THINK ABOUT THIS: Why Atheists’ Books Are Evidence God Must Exist
There has been a raft of best-selling books in recent years by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Hawking and others arguing that science makes belief in God unnecessary.
These “New Atheists” argue that unguided chemical evolution is all that is required to explain the origin of life and unguided biological evolution to explain the development of life. Anything suggesting a prior guiding intelligence overseeing these processes is unnecessary and irrational.
Perhaps the most well-known of these authors and books is Richard Dawkins, the Oxford University evolutionary biologist and exceptionally prolific author and public figure, especially with his “The God Delusion.” As Amazon explains, Dawkins’ book is a effectively a primer for contemporary atheism, guided exclusively by scientific materialism:
“A preeminent scientist — and the world’s most prominent atheist — asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.
“With rigor and wit, Dawkins examines God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being.
“He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry, and abuses children, buttressing his points with historical and contemporary evidence. The God Delusion makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly.”
Essentially, Dawkins’ argument, according to Dr. Stephen C. Meyers in his book, “Return of the God Hypothesis,” is that “since Darwin, scientists have known that there is no evidence of actual design, only the illusion or appearance of design … the evolutionary mechanism of mutation and natural selection has the power to mimic a designing intelligence without itself being designed or guided in any way.”
For his part, Meyer, who is the director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture and who earned his PhD in the philosophy of science from Cambridge University, argues three main points in making the case for Intelligent Design (ID) of the universe:
“(1) Evidence from cosmology suggesting that the material universe had a beginning; (2) evidence from physics showing that from the beginning the universe has been ‘finely tuned’ to allow for the possibility of life, and (3) evidence from biology establishing that since the beginning large amounts of new functional genetic information have arisen in our biosphere to make new forms of life possible,” all of which, he contends, implies “the activity of a designing intelligence.”
Both of these books are highly recommended and indeed can be read together in order to obtain insight into the basic arguments and evidence involved in the contemporary debate sparked by the New Athests and the parallel counter-revolution by ID advocates led by Meyer.
That said, I want to offer an observation that I think frames the debate by reference to characteristics shared by both books:
- They each have titles, subtitles, tables of content and the orderly presentation of evidence and argument on the printed page.
- They each do so using a written language that is itself highly organized and of a complex nature.
- They each present abstract arguments that require a non-material entity to process and thereby comprehend.
- They each required forethought, planning and time for execution.
- Most important, they each require … an author, or if you will permit me, an intelligent designer.
Put another way, books don’t just happen, they require authors, coherence and communication. If the author is absent, the book doesn’t come into existence. Yes, this is at one level a variation on the Paley Watchmaker argument that design requires a designer.
But I would contend the argument by analogy — just as a book requires an author, so the universe requires a designer — is an expression, not merely of common sense, but of a recognition of a fundamental characteristic of reality (and yes, I am thinking of Thomas Reid, who being a Scots Presbyterian by training, displayed a lot of common sense in his philosophy of that label).
Think about it. And here’s something else to think about — Dawkins and Meyer, like their books, didn’t just pop into existence. What do you think? Share your thoughts in agreement, disagreement or whatever in the comments below. Please, play nice. And have a great weekend.
WANT TO HELP HILLFAITH?
Sorry, but an argument by analogy is a weak argument, and certainly not proof.
That an argument is weak* does not disprove the truth of the proposition under discussion.
*I’m not conceding that point in this case.
The light came into the world but humans like the darkness because we think that in the dark God cannot see us exercising what we think of as sovereignty over our own being: doing what we want.
I think there will never be a knock-down argument for God for at least two reasons.
One is that we come to knowledge of God by grace and through faith. Can faith exist in the absence of doubt? I think not. God is the great proponent of freedom and liberty. He shows us the High Country but he will not kidnap us, throw us in the trunk of his car and drive us there against our will.
Two is that we love the darkness. An example of that is the discovery in the late 20th century that the universe was created, maybe from nothing. The notion of the steady state universe was a staple of atheism. You don’t need a creator if the universe is eternal. The discovery of the red shift in the light coming from distant stars changed that, lent credence to the first verse of the Bible but has been met with an elaboration of faith-based ideas (the multiverse eg) that preserve atheistic doctrine. Because in the dark we can do what we want.
To add to your analysis:
1. If Dawkins is correct, there is no reason* to read his book. Dawkins argues that everything is the unguided result of time and randomness. Since his book is a “thing”, it too must be the result of time and randomness. Even as things in Nature give the”illusion of design”, so too does Dawkins’ book. Therefore, his book is meaningless and there is no reason to read it.
2. If Dawkins is wrong, there is no reason to read his book. Why waste one’s time?
In contrast, if Meyer is correct, there is compelling reason to read his book. If there is a Designer – let us not be coy, the Designer is the Creator – there is meaning in the Creation. We would do well to explore and understand the Creation, so as to understand the Creator, in order to know better what is expected of us. By studying the Creator’s designs, we can improve on our own efforts at design, and we can be better stewards of Creation.
Therfore, one need only read Meyer, saving both time and money, which can be used more profitably pursuing whatever mission the Creator has placed before one.
*Other than the dopamine hit one might get from reading it.
Great to hear from you, Chuck, hope you are well.
Is this a variation of Pascal’s wager? Been a long time since my Philosophy 101 course, but it kind of sounds like it,
I always thought that the fact that we had rules of mathematics called for a rule-maker. As well as the rules of biology.
Mendelian biology, that is. And physics.
“They each required forethought, planning and time for execution.”
But a Creator Who is outside time does not have forethoughts (or afterthoughts), and does not plan, design, or execute. These are our petty concerns and way of thinking.
Framing so-called intelligent design as the alternative to atheism presents a false choice — and dare I suggest is a dangerous stance to take if the aim is to win souls. In all sincerity, I fail to see how intelligent design adds anything to the Gospel.
I don’t have a problem believing in a creator, but what is the creator like? Is God really good and does God care about us? My faith tradition is Christianity but I see a strong case for deism too.
If Deism is true, how does it explain the empty tomb of Jesus?