Disappointed with Dawkins

As I read Richard Dawkin’s book The God Delusion, I can only say so far that I am not impressed with the book. Overall, he writes in a very arrogant almost angry style which seems to ring a “defensive” tone. (I am not the only one to observe this in his writing.) If he is certain about what he believes, why is he so anxious? And why does he refuse discussion with Christians on the subject of God? Does he feel threatened? Is he annoyed with Christians? Does he even know what really aggravates him? It begs my curiosity…

Chapter two of his book is particularly messy. It does not speak much to his trustworthiness as a writer…

1. He presents speculation as fact. He states historically that Paul founded Christianity (37). Unless you think Paul founded the church in order to persecute it, like the English hunter who introduced the rabbit in America so that he may hunt them, this is really a stretch. Even “hunting logic” in this case is absurd. I’ll give more attention to this in a separate post.
2. His reasoning is inconsistent. He talks about how ridiculous faith in God is, and equates it to faith in an orbiting china teapot in space or a spaghetti monster–non-sense about which nobody would waste their time. It is ironic, then, that he considered it at least worthy enough to devote countless hours and 374 pages to such non-sense. (Although the subject is not quite worthy enough of dialogue with Believers.)
3. He builds a flimsy argument. He speaks about the religion of our Nation’s founding fathers. What does that have to do with the objective of his book? I don’t base my faith on what somebody else believes (or doesn’t believe). Why does Dawkins care so much about their religion? It doesn’t make sense.

 

• I thought the inclusion of the Great Prayer Experiment was somewhat interesting (and disgusting), but I don’t understand its relevance. The experiment is supposed to test whether or not prayer has any effect on the recovery of surgery patients. (If the purpose of prayer is to get what we wish for, like we found a leprochan or something, then maybe I’d ask for a pot of gold.) Obviously the experiment failed. There are a million things wrong with the experiment. I am curious, however, why Dawkins chose to include it. Does he draw on the failed result to say that God does not exist? Dawkins is at least intelligent enough to recognize how ridiculous this experiment is. So does he include it as evidence to Christian stupidity? (I won’t argue with that one, there are plenty of dumb Christians out there. Maybe that is the reason Dawkins is so angry. He hates stupidity–but then he hates more than just Christians.) Though I still don’t see how human fault proves God’s non-existence…it only proves we’re human.

Forgive me for being too critical. I realize I am not far in the book and it isn’t fair to judge it so early. I have to remember I am reading an atheist’s view of God. Of course we approach the subject of God’s existence from two separate extremes. For this reason, he and I will take for granted that which the other denies. It is no surprise then that I am disappointed with his research.

I actually am ahead in the book and it DOES get better. But I was determined, however, to make at least some sense of my thoughts on chapter two before I begin to write my thoughts on the following chapters (not sure I succeeded).