, he's a lot like Ben Goldacre in that when you see him on camera it's clear much of the negativity of his tone is actually just rather exasperation, and he's not the devil after all. After all, wouldn't you be exasperate if those who disagreed with you lied shamelessly in their arguments and others who don't want to give up their beliefs so readily swallow it all?

The criticisms levelled against Richard Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" are really criticisms that apply more to the authors of "Answering The New Atheism". For example, Scott Hahn accuses Richard Dawkins of confusing improbability and impossibility. Yet this is what Scott Hahn does himself (I don't know of anywhere in Dawkin's actual work where he confuses the two). He accuses Richard Dawkins of writing an unintelligent critique, yet this is what Scott Hahn does.

For example, take the entire first chapter where Scott Hahn claims that Richard Dawkin's god is "chance". Anyone who reads Richard Dawkin's actual work intelligently will know that this is not true. The claim that atheists like Dawkins rely on chance as a replacement for god is in fact, fairly easy to refute. To ask Richard Dawkins why he places so much faith on "chance" would be the same as asking why Scott Hahn puts so much faith on Zeus, or burying St. Joseph statues in your yard to sell your house.

As far as confusing improbability with impossibility, Scott Hahn shows his expertise in doing this in the first chapter. He considers a cow jumping over the moon as impossible whereas Richard Dawkins considers it highly improbable. However, even Richard Dawkins would consider things impossible such as a Euclidean square circle (there are circles that appear to be squares in Taxicab geometry). A Euclidean square circle is not merely improbable such as a cow jumping over the moon. It is impossible because it involves a logical absurdity. However, drawing a circle, without trying to, that happens to have a diameter of 2 inches within an accuracy of less than 0.01 inches, is not impossible but highly improbable.

So when you see a question like "Why does Dawkins put so much faith in chance?" replace "Dawkins" with "Scott Hahn". You get the question "Why does Scott Hahn put so much faith in chance?" This is a good question since Scott Hahn claims that chance does not cause anything. Yet to prove that Scott Hahn puts his faith in chance, consider what would happen if the Franciscan University needed 2 million dollars to build a new sports center. What would Scott Hahn advise the University? Would he tell the University to play the Ohio lottery, to have students pray in the Portiuncula, or ask some rich benefactors to donate the money? I'm sure that whatever Scott's thinking process would be, his belief in "the likelihood that it would work" would play a pretty large factor in what he would advise.

In short, this book basically preaches to the choir of Scott Hahn fans and does nothing to refute Richard Dawkin's actual arguments. To go into more detail would require writing a book myself, which I could do except that I suspect that this book is not generating enough substantive opposition to Dawkins that would warrent such a response.

Hahn and Wiker expose the irrational and poor logic of Dawkins, even providing several quotes by prominent atheists to demonstrate that Dawkins is philosophically uneducated and that his book is not taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about the debate. Of course, the average American does not fall into that category and has been duped into thinking the New Atheism has something intelligent to say. Hahn shows Dawkins blind faith in the god chance, and the absurd lengths Dawkins will go to avoid admitting God's existence. People treat Dawkins like some sort of god of atheism and the man REALLY doesn't know what he is talking about. David Ramsey Steele and John Loftus have MUCH better books on atheism with actual arguments using sound philosophy (though still flawed). Hahn shows how Dawkins believes in an evolutionary understanding of morals, yet is himself a moral absolutist. One can not have it both ways. It's unfortunate that many of us have put our faith in the arguments of a biologist.

I know we should never judge a book by its cover, but in this case the cover is particularly good. It depicts a caricature of Dawkins, cast as Adam in Michelangelo's Creation of Adam. But in contrast with the original painting, in which Adam submissively holds his finger out to receive life from the finger of God, Dawkins arrogantly holds his finger up, refusing to acknowledge God's existence. A painting represents a moment of time frozen in eternity, and thus, the finger of God continues to point, offering life to Dawkins, but he continues to refuse it. Also unlike the original, in which Adam in his innocence is completely naked, Dawkins at least has a copy of The God Delusion to cover him - but the book is rather small and serves to emphasize his nakedness as much as to cover it. And that is the message: this excellent book leaves him looking very naked indeed.

I have seen several attempts, both long and short, to unravel the errors of The God Delusion (and I have even made one myself), but as far as I can see, this book far surpasses all of them. Its great strength is that the authors do not attempt to knock down Dawkins' assertions point by point but tease out the illogicalities and inconsistencies underpinning his whole argument.

The first four chapters deal with the question of God's existence. Here the authors demonstrate admirably how Dawkins fudges the concepts of probability and the anthropic principle to manufacture arguments which have the illusion of substance but in reality are utterly invalid. They then explain how his failure to grasp the basic principles of philosophy and theology lead him to misinterpret completely the demonstrations of the existence of God, most significantly Thomas Aquinas' five proofs. Since these arguments are central to Dawkins' thesis, discrediting them destroys his whole case.

Along the way, they make some other interesting points: for example, that the human intellect and the development of science cannot be explained on evolutionary principles, since the intellect goes far beyond what is necessary for survival and reproduction, and science, at least in its early stages, was a purely intellectual pursuit with no relevance to survival or reproduction. They also demolish the "prayer experiment" quoted by Dawkins. Most importantly, perhaps, they show how his refusal to understand the nature of God makes most of his arguments irrelevant.

Chapters 5 and 6 deal with moral principles and show that both Darwin and Dawkins are inconsistent in their application of morality. Darwin stated that morality should be based on evolutionary principles, but then contradicted this by exalting the value of sympathy over everything else. Dawkins, claiming that our moral values have all been derived from natural selection and that there is no such thing as absolute good or evil, goes on to propose that we should support good and oppose evil by upholding moral norms which are directly opposed to natural selection. Tellingly, neither of them could give any good reason why this does not invalidate their principles.

Chapter 5 is very well argued but probably a bit long-winded and heavy for the average reader, but chapter 6 is the climax of the book, a brilliant tour de force, which does not so much demolish Dawkins' arguments on morality as allow him to demolish them himself by showing that his ideas are completely self-contradictory. Essentially, Dawkins believes that our understanding of the universe should be based on evolutionary principles, yet all his complaints against the morality of the Bible are really directed against the application of these principles. The Jews of the Old Testament were the perfect exemplars of a world ruled by natural selection, and thus should be most worthy of an evolutionist's praise.

However, it is chapters 7 & 8 which are the most important. They show that Dawkins' atheist rhetoric is not merely an academic exercise but a manifesto designed to be put into practice, like The Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf. Their glimpse of a world based on Dawkinsist principles is truly frightening, and perhaps closer than we think.

Everyone who has read Dawkins, and even those who have not, should read this book. The tragedy is that relatively few will.

P.S. I must admit, however, that there is one respect in which The God Delusion is far superior to Answering the New Atheism: Dawkins provides an excellent index, while Hahn and Wiker have none.