Customer Reviews

Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

In what follows I'll try to give an account of the book itself, without trying to defend a particular viewpoint. I treat it as a response to Dawkin's "The God delusion".

STRONG POINTS

(1) The tone is wonderfully civil. It's a BIG relief to know that (at least outwardly) corteous and restrained people still exist in this world of shrill, disingenuous and venomous polemics. I honestly don't understand where "Hande Z" could have found the person he attacks so much in the first four, ad hominem, paragraphs of his one-star review.
(2) Ward is honest. He makes clear at the outset the difference between "scientific" and "personal" explanations.
(3) He draws attention to the fact that the several versions of basic reality postulated by physics are as difficult and incomprehensible to us as the concept of God, and perhaps even more so. He also points out that it would be absurd to deny the status of rationally accessible reality to non-mathemathizable fields of human knowledge such as history (and by implication therefore to the IDEA of God). He invokes the right kind of Design Argument, not the God-of-the-gaps one.
(4) He carefully explains in clear and accessible modern language Aquinas' five arguments for the existence of God, while at the same time giving also their original scholastic formulation. He has however an easier time stating the first three than the last two (which are of a "personal" nature).
(5) He neither seems to be swayed by personal prejudices, nor, with a single exception, to be a biblical literalist by any standards (though I'm aware that to some/many people this will seem a minus rather than a plus). In pages 63 to 66 of the PB edition he offers a remarkably frank account of the evolution of the concept of God in the Old Testament.
(6) Overall, the whole book is clearly, if not outstandingly, written, with just two grammatical mistakes (something that is alas nowadays very common and particularly annoys me), and gives an impression of plain sincerity, so difficult to achieve in a field (theology) so slippery and so conductive to pompous and vacuous statements.


WEAKNESSES

(1) In attacking the materialistic outlook because of its inability to define matter, I think he misses its point (as I think does Dawkins, although for another reason), which is simply to assert the metaphysical proposition that the only valid way to study the phenomenic world is by using the scientific method -something admittedly difficult to define- and public evidence as far as possible or reasonable. I'm not implying that it's a valid viewpoint, but only that if the "scientific world" revealed by the method appears to be almost incomprehensible (or even finally unknowable, as predicted by Fred Hoyle in one of his SF novels) to the human mind, that neither proves nor suggests that there must perforce be other independent realms of reality (whatever THIS word may mean!).
(2) His efforts to be persuasive notwithstanding, the book shows the strain of trying to conflate an eternal Creator (which from the arguments he gives seems a very plausible assumption) with a personal, compassionate and supremely merciful God. Again, that's not to say that such an Entity doesn't exist, only that the evidence he gives for it, however morally impressive-sounding, is ... purely personal.
(3) In chapter 7 he cites personal religious experience as a pointer to God's existence. That's perfectly valid, but he doesn't refer to the unitive experience, common to all cultures and religions and unmistakeable universal in character, which is undoubtedly the strongest indication of the existence of another state of consciousness in which the Absolute (whatever THAT may be!) is clearly perceived. Perhaps because it's difficult to reconcile with the idea of a personal God? But Meister Eckart, Jacob Böhme, San Juan de la Cruz, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Aquinas himself, etc., all had them and were able (some with some effort) to reconcile them with their Christian faith. By excluding such experiences, he renders that chapter the weakest of the book.
(4) He sidesteps a little when discussing the issue of God's complexity.
(5) In contrast to the rest of the book, the section of Ch. 1 titled "Can we establish by science that God exists?" is (for me) either incoherent or superfluous, and contains besides a sentence that runs counter to the "rational" viewpoint expounded everywhere else in the book. Ward writes: "There are even very good reasons why God might not be a subject to scientific experiments. The Bible says 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test' (Luke 4:12). That seems to rule out experimenting on God. And that seems right, since we would not even experiment on our friends and loved ones, to find out, for example, if they really loved us". But this, if I don't misunderstand what Ward is implying, takes us back the the "credo ut intelligam" of St. Augustine and St. Anselm, a position that Ward is trying to avoid in the rest of the book! Although, to be fair, he says a number of times that this or that argument will only convince someone if he/she already believes. And so we are back to Aquinas' Summa Theologiae. Nothing new under the sun, therefore.

To conclude, Ward succeeds in refuting the obvious misstatements (or fallacies, as you like) contained in "The God delusion", and this in a non-vituperative, not even rancorous, manner.
He doesn't succeed in demonstrating that it's more rational to believe than not to believe, in God. If you believe, perhaps after reading him you'll come away with your faith better founded; if you are an atheist, you can in good conscience continue to be one: Ward will help you not to commit some silly mistakes in arguing your case.
If you already are familiar with the subject, this book is superfluous. If you're new to it, it's valuable.

I use a more consevative criterion of rating than other reviewers. To compare with them, I'd award this book 3 or 3½ stars.

The field of Christian apologetics is the accumulation of 2 millennia of methods and approaches. At the earliest stage there were the classic apologists and evidentialists who both saw Jesus and the resurrection and experienced all the events of the era. But as time progressed, as we moved further away from the events, and skepticism rose, it became necessary to build new methods and approaches to answer to the questions.

The most recent serious challenge to Christianity is naturalistic evolution. We are not talking about the principle of evolution, that is, change, but about a presupposition about the nature and character of all that exists. This presupposition sits behind the materialistic framework of Richard Dawkins view of nature, mind, and all of history. His book, The God Delusion, presents to the world his criticism of the existence of God and his reasons why.

In response to Dawkins' claims, Keith Ward as given us Why There Almost Certainly is a God. This book is an excellent introduction to the field of Christian apologetics. Though there are some points where I would differ, that can be set aside just for the sake of his major point. Mr. Ward gives us a practical implementation of the Kalam cosmological argument. Following are some quotes from the book which are of immense value:

**************

Most philosophers in the world have been in some sense idealists - that is, they have thought the ultimate reality is mind. Theists are philosophers who accept this, but add that the physical world does have its own proper reality, which originates from but is different from God, the ultimate mind. (p. 13)

The world of philosophy, of resolute thought about the ultimate nature of things, is a very varied one, and there is no one philosophical view that has the agreement of all competent philosophers. But in this world there are very few materialists, who think we can know that mind is reducible to electrochemical activity in the brain, or is a surprising and unexpected product of purely material processes.

In the world of modern philosophy, there are idealists, theists, phenomenalists, common sense pragmatists, scientific realists, sceptics, and materialists. These are all going concerns, living philosophical theories of what is ultimately real. This observation does not settle any arguments. But it puts Dawkins' `alternative hypothesis' in perspective. He is setting out to defend a very recent, highly contentious, minority philosophical world-view. (p. 14)

What is the point of being a materialist when we are not sure exactly what matter is? (p. 15)

Dawkins has a lot of fun with `supernatural entities', as he calls them. He says that God might exist outside the universe - `wherever that might be'.

Arguments for God ... are arguments to show that mind is the ultimate reality, and that materialism is a delusion caused by a misuse of modern science. The arguments do not `prove' that there is one extra pseudo-physical thing in or just outside the universe. They provide good reasons for thinking that the ultimate character of the universe is mind, and that matter is the appearance or manifestation or creation of cosmic mind. (p. 20)

There is any number of ways in which the Darwinian process of slow, gradual, cumulative adaptation could fail. This is not an argument for God. But it shows that reliance on the predictability of nature, and on its tendency to produce increasingly complex and adapted organic life-forms, is dependent on a very specific adjustment of physical laws that is itself hugely improbable.

The design argument, in its seventeenth-century form - finding the existence of organic life-forms to be too improbable to have arisen spontaneously by chance - may have been superseded by Darwin. But the design argument still lives, as an argument that the precise structure of laws and constants that seem uniquely fitted to produce life by the process of evolution is hugely improbably. The existence of a designer or creator God would make it much less improbably. That is the New Design Argument, and it is very effective. (p. 39-40)

**************

One of Christianity's infrequently appropriated but highly effective arguments is one of theism's (it pre-dates Christianity) is DDS, the doctrine of divine simplicity. It is a principle that keeps the doctrine of the Trinity coherent and makes a general understanding of God clear and, of course, simple. You can read it in Aquinas' Summa Theologica and it is only a couple of pages in length.

Ward makes appropriate use of this argument on pages 48-50. Though he does not mention it by name, the principle is clear. He then builds on it when he employs Occam's Razor in this context with the goal of critiquing the unnecessary complexity of Dawkins' materialism.

I would recommend this book for the Christian apologist. If you are not strong in apologetics, first read Five Views on Apologetics and then Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (third edition). This book provides a useful tool for establishing the necessary existence of God. I will leave it to you to garner more evidence from the last chapters and make full use of it in your work and ministry.

With charming wit and a devastatingly sharp intellect, the Christian philosopher Keith Ward systematically eviscerates Richard Dawkins' anti-religious arguments from "The God Delusion." By the end, he reveals most of them to be either logically short-sighted or intellectually dishonest.
Like Ward, I believe that the debate between theism & atheism is far from over, and that there are compelling arguments to be made on both sides. In this short, readable book, Ward doesn't really try to finish off the dispute with any unassailable conclusion (despite the book's title, which is a direct rebuttal of one of Dawkins' chapter headings). Rather, he does an excellent job of raising the discourse out of the dumbed down muddle it's fallen into lately, where the ill-informed & the close-minded on both sides hog the spotlight & posture arrogantly at each other.
Recommended for those who prefer a well-reasoned debate based on facts & logic to impassioned polemics & simplistic conclusions.

This book took me several days to read despite the fact it is relatively short at 150 pages. The reason is the content. Here at last is a book that avoids simplistic platitudes and tired old arguments traded by one side or another in religious debates. Instead the author builds a philosophical argument that systematically deconstructs the unchallenged assumptions of Dawkin's materialism, and replaces them with a philosophical framework that is at its core rational and consistent - and that makes God necessary.

Keith Ward is much more honest than certain other writers in this book. His case is convincing, but he draws attention to its limitations - primarily that we must assume the universe is both rational and intelligible. Thus ultimately all he can tell us is "why there almost certainly is a God". But he does exactly that.

The book is heavy going, and will probably only be appreciated fully by readers who know at least some philosophy, some logic and some physics. Ward does his best to put the argument in terms that don't require such a grounding, but the argument relies heavily on the understanding of terms such as necessity, contingency and other such concepts that are the bread and butter of philosophers, but not often discussed over a game of darts in the pub.

But it is quite clear that Keith Ward does something quite remarkable - he pulls the rug from under the assumptions of materialism, and if nothing else, it shows that the arguments of Dawkins et al. cause rather more problems than they resolve. The clear message of this book -whether you accept the hypothesis of God's existence or not - is that belief in God is profoundly a rational belief.

Thoroughly recommended - a book to make you think long and hard whether you agree with it or not.

As far as destroying Richard Dawkins terrible philosophical arguments, Keith Ward completely wins out.

Richard Dawkins puts out awful objections towards the existence of God, and people like Keith Ward shows us why.

The Contingency rebuttal was by the far the greatest, as Ward takes Dawkins "pop philosophy" and throws it right back in this face.

Great book, that needs more reviews!!!

Keith Ward, Anglican priest, theologian, philosopher, and author of more than 20 books, has provided a gentle, uplifting, and rational response to the new atheists (including Richard Dawkins). Ward offers a moderate argument for theism from design and his explanations of complex ideas are simple to understand. He outlines many of the classical arguments and he opines that belief is not irrational, but may be more probable than unbelief. His exposition proceeds from a non-conservative view of scripture as he presses the weakness of atheism inasmuch as it has trouble with its rational pre-commitments and definitions.

Ward doesn't deliver a stout and powerful apologetic but attempts to engage nonbelievers with sincerity, kindness, and reason. His arguments are constructed from foundations built upon modern notions of theology and science. He effectively refutes Dawkins since Dawkins falls into countless logical fallacies; he accomplishes this with care, charm, and cogency.

Additionally he adds his personal religious feelings as an important aspect of his reason for affirming theism. I really like his attractive writing style, but I prefer an apologetic that furnishes a certain argument for theism that exploits the a priori environment necessary for intelligibility (immaterial immutable universals, etc.).
also see:
Truth, Knowledge and the Reason for God: The Defense of the Rational Assurance of Christianity
or
[["Letter to an Atheist Nation: Presupositional Apologetics Responds To: Letter to a Christian"]]type in ASIN#:1432706322

This book will not be very helpful to agnostics searching for an answer to whether God exists or not. Ward does point out problems with Dawkins' work, but that is not hard -- let's face it, when Dawkins delves into philosophy, he is not especially good. But Ward sets up the picture like this: if Dawkins if wrong, then the only alternative is monotheism. He gives no attention to the option of agnosticism: that we simply do not have enough information to conclude one way or the other that God exists.

His starting point is idealism (that consciousness creates matter, not vice versa) and he shows how an abstract monotheistic God would follow if a transcendent, disembodied consciousness exists. He says things like "any compotent philosopher" would reject materialism (p. 16). His basic standard is that if something is not logically contradictory, then it is rational to believe in it. For example, the burden is on those who deny a disembodied consciousness could exist to show it cannot exist since there is no logical contradiction in the idea -- even though the only consciousness we know (animals' and humans') obviously must be embodied.

None of the book will be convincing unless you already believe there is a God, and the book certainly does not show that a God almost certainly exists.

I thought long and hard about how to write a review of Keith Ward's book, 'Why there almost certainly is a God?' precisely because reviews of theistic books are normally perceived as being merely partisan - 4-5 stars from theists and 1-2 stars from non-theists - and it's not my desire to write a merely partisan review, so I want to detail, clearly, those things that I believe to be the most egregious failings. So, beyond the fact that I don't find Ward's book even slightly persuasive, what is one to make of it?

The title is borrowed from one of the chapters in Dawkins' book, `The God Delusion' with, in Ward's words "... one little difference: I have changed the word 'no' to the word 'a', because I think that change reflects the situation more accurately."

So, this is partly a 'response' to Dawkins' book but, more importantly, it is also an attempt to justify the claim that 'there almost certainly is a God'. Does it succeed? Well, firstly, I don't doubt that Dawkins' book is flawed, in some respects, and that a competent philosopher ought to be able to illustrate 'why' Dawkins' book will not be the last word on the subject of 'God' but, then again, it wouldn't take a professional academician to accomplish that. With reference to the rather more ambitious project of demonstrating that 'there almost certainly is a God' does Ward succeed? No - of course not.

On that score, Ward's book offers approximately the same combination of questions gone begging (i.e. circular arguments) and arguments from ignorance that one has come to expect from any book attempting to defend theism. The reason for the two stars, then, is because this is not absolutely terrible and certainly not comparable to the dross that creationists routinely produce but, yet, there are more weak (indeed, very weak) links in Ward's reasoning than one should expect from a philosopher of Ward's credentials. As a skeptic, is it unreasonable of me to ask that Ward put together at least a moderately 'persuasive' argument, rather than merely asking me to suspend my critical faculties altogether?

Although Ward is obviously a theist (a Christian theist), most of his arguments are, in fact, Deistic in nature. Even if these arguments were persuasive (and they aren't in the least), he would, to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, still have all of his work in front of him. Rather than critique each and every one of Ward's assertions and ineffectual arguments, however, I'll try and focus on the fundamental reasons why, I believe, this book, and others like it, are simply doomed to fail.

There are a couple of jokes that I used to like, as a child that go something like this:

Q: How does an elephant hide in a cherry tree?
A: It paints its toes red. [Cue laughter].

Q: How does an elephant get down from a cherry tree?
A: It sits on a leaf and waits `til autumn (or fall). [Cue hysterical laughter].

My point is that these jokes have no chance of being funny to somebody who does not understand that the idea of an elephant sitting in a cherry tree is nonsensical, in the first place. If anybody has actually got so far as to persuade themselves that elephants *are* capable of hiding in cherry trees, it's unlikely that they're going to be easily dissuaded from this viewpoint and so, I suggest, it is with theism.

Ward's book is predicated on the fundamental presupposition that "there is a consciousness that does not come into being at the end of a long physical process. In fact it does not come into being at all. It did not spontaneously appear out of nothing. It has always existed, and it always will. There is something that has thoughts, feelings and perceptions, but no physical body or brain. Such thoughts and perceptions will be very different from human thoughts." This is, to Ward's mind, 'The God Hypothesis' and, yet, he cannot offer any reason whatsoever for supposing it to be so. Many objections against it can be raised, but two points come to my mind immediately:

1. Ward goes to some length to illustrate just how poorly understood is the idea of 'consciousness'; in fact, 'consciousness' does not even have an agreed definition, never mind a sufficient explanation.

2. Having asserted, then, that we know close to nothing about what 'consciousness' is or from whence it arises, he then goes on to assert that whatever 'it' is, this self-same mysterious phenomenon (called 'consciousness') does, in fact, exist (contra-Dennett, for example) and that it is the basis of the 'God Hypothesis' - except with the important proviso that "[s]uch thoughts and perceptions will be very different from human thoughts."

So, 'God-consciousness' is the same as human 'consciousness', but different, right?? So, in what sense, can it still be referred to as 'consciousness'? Remember, 'consciousness' is a word for which we have no adequate definition, in the first place, so it can - essentially - be used to mean *whatever* Ward wants it to mean.

Ward's book is plagued by this kind of nonsense but, to be fair, he's somewhat handicapped by his theistic belief set; Elephants in cherry trees, anyone? So, to summarize Ward's position:

1. We know precious little about what 'consciousness' actually is or from whence it arises.
2. What we do know, which relates entirely to human beings, could lead one to the (incorrect, according to Ward) conclusion that 'mind' and 'brain' are, in fact, inseparable.

So, then - if a) we don't know what 'consciousness' is, and b) 'God-consciousness' is not much like 'Human-consciousness', in any case - is Ward *really* in a position to even speculate about the reasonableness of a) substance dualism and b) the likelihood that 'God' is some form of 'consciousness'?

Methinks Ward may be extrapolating just a teensy weensy bit beyond what his data set can reasonably bear. Ward seems to think that, if he can sell 'substance dualism' the rest of his theistic enterprise will follow straightforwardly but, I suggest, that a) he can't sell it (to anyone who hasn't already bought it) and b) the rest doesn't follow, in any case. Substance dualism really is a pretty tough sell to just about anyone who isn't already a committed theist, for the fundamental reason that there simply isn't any good reason to suppose that it's true.

He writes: "Could there be an unembodied mind, a pure Spirit, that has knowledge and awareness? I can see no reason why not."

Let's pause here, for a moment, to ask 'just what *exactly* does Ward mean when he asserts that he "can see no reason why not."?' Does he mean, for example, that he cannot see any 'logical' reason 'why not'? Ward's entire case hinges on the plausibility of this claim; in fact, Ward's entire case cannot even get off the ground, because he cannot offer *any* good reason to suppose it to be so. He cannot - surely - be suggesting that there is no 'physical' reason why not - how could he possibly know that? So, it must be the former. Ward, therefore, actually seems to be arguing that because *he* cannot see any 'logical' reason why it couldn't exist that therefore *it might actually exist*. This is truly a fantastic assertion and fantastically vacuous.

As remarkable as this line of 'reasoning' is, he goes on to assert that "The God hypothesis has at least as much plausibility as the materialist hypothesis. Both are hard to imagine, but neither seems to be incoherent or self-contradictory. Either might be true."

Really? This is simply laughable! We *know* that 'material' (comprising matter and/or energy) entities exist, even if we do not understand, in totality, exactly what this entails. We do *not* know, however, that anything 'immaterial' exists at all, not least because we don't even have a meaningful ontology for the non-concept (as things stand) of the 'immaterial', i.e. the word 'immaterial' is presently meaningless, except to distinguish something from that which is 'material' - but if we don't understand the limits of the 'material' world, to begin talking about 'things' that are 'immaterial' is question-begging *in the extreme*. Ward's entire theistic premise is, indeed, question-begging, which (in essence) he later admits, as we shall see.

What Ward is asking one to believe (just for starters) is that it is *logically possible* for me to continue to exist without my body or any part of it such as my brain. But - and this is an important point - 'possibility' is what is not inherently contradictory: if A does not entail logical contradiction, A is 'possible'. But how does one get from 'logical possibility' to actual 'being'? As such, 'logical possibility' is all but empty possibility; almost anything is 'possible' this latter way, depending only on the limits of conceivability, e.g. flying pigs, people with 5 arms and the idea that the planets, and their positions, have a crucial bearing on who we are and what we do, but 'logical possibility' alone does *nothing* to establish 'ontological possibility' - that would require reference to the physical world *as it really is* and would necessitate reference to what is actually known and understood - e.g. in chemistry and physics. When we then start to look at the reasons why 'unembodied consciousness', in fact, makes logically no sense at all - for example, if it were reasonable, by the same token, it would be similarly reasonable to speak about a 'whole body amputation' - what is one to think?

There are, I suggest, only two options, ultimately: One is to conclude that the knowledge (and logic itself) that we (presently) have is of no consequence, and has, in the final analysis, no bearing on the matter, because one already 'believes' it (a priori) to be true, or one must surely conclude that Ward's theistic enterprise is intrinsically irrational and based on little more than wishful thinking.

The 'idea' (such as it is) of 'unembodied consciousness' is, I suggest, one of those things that theists really have no choice but to just 'chalk it up to faith'. Such speculative reasoning *may* seem profoundly reasonable to someone who believes that elephants can be found hiding in cherry trees, so long as they haven't painted their toes but, really?? Who could Ward possibly imagine might be persuaded by such argumentation?

Things really don't get any better from here on in.

Ward draws on the arguments of Richard Swinburne; for example, his assertion that there is a class of 'explanation' that can be referred to as 'personal explanation', but he completely fails - indeed he doesn't even try, so far as I can see - to separate the idea of a 'personal explanation', which may be perfectly adequate for most everyday purposes - i.e. with reference to the intentional actions of *known* entities (human beings)- from a bad case of subjectivity and wishful thinking, when applied to things that are (currently, at least) beyond our scope. It's like trying to utilise 'commonsense' to reach conclusions about deep cosmology - i.e. profoundly daft.

At a deep level, Ward's 'argument' (and the theistic 'argument', at large) poses a fundamental epistemological question - 'if it were true, (how) could we know it to be so?' Since Ward strongly objects to Dawkins' suggestion that 'the God Hypothesis' is a scientific hypothesis - Ward even asserts that, "Of course, he [Dawkins] really knows this is not true." - it's very hard to see how he could possibly begin to construct a rational (i.e. non-circular) answer to this question.

To illustrate, as one reviewer (a one star reviewer, of course) of Dawkins' book wrote: "If you truly understood science you would know that science neither supports nor denies the existence of God. Science is properly relegated to the understanding of material things, laws etc. Science lacks the tools to inquire into the non-material being of God or to understand His possible interaction in this world."

So fantastically question-begging is this assertion, it pre-supposes (in addition to the non-concept of 'immateriality') that, although 'science' (the only reliable means humans have so far discovered of uncovering reality) "lacks the tools to inquire into the non-material being of God..." the reviewer himself, however, somehow and from somewhere *does* have "the tools to inquire into the non-material being of God..."

Amusingly, in the final chapter, Ward supposes that "for Dawkins, all this must seem like a wish-fulfilling fantasy." Personally, I can't possibly imagine why Dawkins might think such a thing!! He goes on to say - having spent almost an entire book arguing for 'Why There Almost Certainly Is a God' - that "The question of God is not purely an intellectual puzzle. It is bound up with the basic ways in which we see our lives, the cultural histories and traditions from which we spring and against which we often react, and the most fundamental values, feelings and commitments we have. It is not just a question of evidence, in the sense of clear public data that put matters beyond any reasonable doubt. It is a question of basic forms of perspective and action."

So, there we have it, in a nutshell! Having failed to demonstrate to you, dear skeptical reader, that there is any compelling reason whatsoever to cross the line from non-belief to believing what I (Ward) happen to believe, I'm going to lay it on the line for you - at the end of the day, it's not really all about evidence and reason, but about "basic forms of perspective and action." Blinding!

Best Philosophical tour de force against materialism and atheism. It's unfortunate professor Ward is retired I would really have liked to see more debates between him and Dawkins. I highly recommend this book if you think belief in God is incompatible with science.

Sometimes I feel the atheists are not subject to the doubts which bother most of us believers in God. Is it really so? Although we agree that "there almost certainly is a God", we understand that all the answers of the great Christian philosophers still lack the final persuasive point. But for us materialism is similarly based on faith. Only this faith seems to lack the great things we find in the basic idea of Christianity: love, mercy and gratitude. Keith Ward's book is as good as it can be, but as I said, God is not a matter of scientific proof.