Professor Richard Dawkins - Photo Credit: Alex Folkes/Fishnik Photography, originally uploaded by Liberal Democrats
Author: Michael Austin
My big concern is to look at the foundations of our thinking, because all too often we accept it without thinking! And one of the very interesting things this lets us do is to explore some of the assumptions made about reason itself. This in turn highlights some of the deep dilemmas in Richard Dawkins’ thinking.
I suggest it is fair to say that in The God Delusion Richard Dawkins presents his atheism as a vehement protest against theism. If ‘atheism’ refers to the belief system that denies the existence of the living God of biblical revelation, any reading of his book quickly shows that Dawkins’ atheism is focused. And it is focused on what he most dislikes – biblical Christianity.
Something deep is going on here – Dawkins’ atheism is on the horns of a giant dilemma that he may not readily acknowledge. That when he works to deny theism he assumes the legitimacy of his reason, either without knowing or admitting that it flows directly from the foundational beliefs of biblical theism. A closer look shows that Richard Dawkins’ arguments for atheism – ‘borrow’ is not too strong – their apparent legitimacy from the position it attacks. Dawkins’ atheism defines itself in terms of the theism that it denies.
Atheism is no ordinary sort of belief! It is unable to advance its own independent vision of reality; and instead must always frame its position in terms of the one it denies. Atheism cannot stand-alone, and while it claims to be a final reference point, always sustains itself from its central denial. Atheism must always be the arch-opponent of theism!
You don’t need to be an astute observer of human nature to see that Dawkins’ vitriolic antagonism towards theism is inclined to be obsessive. Perhaps he knows that as an atheist he has no final basis for the validity of his own reason, and ultimately he cannot escape being self-contradictory. Dawkins needs an understandable reality, borrowed from theism in order to deny theism.
When an atheist like Dawkins says that his capacity for reasoned thinking is grounded in chemistry, he jumps way beyond the remit of chemistry in trying to deny theism. Can the microbiology of his brain cells offer evidence to support atheism? Does non-material information just conveniently drop out of whirling molecules? My answer is, ‘No, they don’t’.
There is another very simple explanation for this conundrum. Dawkins is a man in God’s world, who breathes theistic air and who uses the validity of reason that is inherent in his humanity.
But Dawkins knows that if he is going to deny theism, he must reverse all he knows about God and turn it into denials. So, it’s not surprising to see why he gets so passionate about trying to demolish theism. And he must work hard, trying to block out all of the light that shines in God’s wonderful world, including the light in his own mind and conscience.
Atheism is a leaky vessel, and Dawkins has his work cut out in trying man all the pumps and stop up all the fast-leaking holes. But in spite of which, Dawkins still loves life because so much of it is full of the goodness and wisdom of God. Atheists see it everywhere – in their wonder at the marvels of creation, in their joy of friendship and family, and in their strong, one might nearly say, ‘absolute’ preference of honesty, loyalty, to be valued, and understood by others. Atheists breathe God’s air, take the gifts for granted, and somehow learn to survive with the tensions and dark dilemmas.
Deep down, does Dawkins show us a compelling case that atheism is utterly reasonable? Think it through with him and soon most sensible people will cut free from their pernicious nonsense and begin to enjoy the exhilarating air of atheism’s pure reasonableness. Mind you, that’s not his style, and I doubt whether Dawkins is out to convert people to atheism on the basis of its utter reasonableness.
Indeed, from the way Dawkins writes, there is something still deeper going on. He goes for the jugular, and calls the people he hopes to reason with, ‘faith-heads’ and ‘wingnuts’ suffering from ‘a pernicious delusion.’ Is this his last resort at shock treatment before the eminent doctor admits that neo-Darwinian atheism isn’t the wonderful panacea for all the world’s ills that his dreams have cherished?
Dawkins gives away his serious dilemma about the ultimate Identity when he dismisses God as a ‘figment’ and then heaps his invective against Christian theism. Do people usually get so superheated about ‘figments of the imagination’ that don’t fit their worldview?
Besides, does Dawkins offer a plausible reason for such an awesome reality being here in the first place? In the final analysis, Dawkins shows a marked hostility towards the utter realism of the historic Christian position. Do his arguments rationally demolish biblical theism, and sustain atheism, as something you could anchor your thinking upon to make sense of reality? No, they merely tell us he prefers to deny theism, and call it science. Well, which is it to be – science or philosophy? Dawkins is never quite sure.
About the Author:
Michael Austin is a Christian writer, apologist & Gospel worker – he currently holds a Masters Degree in theology & has recently completed a PhD.
Michael Austin is the author of a number of published works in the battle for reason & sound thinking in the wake of postmodernism. His life experience has also covered a variety of other fields – with a background as a Research & development engineer he has a strong regard for science but believes it always demonstrates the greatness of God in creation.
He is also an inventor & mentioned on a number of patents making a contribution to medical science – his work includes improvements & developments in stents – small devices inserted as permanent implants by less invasive surgical techniques – mainly related to a US multi-national Company.
Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – Dawkins’ Dilemmas Deluded or not deluded? — That is the question!
