Conclusions From My Analysis of The God Delusion

As you can see, attempts to draw out an author's various opinions, assertions, and factual claims can result in a piece that's still quite long and drawn out. I can't reasonably expect a reader to wade through a blog over 100 points & counterpoints deep. So, I've decided that my treatment of each book shouldn't be finished until I share with the reader the most significant points and findings of both sides of the argument. And, as evidence of my willingness to change, I'll tell the reader how my ideas or beliefs have been altered by the book.

These projects are not simply for my amusement and momentary intellectual stimulation. Becoming more open-minded, as well as more knowledgeable, is an ideal I hope these projects advance. I find the intellectual disposition "being set in one's way" very unattractive. A healthy mind is a considering mind-a mind which does not shut out any possibilities, especially when those possibilities can have such bearing on the quality of one's life.

Without further ado, I'll begin by stating the weaknesses I found in Dawkins's claims and position.

Dawkins calls himself an atheist and provides quotes which criticize agnostics, yet on a scale of 1-7, in which 1 is a certain belief in god and 7 is a certain knowledge of no god, he ranks himself a 6, saying "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." He is 99.9% certain that there is no God.

While I understand and like his points involving fairies, spaghetti monsters, and tea cups orbiting the sun (all disprovable but highly unlikely to exist), I think Dawkins is being just a little unfair and a little close minded when it comes to the existence not of a Christian God with a white flowing beard, but of a designer, a god, in more general terms.

Mainly, Dawkins does not admit that intelligence and design are natural phenomena which exist already, as manifest by humanity itself. The fact that intelligent beings can design things, and alter nature, and begin screwing around with natural laws after only a few thousand years of utilizing their minds for such purposes does not seem to inform Dawkins considerations regarding the likelihood that a creator/designer exists. Dawkins is open minded, providing hypothesis explaining the evolution of the universe; but nowhere does he provide for something we know already exists-intelligence, intent, and design. Given several million or billion years to evolve and advance in the direction humans have already advanced, wouldn't our intelligent designs hold more sway over our environment (if not universe) than natural selection? Thus, at some point, evolution hands over the reigns to intelligent design--or atleast this is a hypothesis I am presenting and opening for critique. This hypothesis, coupled with the immensity of what I call the Superunknown (our universe minus what we know), should be reason enough to position oneself a little lower on the scale, 5.5 perhaps, or 95% certain there is no God.

Also, while I'm sure Dawkins has heard it before, his dismissal of all of religion and religious claims with the wave of a hand seems rather unfair, even though I am prone to similar disregard for religion. Its great history, which is so much a part of human history, as well as its role in countless lives over the millenia, is reason enough to give religion more than a passing treatment on our search for truth.

As before (since I've yet to research this topic thoroughly), there stands "Near Death Phenomena", which certainly involves some interesting correlations and experiences that at first glance seem difficult to explain. Dawkins did not delve into this.

I criticize Dawkins's main argument in which he indicates that God is highly statistically improbable. I simply cannot understand how one is supposed to begin computing the probability that God exists, since we have no sign of him, and we understand nothing of his true nature. However, I didn't do extremely well in Statistics class, so maybe I'm lacking some understanding of the subject; after all, I just threw out some numbers a second ago...

Dawkins says that the God Hypothesis and Darwinianism are mutually exclusive. I've proposed a hypothesis that contradicts this claim. However, the more one takes the Bible literally, the more true Dawkins statement becomes. Many people believe in both God and evolution.

Finally, I listened to an interview with Richard Dawkins on You Tube in which Dawkins stated that truth is more important than happiness. I can agree with Dawkins to an extent, but by and large, happiness is the ultimate goal; and for this reason, religion could be justified if it could be demonstrated to me that believing in God and living a relgious life is a far happier one than other lifestyles. I've never believed it is, but I'm willing to listen to the evidence...

Now for the strengths of Dawkins's argument:

While he does not disprove God (as though that is possible), he provides so many very good examples of why belief in a God is unreasonable.

He is quite right that most people who argue against evolution do not understand it. Random chance is not the driving force behind evolution. The universe-everything changing at once around a species in its environment-is the driving force. The constant mutation of genes is a law that provides the change necessary for adaptation and survival of the fittest. (hmm..maybe this mutation of genes is the random part, but the natural selection is not).

Dawkins is right to say that religion inhibits/hinders progress towards truth.

Dawkins is right when he says much of the Bible is "just plain weird" and horrible.

I agree that children should be taught how to think, no so much what to think...and that "indoctrination" and slapping labels on them should be kept to a minimum.

After my analysis of The God Delusion, I'm left with an interesting notion about the birth of intelligent design after a long gestation period in natural selection. Thus, my thoughts about God are invariably future-seeking. If a God had a hand in the formation of life on earth, I do not know how I am supposed to know of her. I cannot even begin to presume that if a God existed, that she was a personal God.

Analyzing cases for both sides has allowed me to see even clearer how humans think and hold convictions based on opinion, accusation, stereotype, skewed logic, etc, etc. Our thinking is so faulty, our knowledge so limited, and the real evidence for or against God is so minimal, that I cannot help but hold a moderately nihilistic, agnostic view of reality. That is not to say I don't think real truth and real logic exists outside my personal experiences-this is why I enjoy doing what I'm doing, finding the needle of truth in the haystack of meaningless words.