The God Delusion - Part 1
I read The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. Here’s the first part of my review.
Cutting through it all, Dawkins has three arguments that he says prove that God doesn’t exist.
First, all the really smart people are atheists. Um, okay.
Second, Aquinas’ arguments proving God’s existence don’t work. I could be wrong, but I think Aquinas was not intending to definitively prove God’s existence — I think he would have said that actual proof would negate faith — but instead was offering arguments to help people reason their way to faith if they were already so inclined. But even if I’m wrong about Aquinas, it doesn’t matter. As someone said about ancient civilizations, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, the failure to logically prove God’s existence may welll prove that there are no logical arguments proving God’s existence, but that may only prove something about the reach of human logic, not God.
Third, and finally — really, this is all he has to say — Dawkins “proves” that God does not exist by pointing to evolution (which, by the way, I believe is the most accurate explanation to date of the evidence about life on Earth) and declaring that because, in evolution, creativity and intelligence come late in the game, therefore God could only have come about through some sort of evolution, and so “Who made God?”
Honestly. The best that this very, very smart man can come up with is a four-year-old’s question that nobody takes seriously. The flaw seems so obvious to me I can’t believe Dawkins doesn’t see it himself. Namely, it’s this: what if the “spiritual world” doesn’t follow the same rules as the physical world?
Well, the answer to that is, apparently, there is no spiritual world because there is no physical evidence of one. I dunno. That response seems so silly I can scarecly believe he falls back on it. But he does.
More to come.
