Jon's Deep and Meaningful

A Response to Richard Dawkins, or Who's deluding who?

I've recently finished reading Richard Dawkins' very readable new book "The God Delusion". Nearly all the bookshops in Sydney have it on display and it was interesting reading. Now I have to admit I'm biased, against Dawkins. But even so, the logic in this book is often very much subservient to the rhetoric. I've put together a critique of the book which I hope eventually to publish somewhere, probably too long for this blog site.

But in brief, here are some summary comments:

Dawkins is rarely dull, though he lost me a bit when on the subject of memes.
Dawkins is very biased, as I guess he'd admit in view of the stated purpose of the book, which is to convert us to atheism. So for example, all the usual historical ill effects of religion are enumerated, but little is said about all the good works of Christians or the evil deeds of 20th century atheists like Stalin or Mao.
Dawkins uses all the tricks in the rhetoric book: exaggeration, setting up straw men, ridicule.
But in the process he does serve to rid us of some sillier stories (like aborting Beethoven) and lines of evidence (e.g. the recent prayer experiment) and arguments (e.g. Anselm's ontological "proof" of God) used for Christian beliefs and values.

In the end, however, it all comes down to one thing: which story makes the most sense- gives the most likely explanation of reality as we experience it. Beauty, morality, the universal drive to worship, love, justice, evil (which Dawkins doesn't really tackle) , the existence of the universe as such, humanity, life: are these best explained in Dawkins' neo-Darwinist story of natural selection or in the biblical narrative of God, man, the devil, sin and Jesus Christ, or in some other worldview?

If you want to read my critique of several thousand words, and you promise to comment on it, you can email me at