God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins

by Thomas Crean

Richard Dawkins, biologist and best-selling author, claims that belief in God is a "delusion" and that "religion" harms society. Dawkins contends that he has reason and evidence on his side, and he dismisses faith as unfounded, even irrational. Dominican Thomas Crean tackles Dawkins' claims head-on. He presents straightforward arguments for God's existence, and he uses reason and evidence to defend such things as miracles and the authority of the Bible. He also shows how God is important for a coherent understanding of morality, and why Dawkins' approach winds up reducing morality to the individual's subjective likes and dislikes. By demonstrating how Dawkins' criticisms rest on misunderstandings, superficial readings, poor argumentation, a lack of historical awareness, and not a little prejudice, Crean reveals Dawkins to be out of his philosophical and theological depth, and his case against God to be fundamentally flawed.

Genres: Nonfiction, Catholic, Religion, Gods, Theology

160 pages, Paperback

First published October 31, 2007

Reviews

[A.J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'd meant to read this in conjunction with Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion, but unfortunately the library failed me, and I read on a bit of a budget. I've heard Dawkins debate enough and listened to enough of his lectures to understand the point to which the counterpoint is aimed, but before my life is over I'll have to find a copy of his book so as to promote justice and fairness in the land.

I enjoyed this rebuttal to Dawkins (and by default guys like Hitchens and Harris) because it contains the thing that Dawkins and his ilk seem to lack: a calm, measured reasoning process free from hyperbole and worst-case-scenarioism. In his public lectures Dawkins is far more cordial than Hitchens (who's often on the verge of frenzy when he gets going), but underneath it there's a hostility, perhaps even a founded hostility, that while entertaining and a useful rhetorical tool is more often that not an inhibiting force to more moderate inquirers. The effect of reading a response in the even tone of Thomas Crean, then, is sort of like watching a parent respond to a child who's throwing a fit. His arguments are presented in simple logical form, and he never follows tangents. His handle on philosophy and logic is self-evident. He argues from a Catholic perspective, and on matters of history and philosophy you begin to get the impression that Dawkins, a biologist, is out of his depth, but until I read his book I'll have to refrain from judgement on that.

Much like any other book, however, this isn't likely to convince anyone to change their position. Ultimately we're at the same place we were before we started. Believers believe. Non-believers don't. I think if nothing else, Crean effectively demonstrates that not all forms of faith are based on gut feelings and the home one happened to be brought up in. All in all, Crean's response is fluid, simple, clear, and concise. For that reason I give it four stars, and recommend it to anyone who's interested in a debate which has been going on for––oh––ever.

[Arimo · Rating 2 out of 5]

After finishing both the Bible and God Delusion, I thought I'd read one of the many Christian books written in response to Dawkins.

For this purpose, God Is No Delusion works well: the book is clearly structured and the author doesn't wander too far from the topics. There are some cases where Crean misunderstands what Dawkins writes, but these are probably unintentional.

Many of the arguments of the author are easy to debunk and the argumentation is occasionally very dubious. Still, the short book offers an interesting insight on how a Catholic Christian may justify his faith in the presence of contradicting evidence.

[Jud Hanson · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is perhaps the most pitiful attempt to prove the exitence of God that I have ever read. Crean's chief response to Dawkins' points is "it's just that way, deal with it." His handling of the Abraham and Issac story made me laugh out loud, stating that God can't be judged by pitiful creatures like us. The book's synopsis not withstanding, Crean doesn't even come close to refuting Dawkins' points anyone who thinks so is not the smartest person in the room by far. Crean tries to

Dawkins wins this contest, hands down.

[Chad]

I'm about as atheist as they get, yet I never let that stop me from trying to understand alternative viewpoints. After reading the description of this book though, I feel I may be in for a rough ride. To read that the author uses reason to explain such things as miracles is, in my mind, an inherent contradiction. Miracles in and of themselves presuppose any lack of a reasoned (i.e., scientific) explanation. That being said, I am looking forward to seeing how the author tries to justify his positions.

[Monica Marie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very good rebuttal of Dawkin's rubbish. The book is better appreciated by someone with a background in Thomistic thought or theology. For example, chapter 2 briefly mentions that St Thomas Aquinas' proved the existence of God in "five different ways," but only the first and fifth are expounded, without any mention of the other "ways". The first two chapters are very philosophical and Thomistic. The rest of the book is easier to understand for the "armchair apologist."

[Dan DalMonte · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a clear and cogent takedown of Dawkins' severely ill-informed position. Dawkins's central argument that, if God created the world, then He must be complex, and so He cannot be the first cause. Crean points out that what is simple can create what is complex, namely, mind. Mind is primary in Catholic philosophy, whereas for Dawkins, matter is ontologically primary. Crean associated two "cities" with the philosophies of Dawkins and that of the Catholic Church. In one city, we cannot be sure our intellects track what is true because they are only useful tools produced by evolution. Right and wrong are reducible to preferences, and there is no way to establish grounds for duty, what we should do and not what we simply do by tendency. Crean picks apart Dawkins' hasty argument, for instance, that certain theological language about the Trinity is hopelessly obscure, when it really is not to someone moderately literate. There is little chance that the accounts of miracles were lies made up by the Apostles, since they had little to gain from spreading these accounts!

[Reader · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is wonderful and Fr Thomas is a real philosopher unlike Dawkins. Dr Thomas has gifts of wisdom and knowledge, a holy man, unlike the hateful visceral that comes out of Dawkin’s foaming mouth.

[William · Rating 3 out of 5]

As pointed out by others, this is not a book aimed to be an easy refutation of Dawkins' work. That already exists and has been written for a more general audience by others. Fr Crean aims to point out the theological flaws in Dawkins' arguments and when viewed in this sense, is largely successful. This being said, there are some flaws in this work and some points that are at odds with modern scientific thought but this is hardly surprising considering Fr Crean's stance on modernism.

Certainly a good read for those with a background in theology but not one for a general reader.

[Chris Callaway · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars. Crean has a bit higher substantive-content-to-snarkiness ratio than does Dawkins, and he lays out the religious (particularly Catholic) perspective quite clearly. Dawkins' arguments (when he bothers to give any) are generally easily refuted, but Crean's positions are open to challenges that I wish he would have addressed, as well.

[Stephanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chapter 1 made me wonder why I purchased this book, not because it was horrible, but because it was so academic that I felt it was way above my head at times. The refutation of Dawkins is well-researched and well-written, and once I reached chapters 2 and 3, the writing simplified and I thoroughly enjoyed the book.

[Martin Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very well written; thoughtful and insightful, until his apology for the violence of the Old Testament, and his use of the Abraham/Isaac sacrifice story as prefigurement. Otherwise, a very fine and rational response to Dawkins' The God Delusion.

[Jo]

I've read The God Delusion... perhaps this would be an interesting counterpoint?

Anyone have another suggestion?

[Kurt Acker]

211.8/cre