Testing the “GOD Delusion” for Delusions Part One
Dawkins, the author of a very popular book called the GOD Delusion has made some very serious statements that require a response. It must be tested for its facts and must be checked for flaws, assumptions and prejudice.
Before a summary of the review is written, it must be stated that Michael Ruse (an atheist) accuses Dawkins of being arrogant and ignorant. He states that his book makes him to be ashamed of being an atheist. You can confirm this here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse
Dawkins favourite quote “Science can explain everything” and then goes on to say that even if we do not have the answers now, we will find it. He then goes on to say that science proves that GOD is not required and not needed.
This article will focus on this point only. Part Two will pick up on other points.
McGrath states that saying science has it’s limitations is not intended to be defamatory unlike the Dawkin’s portrayal that anyone who suggest that anyone who challenges the statement that science can explain everything is a science hater.
Now we know, thanks to atheists, that everything must be falsifiable. Let’s use this standard to test Dawkin’s stand point. In his book the selfish gene dawkins states the following and I quote:
[Genes] swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering
robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating
with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by
remote control. They are in you and me; they created us,
body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale
for our existence.
McGrath acknowledges this as a powerful and influential scientific concept but he questions the science therein. He compares this statement with Denis Noble’s statement. Denis Noble is an Oxford Physiologist and a systems biologist. Now read Noble’s statement carefully with Dawkin’s statement.
[Genes] are trapped in huge colonies, locked inside highly
Intelligent beings, moulded by the outside world, communicating
with it by complex processes, through which, blindly
as if by magic, function emerges. They are in you and me; we
are the system that allows their code to be read; and their
preservation is totally dependent on the joy that we experience
in reproducing ourselves. We are the ultimate rationale
for their existence.
It is uncanny how similar these two statements look. However, when we read deeper, they tend to mean two different things. We see that the empirical facts are retained but the interpretative components of the statements differ. Now one must be right and the other wrong.
At this point let’s introduce two people. Professor Max Bennet and Dr. Peter Hacker. What do they say about this?
They say that scientific theory cannot be seen to explain everything; it can only explain the phenomena observed in the world. Here are some disciplines that science cannot explain:
1. The purpose of the world
2. Law
3. Economics
4. Sociology
These disciplines are not in any way inferior or dependant on natural science. When a question like is there any purpose within science, Dawkin’s responds by saying that this is a non-question. How can this be a nonquestion? Is there such a thing as a nonquestion in science? Were we not supposed to question everything? How did Dawkins himself become a scientist? It’s about questioning and challenging.
Bennet and Hacker states that asking the question about the purpose within nature is outside the scope of science because natural science cannot comment on this. Dismissing this question as nonsensical because natural science cannot answer it is in itself saying that natural science is limited.
Therefore we are forced to look outside for the answer. Dawkins say that religious people are lazy because they are content with GOD did it and will therefore not look for the answers. Now ask yourself the question, is Dawkins not lazy by saying that asking the question that natural science cannot explain is a nonquestion. Will he just not go out of his comfort zone and look at other possible places to get the answer?
While we are at it, let’s challenge ourselves to see if science can explain the following questions:
1. How did everything begin?
2. What are we all here for?
3. What is the point of living?
Will we just brush this off as non questions or will we be challenged by looking for answers? We cannot be lazy about these questions now.
Note: For the purposes of being rational (I am guessing that most atheists are based on their claims), let’s comment purely on the contents of this article. Challenge the credibility of the article and disagree with the contents but let’s stay within the contents of this article.
I must acknowledge the following people.
1. Dawkins – for without him, this article will not be possible.
2. Allister McGrath – The Oxford student – atheist turned Christian who responded to the GOD Delusion.
3. Michael Ruse – another atheist.
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
