Appendix 5 : Use of Bad Thinking in The God Delusion

 

 

 

When I was much younger I owned a book called Straight and Crooked Thinking which pointed out the many tactics that people use to win arguments. I am indebted to that book. For thirteen years I practiced as a Chartered Building Surveyor. A Building Surveyor diagnoses the problems in a building's construction. I learnt a lot about looking behind the surface. For seventeen years I taught General Law and Contract Law for the Construction Industry at College. Throughout that period I learned to read Acts of Parliament, and interpret and paraphrase seventy-page forms of contract, all in small print! I believe I have gained some experience in assessing the truth, especially of documents. These are my qualifications to dare to criticise this book that has gained such notoriety in both the UK and the USA.

 

With this in mind, the following are my complaints about the methodology used by Richard in The God Delusion:

 

1. Surplus-to-Requirement Arguing

 

• An immense amount of this book actually has little or nothing to do with belief in God being a delusion, which is what the title suggests it should be about.

  

• A considerable amount of paper is used to denounce periphery things, things that do not add or detract from belief in God, but which are obviously things that just annoy Richard. I have commented on this a number of times in the notes, but constantly ask yourself as you read the book, does this really go towards proving the existence or non-existence of God?

        

  2. Failure to Distinguish between Principles and Practice

 

• A lot of Richard's writing is taking up arms against particular individuals or groups or denominations or even religions, on the basis of things they have said or done which are questionable, NOT on the basis of the specific beliefs.

         

• In the first Appendix I have faced the need for the church to put its house in order, but the fact that there are extremists who call themselves Christians in no way detracts from the doctrines and historical background of the Christian Faith. That some so-called believers ignore, forget or disagree with the beliefs of the majority doesn't bring down the central tenets of belief. To use such believers to prove the point only shows the weakness of thinking behind the book.

    

• One of the problems with focusing on extremist language or behaviour, is that it is always that of a minority group and is in no way representative of the main body of believers. Pointing to a minority extremist group, or even someone from mainstream who has a bad day and speaks out of turn, does nothing to detract from the faith of millions or orthodox middle-of-the-road believers.

 

3. Aiming for an Illusory Target

 

• Now Richard in defence mode at the beginning of the book strongly denies doing this, but denial doesn't stop him doing it. A number of times I have had to say, but we don't believe that! Every time he sets up an extremist group or an extremist belief, we have to say, but we're not like that, we don't believe that, so why bother to say it. But he still does it – again and again! If you are a Christian watch for this as you read.

 

4. Ignoring Classical Scholarship

 

• A number of these things are inter-related. I have already complained about Richard's use of extreme examples and this applies equally so in respect of the authorities that he uses to bolster his weak arguments. ‘Out there' is an immense wealth of scholarship, men of great learning and wisdom who have researched how the Bible came to be, why it is what it is, and these are men who can be trusted.

  

• At the end of the Introductory page, I listed a number of books that are worth reading, and they all come from serious men and women. Yet Richard studiously ignores all this scholarship, possibly because he is ignorant of it, or possibly because it runs contrary to his apparent paranoia of religious things. Prejudice is a terrible thing!

 

5. Relying upon Liberal Theologians who start from an atheists position

 

• The other side of this same coin is the way that Richard relies upon those whose antecedents are questionable. I will deal with this issue more fully in another separate Appendix, but anyone who starts from a presupposition that says that God can't speak or work into His world, prejudges the issue. Reputable scientists and scholars take the evidence in front of them and draw conclusions. They don't start with the conclusions.

         

• There was, starting from the nineteenth century, a whole school of theologians who started with those presuppositions. Naturally their conclusions were negative. It is this skewed school of thinking that Richard relies upon, which undermines everything he says about the Bible.

 

6. Using only sceptics for his quotes

 

• Associated with this is his constant use of sceptical atheists to back up his arguments. The ensuing view is rather like a socialist going into a Conservative club, entering into a debate with a Conservative member who simply appeals to all the other conservative members to support his argument against the Socialist.

  

• If you seek for the truth (a big ‘IF' in the case of this book which appears as more of rant than a logical argument) you examine all perspectives and consider all views. Referring only to your own ‘club' makes you look silly, especially when it becomes very obvious that most of them have as little knowledge of the subject as you have!

 

7. Deriding his fellow scientists who disagree with him

 

• A further facet of this same thing is Richard's constant deriding of his own colleagues in the scientific world who clearly disagree with him. He is clearly thoroughly embarrassed by many of them, and seeks to rubbish some, and simply deny what others have apparently said by saying, “I'm sure he didn't mean that”. This comes over as just shear arrogance and the exhibition of an utterly closed mind.

 

8. Basing many of his arguments on speculation and not scientific evidence

 

• Again this is so prevalent in this book that I will devote a separate Appendix to it. Richard works on the premise that one day everything will prove what I am now saying. The only trouble is that so much of what he is saying is not based on science – and even flies directly in the face of established science – but is pure philosophical speculation. Speculation proves nothing beyond the author has an imaginative mind. Watch out for this as you read because it constantly happens. I will say more about this in Appendix 7.

 

9. Failing to Know the Bible

 

• At one point in the book Richard derides theologians as being a waste of time. Sadly he doesn't realise that these are men and women who spend their lives studying the Bible and considering the implications of the revelation found there. He clearly has done neither and his gaffs are really embarrassing. He picks out bits of the Bible that he feels suit his argument and carefully omits the large amounts that run contrary to his beliefs. Those bits he does refer to, he clearly doesn't understand.

     

• As the Bible is clearly one of the main planks of a believer's platform of belief, you might have expected him to research its origins and read it thoroughly, but he has clearly done neither.

 

10. Appealing to the most bizarre and illogical use of statistics to reach a conclusion

 

• When someone is so intent to prove their point they can get wound up in the most convoluted of arguments and suggest the most bizarre of things. I will comment on this more fully in another of the Appendices, but a major illogical way of thinking is that which comes from the evolutionary school and says, given a sufficient big period of time, anything could happen. Well, no, actually it can't, because our scientific community are sure of certain laws of science and to reject those laws to confirm your atheism is not on! I'll say more elsewhere.

 

11. Having a Dogmatic Approach that is not open to reason

 

• This is a feeling that is conveyed by Richard's writings. I base this comment on a number of the points above. I have actually used the word paranoia earlier. I'm sorry but that is what it seems like. There is a bending of the truth, a refusal to face facts and a refusal to listen to lots of clever and wise people in both the areas of science and theology. Perhaps history will look back at this time and wonder why so many people have applauded one who exhibits such a closed mind. perhaps it is because he appeals to their closed minds.

 

12. Using emotion to denounce when he demands a scientific approach

 

• Richard puts himself forward as a scientist and indeed demands that religion be scrutinised scientifically (which I don't have a problem with), yet so much of what appears in this book comes over with such an emotional fervour and hatred of all things religious that one is left with the clear impression that objectivity has been thrown out the window.

    

• It is a strange thing that many of us in the ‘religious' world appear to have a greater willingness to objective thought than appears coming from one who purports to adhere to the scientific method which must be objective if it is to have any credibility.

 

Concluding Comment

 

Every one of these twelve points is a clear and valid complaint. They are not contrived. They are straight forward observations of the nature of the methodology of this book. I have not attempted to give examples here to justify each comment, as that would take up too much space, and so I simply ask you, if you read The God Delusion, to watch out for each of these things.

 

As I wrote at the beginning of the first Appendix, working through The God Delusion has reminded me that the Christian world has no need to feel defensive. If you will take the trouble to check this book out, page by page as I have, you will realise that :

a) Richard is skating around on incredibly thin ice and is really proclaiming the poverty of atheism, and

b) if we think about the Christian answers, we will realise we have very much firmer ground beneath our feet.