Re-examining The ‘God Hypothesis’

In this continued evaluation of Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion, I will examine what he calls the ‘God hypothesis’. Dawkins sets out this hypothesis in chapter two and focuses on refuting it in chapter four. It is important to note that, by his own admission (p.189), the entire book rests on his conclusion in chapter four. I found chapter four to contain the weakest logic in the book. The only real strength in his argument comes from cleverly setting up his readers to believe him. In this article, I will focus on his ‘setting up’ tactics before briefly tackling his subsequent refutation of the ‘God hypothesis’.

Dawkins’ two main tactics throughout the book are 1) to propose that believing in atheism is linked to intelligence and 2) to make his atheistic ideas appear to be scientific. Although these tactics are present throughout the book, he makes the greatest use of them in the first few chapters that concern his ‘God hypothesis’.

Dawkins links atheism to intelligence by pointing out that academia today in the USA and the UK is dominated by atheism/agnosticism, and by quoting great scientists who do not believe in a personal God (e.g. Einstein). Additionally, he presents superstitious beliefs that are linked to religions with the underlying goal of showing that religious people are ignorant, or just plain dumb. This tactic appears to have a dual purpose – to encourage atheists by stroking their egos, and to intimidate anyone who may disagree with him. Basically, he succeeds in replacing the vile religious attitude of “Holier than thou” with the atheistic version of “Cleverer than thou”. This tactic simply reveals a characteristic human nature: we have a strong desire to feel superior to others, particularly those with different views.

His second tactic (to present his ideas as scientific) is subtler, and perhaps more effective than his first, although they are linked. Science is known to be a pursuit for intelligent people, so convincing his readers that his views are scientific reinforces the first tactic. As Dawkins points out, there are many scientists who, although atheists themselves, refuse to consider the existence of God as a question for science (pp.77-85). I would agree with them, as science deals with things that are physically observable and measurable – the question of God’s existence falls outside this field. Nonetheless, Dawkins uses science as a cloak for his atheism.

To understand how he uses science in this way, consider the following analogy. You have a family doctor who is also a close friend – one day you visit him at his clinic for a medical examination. Because he is a qualified doctor, you should listen to what he says about your health and carefully consider his advice about your diet and exercise regime. Medical doctors in general are rightfully respected for their knowledge, and the white coat and stethoscope alone can conjure up this respect from laypeople. After the medical examination, you stay to chat with your doctor. During this time he says: “Let me give you some advice about your love life….”. From this point on, his advice is not related to his qualification as a doctor – he has stepped out of the bounds of his field of knowledge. You may consider his advice as a family friend and evaluate whether it is good advice or not, but the fact that he is a doctor is irrelevant. He cannot (and should not) try to use the respect he has earned as a doctor to influence non-medical aspects of your life.

This is precisely what Dawkins is doing as he uses science as a backdrop for presenting his religion. Instead of “Trust me, I’m a doctor”, he uses “Trust me, I’m a scientist” to bamboozle his readers into according his ideas with respect. Scientists should be respected for the work that they do, and it is advisable to listen to their opinions when they talk about their field of study. They are indeed intelligent, highly qualified people, but the moment they start discussing religious beliefs, the fact that they are scientists is irrelevant. Dawkins goes much further than just examining God ‘scientifically’, however, as in chapter nine he starts trying to dictate how parents should raise their children – using ‘science-based’ atheism. He is simply abusing the respect earned by scientists for the purpose of influencing his readers’ private lives.

One of the subtle ways that Dawkins uses to make atheism appear scientific is his use of the word ‘hypothesis’. As part of the scientific method, a hypothesis is a simple, falsifiable statement that one can test empirically (or observationally). Hypotheses are usually linked to a larger theory of how something works. By coining the term ‘the God hypothesis’, Dawkins demotes the idea that God exists to a simple, falsifiable statement. Nonetheless, he admits that the idea of God is not falsifiable (p.136), so the very statement that he proceeds to ‘refute’ cannot be a hypothesis. The use of the word is therefore just an under-handed way of making his refutation sound more scientific.

Another way that Dawkins uses to show that his religion is scientific is to make scientifically noble statements about his belief in evolution, such as: “We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it.” (p. 320). This is indeed how scientists should view even the best theories science produces. A theory is an over-arching idea about how things work, and it is from this idea that specific hypotheses are drawn. Following the scientific method, the falsification of well-stated, valid hypotheses should throw doubt on the theories that produced them. Thus, after collecting a great deal of experimental and/or observational data in order to test hypotheses, a theory may be consolidated, modified or thrown out altogether, depending on the results.

Despite his noble statement on p. 320, Dawkins later reveals that he doesn’t believe a word of it – on p. 340 he states: “Absolutist moral discrimination is devastatingly undermined by the fact of evolution.” (emphasis mine). In this statement and others like it, he throws out the scientific method in favour of his strong belief in evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. If it were a simple fact, then no one would need to study it using the scientific method described above. By calling it a fact, Dawkins would actually halt the entire field of evolutionary biology! If it is held as a fact (even subconsciously), then all evidence must be forced to point towards it, even if it points in the opposite direction. Unfortunately, due to the aforementioned domination of atheism in academia, this is precisely what is happening to science today.

A stunning example of Dawkins twisting evidence to suit his prior beliefs is his treatment of the Anthropic Principle. This principle is based on the scientific evidence that if any of several physical properties of our solar system and universe were slightly different to what they are observed to be, life on Earth would be impossible. In other words, if the Earth were slightly further away or closer to the sun, if the sun, the moon and the other planets were not the size they are and where they are, and if the physical constants that govern the universe were slightly different, we wouldn’t be here. Our life on Earth is a testament to a number of seemingly unrelated physical ‘coincidences’. This is the evidence as it is observed. However, evidence may be interpreted in vastly different ways. Someone who believes in God would say that this evidence points to an exceptionally intelligent Designer who made the universe with the express purpose of allowing for human life on earth. To the atheist, however, this is evidence for sheer luck on a cosmological scale.

Dawkins’ logic goes along the lines of: “however improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” (p. 165). Considering the rest of the argument based on this statement, he actually means that ‘we know it happened on Earth by sheer chance because we are here’. I had to read this section of the book several times before I understood the unwritten bit of information. I am not making up the bit about sheer chance, as Dawkins says on p. 168: “Once that initial stroke of luck has been granted [i.e. that Earth is life-friendly and that life originated spontaneously from non-life]…… natural selection takes over” (insertion mine). So what is he saying, in Basic English? The fact that we are here is somehow proof of how we got here, and the answer to that how question is: sheer luck. Where natural selection fails, we can fall back on Lady Luck.

In reality, the evidence itself says nothing about how everything came to be the way it is; it just says that it is. We can look at this evidence and choose to believe in Lady Luck (along with Dawkins) or we can choose to believe in God – the evidence itself can say nothing either way. Believing in Lady Luck, however, requires a good stretch of the imagination: she is apparently not only capable of allowing a life-supporting universe to exist against enormous odds, but she is also a magician. Once our universe happened to become life supporting, it also happened to do the impossible – to form living organisms from non-living material. This enormous stretch of the imagination is what caused cosmologist Fred Hoyle to reject Lady Luck in favour of God. As quoted by Dawkins, Hoyle declared that: “the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747” (pp. 137-138).

Dawkins believes (despite scientific evidence to the contrary) that the spontaneous generation of life from non-life is at least probable. In line with scientific evidence, I believe that it is impossible. I further believe that it is more logical that the universe is the way it is by design, rather than by sheer luck. Our opposing views are based on beliefs – we have now stepped beyond the bounds of empirical science. Interestingly, Dawkins’ tactic of using science to support atheism reveals yet another characteristic of human nature – belief is a stronger force within us than reason. Consequently, debates based on reason between two people with strong opposing beliefs will usually succeed only in strengthening the beliefs of both sides. Once we remove its scientific cloak, atheism is revealed to be just another religion, based on strong human beliefs about which science can say nothing.

Now that we have addressed the way that Dawkins approaches the subject (which is far from scientific), we can look at his treatment of the existence of God. On p. 52, he defines his ‘God hypothesis’ like this: “there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us”. Once again, he subtly leaves out an important word in his initial statement. His entire refutation of the hypothesis rests on this word – he goes on to show that a finite god cannot possibly be the creator of the universe. I agree with him. The obvious reason for this is that if a finite god created everything, then who created god?

After going through a great deal of effort to refute the existence of God, Dawkins has actually done nothing of the sort. He has not even been able to show that “God almost certainly does not exist.” (p. 189). The problem lies in his definition of god as a finite being that is bound by the laws of the universe. This is not the God of the Bible, who claims to have created the universe and everything in it. The God of the Bible is, by definition, an eternal, infinite God, who resides outside the bounds of His creation (Psalm 90:1-4; Rev. 1:8; 2 Peter 3:8). One of the dimensions by which the universe is bound is time. The God I believe in created time and therefore cannot be bound by it. Because He is infinite and timeless, God has no need for a creator – He always was there, and there was nothing that preceded him. As Dawkins inadvertently proclaims, in order to be real, God must be infinite.

Before the mountains were brought forth,

Or ever You had formed the earth and the world,

Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God    

(Psalm 90:2).