The atheist delusion of Richard Dawkins.(Religion)

THE GOD DELUSION, by the atheist writer Richard Dawkins, is remarkable in the first place for having achieved some sort of record by selling over a million copies. But what is much more remarkable than that economic achievement is that the contents--or rather lack of contents--of this book show Dawkins himself to have become what he and his fellow secularists typically believe to be an impossibility: namely, a secularist bigot. (Helpfully, my copy of The Oxford Dictionary defines a bigot as "an obstinate or intolerant adherent of a point of view".)

The fault of Dawkins as an academic (which he still was during the period in which he composed this book, although he has since retired) was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine which he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form. Thus we find in his index three references to Einstein. They are to the mask of Einstein and Einstein on morality, to Einstein on a personal God, and to Einstein on the human situation and on how man is here for the sake of other men and above all for those on whose well-being our own happiness depends. But 1 find it hard to write with restraint about this obscurantist refusal on the part of Dawkins to make any mention of Einstein's most relevant report: namely, that the integrated complexity of the world of physics had led him to believe that there must be a Divine Intelligence behind it. (I myself think it obvious that if this argument is applicable to the world of physics then it must be hugely more powerful if it is applied to the immeasurably more complicated world of biology.)

Of course many physicists with the highest of reputations do not agree with Einstein in this matter. But an academic attacking some ideological position which he or she believes to be mistaken must of course attack that position in its strongest form. This Dawkins does not do in the case of Einstein, and this failure is the crucial index of his insincerity of academic purpose and therefore warrants me in charging him with having become a secularist bigot.

On page 82 of The God Delusion is a remarkable note. It reads:

 
   We might be seeing something similar today in the 
   over-publicised tergiversations of the philosopher 
   Antony Flew, who announced in his old age that he 
   had been converted to belief in some sort of deity 
   triggering a frenzy of eager repetition 
   around the internet. 

What is important about this passage is not what Dawkins is saying about Flew but what he is showing here about Dawkins. For if he had had any interest in the truth of the matter of which he was making so much, he would surely have brought himself to write me a letter of enquiry. (When I received a torrent of enquiries after an account of my conversion to Deism had been published in the quarterly of the Royal Institute of Philosophy I managed--I believe--eventually to reply to every letter.)

This whole business makes all too clear that Dawkins is not interested in the truth as such but is primarily concerned to discredit an ideological opponent by any available means. That would itself constitute sufficient reason for suspecting that the whole enterprise of The God Delusion was not, as it at ...