Reading Dawkins After You've Already Left

I lost my faith at thirteen. Not because of an argument. Because of accumulating doubt, and because the story stopped being coherent from the inside. I had never read anything like The God Delusion. The leaving happened before I was old enough to have read much at all.

 Reading Dawkins now is a strange experience. The book is written for people who need permission or argument to leave, or for confirmed atheists who want their position clearly articulated. For someone who left quietly, through experience rather than argument, reading it is a bit like being handed a map of a city you moved out of years ago. The map is accurate. You don't need it anymore. What you actually want is to understand why your family still lives there.

 That said: The God Delusion contains some genuine thinking worth engaging and some significant weaknesses worth being honest about.

What Dawkins gets right

The book's best contribution is the argument from improbability. If you invoke God to explain the complexity of the universe, God must be more complex than the universe. You have not explained complexity. You have relocated it. This is a genuine philosophical point, not a rhetorical one. Dawkins calls it the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit, and it forces anyone using complexity as evidence for God to explain how God avoids the same problem. Most cannot.

 Natural selection is the actual answer. It builds complexity upwards from simplicity through cumulative small steps. No designer required at any stage. Dawkins explains this with real clarity. The distinction between a crane (which builds upward from what exists) and a skyhook (which imposes from outside) is a useful one well beyond biology. Any explanation that accounts for complexity by positing something even more complex is doing skyhook work.

 The moral zeitgeist argument is also strong. Morality has improved across all societies over centuries: slavery abolished, rights extended, torture condemned. These improvements happened in societies with unchanged scriptures. The Bible has not changed. Something else is moving moral standards forward. Dawkins is vague about what, but the empirical observation stands. Religion is not the driver of moral progress. It often lags it.

Where the argument overreaches

The problem with The God Delusion is the opponent Dawkins has chosen. He is extraordinarily effective at demolishing young-earth creationism, biblical literalism, and the God of the gaps argument. These deserve demolishing.

But Aquinas didn't hold those positions. Plantinga doesn't. Tillich's concept of God as the "ground of being" is not the personal, interventionist deity Dawkins is refuting. The theological tradition Dawkins argues against is, at best, a caricature of what sophisticated religious belief actually claims.

He is aware that these traditions exist. He dismisses them too quickly. His treatment of the ontological argument is particularly weak. He admits he cannot immediately say why it fails, then offers a response that most philosophers do not find convincing.

 This does not mean Dawkins is wrong. It means the book does not close the case it claims to close.

A tension the book does not resolve

Dawkins uses moral language throughout. The God of the Old Testament is "monstrous." Religion causes "harm." Certain practices are "wrong." But on his own framework, morality is an evolved trait shaped by evolutionary pressures. It is useful, not objectively true. If that is what morality is, it is not clear what gives Dawkins' moral judgments any more authority than anyone else's. He does not address this.

Haidt's The Righteous Mind helped me see why this gap matters. Haidt showed that people do not form beliefs through argument and then apply them. They form beliefs through experience and intuition and generate arguments afterwards. Dawkins writes as if the right argument will move the right person. Haidt's evidence is that it almost never works that way. Especially not on sacred beliefs.

What the book is actually good for

The God Delusion is most valuable as popular science. The evolutionary argument, the probability argument, and the moral zeitgeist data are all worth reading carefully. As philosophy, it is thinner. As an attempt to understand religion — what it actually is, why it persists, what it does for people — it is thin.

The books that answered those questions better for me were not defences of religion. They were Sapolsky on the neuroscience of in-group behaviour and ritual. Kahneman on the cognitive biases that make supernatural thinking feel natural. Haidt on why moral belief is not primarily a rational process.

Dawkins gives you a map out. He doesn't give you tools to understand why people who think clearly still live there.

I am reading Alister McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion next. McGrath is a former atheist who became a Christian after studying biochemistry at Oxford. He wrote it specifically as a response to this book. I want to see which objections land.

Sources: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (Amazon UK), The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt (Amazon UK), Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman (Amazon UK), Behave by Robert Sapolsky (Amazon UK)

This post contains affiliate links. If you buy through them I may earn a small commission, at no cost to you.