Thoughts on Dawkins' "The God Delusion" 2

In the last post, we ended up having a discussion about first causes, while Richard Dawkins was off on a tangent. (This is in chapter three of his book, where he rebuts the “Arguments for God’s Existence.” I'm looking at Dawkins' responses to the arguments, and then giving a few thoughts.)

Following his little diversion Dawkins goes back to the argument about what kickstarted the universe and says it's irrational to call the first cause "God" because invoking the “God” explanation is "at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading."

Let's see that again, in simpler terms: "It is irrational to call the first cause 'God' because calling it God is irrational." Does that about sum it up? This takes me back to Year 12 Logic and Philosophy class. There is more discussion about this in the next chapter, where he explains why it’s irrational. But we’ll get to that later.

Moving on, he points out that Thomas Aquinas’ next argument for God (The Argument from Degree) is illogical, and I agree.

The Argument from Design is next to face up. Simply stated, "things look like they've been designed, so they probably are." This is an argument that’s used fairly frequently by Christians. Nevertheless, how do you think this next sentence might sound to the thousands of people who aren't up-to-date with the whole discussion? "The argument from design is the only one still in regular use today..."

Clever. He's effectively told the uninitiated that this is the only argument religious people have, and, lucky for him, it's also the one where Dawkins' is in his own element, one that he is going to systematically destroy throughout the rest of his book. He's set the field (in his own field), and now he'll go to town (sorry for the mixed metaphors).

But I don't think that really is the right field for this whole discussion. Many of us Christians have already left that field and gone to town (again, sorry).

I think his response (natural selection over millions of years) is absolutely valid. I have no problems with natural selection. It makes sense, I don't think it contradicts God, and the archaeological record supports it. If I was having this conversation with Dawkins, that would be the end of that discussion. And I'm a passionate "religious" person.

And there are many many more Christians like me - notably among academics and intellectuals, scientists, doctors, archaeologists, etc. We're not debating that one.

But he is partly right, in that there are many Christians who think the Design Argument is a good one. I'd like to have a word with them.

And that’s the last of Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for God’s existence. We’ll carry on in the next post with the Argument from Beauty, after skipping quickly past the Ontological Argument, which I think is a little ridiculous myself.

Let me know your thoughts!