I have recently made some comments about Richard Dawkins’ case against the existence of God in his book The God Delusion (hereafter: TGD). I made the comments in response to an article posted by John Loftus on his Debunking Christianity website: “In Defense of Richard Dawkins“.

Here is the main comment I posted on this topic:

OK. I have an example for you [of poor quality thinking by Dawkins in TGD]. CLARITY is one of the universal standards of thinking. In fact, it is one of the most important of the universal standards of thinking. If you study philosophy in the US or England you will probably be exposed to analytic philosophy, which was the dominant form of philosophy in the 20th century in the US and England. Analytic philosophy is very focused on the standard of CLARITY. So, one would expect a philosopher in the US, especially one who studied philosophy in the US or in England, to be focused on the standard of CLARITY and to care about CLARITY in his/her thinking and writing.

Thus it is shocking and dismaying that a professional Christian philosopher in the US would FAIL to be clear about the meaning of the term “God” when making a case for the existence of God! But that is exactly what I see in Norman Geisler’s case for the existence of God in his book WHEN SKEPTICS ASK. Geisler is very sloppy and very unclear about the meaning of the word “God” and he frequently shifts and changes the meaning of this word whenever it suits his case to do so, thus he commits the fallacy of equivocation several times in his case. It is absolutely a PHILOSOPHY 101 basic lesson to clearly DEFINE the KEY TERMS one uses in a philosophical argument. Geisler FAILS to do this, and as a result his case for God in WHEN SKEPTICS ASK is a steaming pile of dogshit. There is no CLARITY in his case concerning the most important word in his arguments: the word “God”. In presenting a case for the existence of God while being very sloppy and very careless about the meaning of the most important word in his arguments, Geisler is teaching his Christian readers to be UNCRITICAL THINKERS, rather than teaching them to care about one of the most important of the universal standards of thinking: CLARITY.

It seems to me that Richard Dawkins is also very sloppy and very unclear about the meaning of the most important word in his case AGAINST the existence of God, and thus Dawkins, just like Geisler, is teaching his readers to be UNCRITICAL THINKERS, rather than teaching them to care about one of the most important standards of thinking: CLARITY. If I am correct on this point, then Dawkins is doing the same sort of harm to people as Geisler is doing to people. Rather than demonstrating and promoting the standard of CLARITY, he is promoting sloppiness and UNCLARITY about the meanings of key terms in arguments.

Here are some of Dawkins’ comments about the meaning of the word “God”:

1. …if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is ‘appropriate for us to worship’. (TGD, p.13)

2. …I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. (TGD, p.31)

3. Having gestured towards polytheism to cover myself against a charge of neglect, I shall say no more about it. For brevity, I shall refer to all deities, whether poly- or monotheistic, as simply ‘God’. (TGD, p.35)

4. I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented. (TGD, p.36)

5….there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator [the “unmoved mover” or “uncaused cause” in proofs of God by Aquinas] with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts. (TGD, p.77)

===========================

It is now about 1:30 am, so I need to head to bed and get some sleep. I plan to return to finish up this comment sometime tomorrow morning.
============================
It is now about 10:40 am on Sunday morning, and I will now attempt to complete the comment and show an example of thinking of poor quality in Dawkins’ case against the existence of God.

============================

My claim is that Dawkins is sloppy and unclear about the meaning of the most important word or term in his arguments about God, namely the meaning of the word “God”. If this claim is correct, then that means that Dawkins’ case against God in The God Delusion has the same fundamental problem as Geisler’s case for God in When Skeptics Ask. If I am correct, then both Dawkins and Geisler are guilty of promoting UNCRITICAL THINKING among their readers by failing to pay sufficient attention to, and care for, the most important of the universal standards of thinking: CLARITY.

Let’s begin with quote (1) by Dawkins about the word “God”:

1. …if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is ‘appropriate for us to worship’. (TGD, p.13)

I don’t strongly object to this comment. It seems reasonable, although a bit VAGUE. But it is not intended as a full definition of the word “God”, it is an initial point about the word “God” that provides some constraints on the meaning of the word, so a bit of VAGUENESS is OK at this early point in TGD. It is a common point by philosophers and theologians that the meaning of the word “God” should be such that a being that corresponds to a proposed definition of “God” be something that is “appropriate for us to worship”.

Let’s move on to the second quote from TGD:

2. …I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. (TGD, p.31)

First of all, because Dawkins gives this definition a title “the God Hypothesis,” and because he specifically says “I shall define…” at the beginning of the sentence, and because this passage comes from early in the book (Chapter 2) and early in that chapter, I take it that this is the central and most important clarification of the meaning of the word “God” in Dawkins’ case against the existence of God. So, any problems with this definition could result in a serious defect in his case against God.

I will not attempt here to do a full critique of this definition. I don’t want to spend that much time and effort just to provide one example of poor-quality thinking by Dawkins. However, I will say that it is dubious that this definition captures “the way that people have generally understood” the meaning of the word “God”, and it is dubious that any being who fit this definition would be a being that it is “appropriate for us to worship”.

Generally, when philosophers or theologians point out the constraint on definitions of “God” that any being who satisfies the definition be “appropriate for us to worship” they infer that the characteristic of being “perfectly good” must be one of the necessary conditions for something being “God”, but there is nothing about this characteristic in Dawkins’ definition. Sometimes philosophers or theologians will also infer from this constraint on definitions of “God” that the characteristics of being omnipotent and omniscient must also be necessary conditions for something being God, but there is nothing in Dawkins’ definition that indicates that God must be omnipotent or omniscient.

Furthermore, most Christian philosophers and theologians define the term “God” so that perfect goodness, omnipotence, and omniscience are necessary conditions for being God. I understand that the average person in the pew might not have such a clear understanding of the meaning of the word “God” and that their understanding of the meaning of the word “God” might not include some of these characteristics. However, I think that most Christians who are devout and who have studied Christian beliefs, even using just popular Christian books, understand the word “God” to imply perfect goodness, omnipotence, and omniscience. So, it is dubious that Dawkins’ central definition of the word “God” satisfies the constraint that he himself lays down on page 13: “it should be used in the way people have generally understood it”.

Finally, I don’t see any attempt by Dawkins to SHOW that his central definition of the word “God” satisfies the conditions that he himself lays down on page 13. I don’t see that he argues that any being that fits his definition will be something that it is “appropriate for us to worship”. I don’t see that he argues that his key definition of the word “God” satisfies his own stated condition that it represents “the way people have generally understood” the meaning of this word, especially in view of the fact that he has eliminated some necessary conditions that have been part of philosophical and theological definitions of “God” for centuries (i.e. perfectly good, omniscient, omnipotent).

Now for quote (3):

3. Having gestured towards polytheism to cover myself against a charge of neglect, I shall say no more about it. For brevity, I shall refer to all deities, whether poly- or monotheistic, as simply ‘God’. (TGD, p.35)

Here we have a clear logical contradiction. Given Dawkins’ key definition of “God”, there can be only ONE creator, and thus his definition rules out the possibility of polytheism. If Dawkins were more familiar with polytheism he would have known that many “gods” are NOT supposed to be “the creator” of the universe. Zeus, for example, did NOT create the universe, nor did Mars, nor did Poseiden. Dawkins’ definition of “God” does NOT apply to these “gods”. So, in saying he will use the word “God” in a way that includes “gods”, Dawkins contradicts his own definition of “God”, which is clearly a definition that applies to the monotheistic concept of God, and NOT to polytheistic gods.

Now for quote (4):

4. I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented. (TGD, p.36)

Wow. This is very sloppy. In this statement, Dawkins appears to have broadened the concept of “God” to a ridiculous degree to include “anything and everything supernatural”. There is nothing wrong with attacking “anything and everything supernatural”, but that is a very different task than the task of showing that there is no God. Making an argument against the existence of ANY supernatural being requires an argument for NATURALISM or against SUPERNATURALISM. But one can be an atheist and believe in supernatural beings (like ghosts, souls, or magical unicorns). Atheism is compatible with supernaturalism. So, disproving the existence of God does NOT necessarily disprove the existence of all supernatural beings. Any philosopher of religion who confuses atheism with naturalism ought to be FIRED on the spot and find a more appropriate job where he/she has to say “Would you like fries with that?”

Furthermore, since many “gods” are NOT supposed to be “the creator” of the universe, disproving the existence of “God” as defined by Dawkins in his key definition on page 31, FAILS to disprove the existence of many “gods”. Showing that there is no such thing as a supernatural creator of the universe does NOT show that there are no “gods”, nor that there are no ghosts, nor that there are no souls, nor that there are no angels, nor that there are no demons.

==============================

Sorry, I’m out of time for now. Need to go for a walk with my wife, to keep her happy and healthy. I will return to complete this comment later today. …
OK. Had a lovely walk. Had a bit of lunch, and now I’m ready to finish this comment.

==============================

I am nearly finished presenting an example of poor quality thinking by Dawkins in his book The God Delusion. I am arguing that just like Norman Geisler FAILED to present a clear and plausible definition of the word “God” and then consistently use the word “God” in accordance with that definition in his book When Skeptics Ask, so too Richard Dawkins FAILED to present a clear and plausible definition of the word “God” and consistently use the word “God” in accordance with his definition in his book The God Delusion.

Geisler FAILS to show proper focus and care concerning the most important universal standard of thinking: CLARITY. And Geisler FAILS to do so concerning the most important word in his case for the existence of God (i.e. the word “God”) Thus, Geisler is, in effect, promoting UNCRITICAL THINKING among his readers. Similarly, Dawkins FAILS to show proper focus and care concerning the most important universal standard of thinking: CLARITY. And Dawkins FAILS to do so concerning the most important word in his case against the existence of God (i.e. the word “God”). Thus, Dawkins is, in effect, promoting UNCRITICAL THINKING among his readers, just like Geisler does in his book When Skeptics Ask.

Now for quote (5):

5….there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator [the “unmoved mover” or “uncaused cause” in proofs of God by Aquinas] with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts. (TGD, p.77)

There are at least two serious problems with this statement by Dawkins. One of the problems concerns Dawkins’ ignorance about the philosophy of religion, and the other problem concerns his sloppiness about the meaning and use of the word “God”. Obviously, the second point is most relevant to my attempt to give an example of poor thinking by Dawkins in terms of the universal standard of CLARITY. But I will briefly touch on the first point, just to provide another somewhat different example of poor quality thinking by Dawkins.

Before I make the first point, let me make a qualification that partially relieves Dawkins of blame for his ignorance about the philosophy of religion. The mistake Dawkins makes here is common, I’m sorry to say, among philosophers, and even among philosophers of religion. Dawkins assumes that the summaries he gives adequately represent the thinking and arguments of Thomas Aquinas on the question “Does God exist?”. Dawkins is completely wrong on this point. These are extremely condensed and extremely unclear and misleading representations of the arguments of Aquinas on this question. Anyone who has two brain cells to rub together and who has actually read Aquinas should know this. This is NOT rocket science.

Unfortunately, many philosophers, and many philosophers of religion are under the same DELUSION as Dawkins about the thinking and arguments of Aquinas. So, for example, even though the Christian philosopher of religion Norman Geisler is a neo-Thomist, he gives arguments for the existence of God that are very similar to the arguments presented by Dawkins. Also, even though Peter Kreeft is a Catholic and a philosopher of religion who greatly admires Aquinas, his first five arguments for the existence of God in his book Handbook of Christian Apologetics are very similar to the three arguments presented by Dawkins as being arguments for the existence of God by Aquinas. This is all very sad. But Geisler and Kreeft are SHITHEADS. They OUGHT to know better, given their educational background and specialization, but they are largely CLUELESS as to the actual arguments presented by Aquinas for the existence of God.

If you want to have some CLUE about the actual arguments presented by Aquinas, then take a look at “The Aristotelian Proof” presented in Chapter One of Ed Feser’s Five Proofs of the Existence of God. That argument contains 50 different premises or claims (see the summary on pages 35-37). Even so, Feser is presenting a cleaned-up and edited-down version of a Thomist argument for God.

Better yet, go and actually READ Aquinas, and you will quickly discover that his argument extends for at least one hundred pages. There is simply no way to adequately represent the argument for God by Aquinas in one short paragraph, or even come close with five short paragraphs.

Dawkins has the excuse that he has plenty of company in his ignorance about Aquinas. Sadly, even philosophers of religion suffer from his DELUSION about the thinking of Aquinas about the existence of God. Nevertheless, I think if Dawkins had actually read Aquinas himself, he might well have avoided displaying his complete ignorance about the thinking of Aquinas. So, although he is making the same mistake as many well-educated philosophers have made, he still bears some degree of blame for FAILING to read and study Aquinas before attacking the arguments of Aquinas (and if he did actually read Aquinas, then his FAILURE to understand that the one-paragraph arguments that he presents do NOT come anywhere close to being a FAIR and ACCURATE representation of the thinking of Aquinas represents a different set of universal standards of thinking that he is falling short on).

In short, Aquinas was not nearly as stupid as Geisler and Kreeft make him out to be.

OK. that was a second example of poor-quality thinking by Dawkins in TGD. Now back to the problem of Dawkins’ FAILURE to have a proper focus on CLAIRTY concerning the most important word in his case against the existence of God (i.e. the word “God”).

Dawkins is correct that the shitty one-paragraph arguments that he mistakenly believes represent the thinking of Aquinas about the existence of God do NOT show that the “uncaused cause” is perfectly good, or omnipotent, or omniscient (although Aquinas does present ARGUMENTS for each of those claims, arguments that Dawkins is completely unaware of). However, these points are irrelevant or insignificant if we take Dawkins’ definition of “God” seriously.

There is NOTHING in Dawkins’ definition about perfect goodness. There is NOTHING in Dawkins’ definition about omnipotence. There is NOTHING in Dawkins’ definition about omniscience. So, the failure of Aquinas to show that the “uncaused cause” has these characteristics is beside the point, if we are interested in the question of whether “God” in the sense defined by Dawkins exists. If we take Dawkin’s definition of “God” seriously, then these are NOT significant problems in the arguments of Aquinas!

Finally, Dawkins states that these alleged characteristics of God are “properties normally ascribed to God”. That is correct, but then that is a clear indication that Dawkins’ definition of “God” FAILS to meet one of the criteria that he himself put forward for evaluating a definition of God:

…if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it…(TGD, p.13)

If perfect goodness, omnipotence, and omniscience are “properties normally ascribed to God”, then Dawkins’ definition of God FAILS because it does not correspond to “the way people have generally understood” the meaning of the word “God”. Dawkins has demolished his own definition of “God”!