The God Delusion
In truth we are all delusional. Our God(s) are made in the image of Man.
From Wikipedia:
The God Delusion
is a 2006 book by British biologist Richard Dawkins, holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.
In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig’s observation in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
that “when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.”
Now I don’t subscribe to Dawkins’ philosophy. None of his evidence addresses the root cause of Life. It only provides a basis for a scientifically understandable methodology for the progression of life. A lack of evidence is not reason for dismissal, only flatly contradictory evidence would be so.
I will say though that all of our Gods are delusions. They are solely the constructs of Man.
Now please don’t get me wrong, I do not deny the existence of a god-head. I deny Man’s understanding of it. I believe that Man cannot - not in any meaningful way - understand the divine. We see the God(s) through the lenses of our own inadequacy.
All of our holy books and oral histories have been passed down through so many translations and edits that they no longer carry the unabridged Word. Worse, all of these strictures have been interpreted and reinterpreted in the light of Man’s understanding and conceit.
There are 6 billion of us, each with our God(s) created in our minds to help us strive towards understanding some fraction of the God(s)’ true nature and mind. I find this a delusion that is worth perpetuating. 
I have my faith, but I accept that I know only the most infinitesimal fraction of the nature of my Gods. I know only what they chose to reveal and that only through the lens of my own imperfect understanding.
Tags: Philosophy | Religion | Theology
May 7th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Now I don’t subscribe to Dawkins’ philosophy. None of his evidence addresses the root cause of Life. It only provides a basis for a scientifically understandable methodology for the progression of life. A lack of evidence is not reason for dismissal, only flatly contradictory evidence would be so.
Curious to know if you have seen “Expelled,” Ben Stein’s movie in which Dawkins features.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I haven’t seen it yet. From what I’ve heard it was little more than a commercial enterprise designed to capitalize on the current “debate.” I’ll probably get around to watching on DVD sometime though.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
This was an interesting post. I agree with you that we only know a minuscule fraction of God and what he/it is. We will never get close to understanding the divine. It’s impossible. And it’s impossible for Dawkins to declare there is no god, because he is not God and does not know all. This is why I believe God exists; he has to. Although I cannot prove the existence of God, I have experienced his work in my life, and believe he exists.
I’m interested to know what your faith is, or where you base your faith.
Great post!
May 7th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Ricky,
It’s easiest to describe my faith as Wicca. That’s not an exact representation, but it the closest “mass market” religion to my beliefs.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I’ll be curious to know your assessment of it if/when you view it. =)
May 7th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Interesting. I admit I don’t know much about Wiccan beliefs or the different variations. I’ve always heard they worship Satan, but I don’t think that’s necessarily or always true. From my perspective, as a Christian (I don’t like that term but it works), I worship or give place to Satan each time I give into my fleshly desires that contradict the Bible or God’s direction.
I liked this post because you bring up the truth that we will never comprehend the divine, yet it doesn’t mean that the divine doesn’t exist.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
The thought that Wiccans worship Lucifer-Satan-Shaitan-Samael-Yblis is a very common misconception among Christians. In truth he has no place in our theology at all; we don’t believe in him at all. Wicca actually doesn’t include a polarized Good v. Evil divine war.
Now, if one subscribes to the Abrahamic faiths, it is plausible - as an article of faith - to conclude that Wiccans have been duped by “The Evil One” into false worship. I’m not sure though that even that would be the same as worshiping Satan though. I think of worship as an overt act into which you really can’t be tricked.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I would agree with you on your point about worship, and from my understanding after reading the Bible is that true worshipers will worship God in spirit and in truth. Consequently, in order to worship (God or whoever you choose) it has to be an act of the will. True worship of a deity stems from belief and faith that the deity will respond to you in some way.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I agree that we will never understand the divine. This subject fascinates me - thanks Jonolan!
I learn new things about God every day. A tiny new glimpse into His nature. So tiny.
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
“Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”
Romans 11:33-34
I don’t believe that in this life we will ever understand the nature of God. But I will spend the rest of this life searching.
And I believe that although our human nature can’t understand the divine, God can and does give His spirit to us, to help us understand. To give us glimpses of Himself. To open our minds and help us to see beyond our earthly limitations.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Well said, Razzler.
;p Couldn’t have said it better myself.
I second my thanks, Jonolan.
Post-college, it’s rare to find, in the day to day drive of life, others with whom to engage and exchange ideas and thoughts and your blog consistently feeds that part of my soul that needs to process, question, wrestle and examine. Thanks!
May 7th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Ricky,
“True worship of a deity stems from belief and faith that the deity will respond to you in some way” is a very, very insightful comment. I was all set to argue the point based on Man’s duty to the God(s), but then realized that even propitiation is done the expectation of a response.
Razzler,
Thank you for Romans 11:33-34. I wanted to use that passage but couldn’t remember it. It’s been too long since I studied under Jesuits I guess.
Christy,
I aim to please - or rather incite and provoke.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Jonolan,
I hate to keep saying “But from the Christian world-view” but from the Christian world-view God reveals himself and has created man with perspective, thought categories, language, etc. specifically to receive His revelation. The dilemma you speak of is often given in the analogy of sunlight and stain glass windows of various colors. The sunlight is God’s revelation and the stain glass windows of various colors are man’s cognitive faculties et al. As God reveals Himself his revelation is twisted and changed by the windows. What this fails to take account of, in the Christian worldview, is that God created the windows and created them to receive his revelation. The colors reflected in Scripture were ordained by God to communicate His message with all perspicuity.
I didn’t read the other replies under this topic so I apologize if I’m merely repeating something that has been addressed.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Jonolan,
While I worship and believe whole-heartedly in the Judeo-Christian god, I look around me and see others who worship other gods or entities. I see the ones who are sincere in their devotion to whoever they worship, and though I will personally disagree with them on their choice on whom to worship, I admit that I am very jealous of their devotion. It challenges me to make sure my faith is genuine, and I’m not just worshiping for the sake of worshiping. It’s a daily battle over fitting in or truly worshiping God.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Ricky.
Don’t feel bad. Faith - IMRHO - should be challenged constantly. That is the only road to growth I know of for faith. I think that no matter what your theology is our job is to grow our faith and our understanding of our God(s) will.
Jonathan,
You’re a Christian - and one who sees these things from a Christian’s viewpoint - there is NO problem there. Never ever apologize for your faith! LOL Let’s not lend credence to the “political correctness” that favors the secularists.
I’m not seeing o contradiction between the light & stained glass comment and my assertion of our lack of understanding. Am I missing something in what you’re trying to say?
May 7th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Haha, thanks Jonolan. Sorry if it sounded depressing, I meant it in a positive mood, but your reply still makes perfect sense. So thanks.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Christy,
I aim to please - or rather incite and provoke.
Ain’t that the truth!
May 8th, 2008 at 9:23 am
[...] friend, Jonolan, posted this bit…it gets into a little about our ideas of God…who He is, what He looks [...]
May 8th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I do agree with Dawkins. I don’t buy the existence of a spiritual or supreme being or Godhead whether we understand it or not. Nor do I agree with the argument that, because scientific evidence has not (yet) uncovered the mystery of the spark of life itself, it must be supernatural.
Over the centuries, so many beliefs have been cast off as our knowledge progresses, and this will simply be one of those. But believers won’t go down without a long, drawn out fight - no matter what the evidence.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Brian,
How can you believe what you believe, while you are unable to provide evidence against a “spiritual or supreme being or Godhead” ?
Finite, and fallible beings such as ourselves as humans cannot prove nor disprove the idea/existence of “God.” Though I can and will always believe in the Judeo-Christian God, because of clear evidences of His work in my life, I cannot prove nor disprove Him. Do you kind of follow my logic here?
May 8th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Brian,
That science hasn’t - and may never - uncovered the reason for life existing does NOT mean that the cause is supernatural. It just doesn’t prove that it ISN’T either. That matter is still in open.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Jonolan, I think you missed my point. I said exactly the same thing. To assume a supernatural power of any kind must be responsible simply because our science has not yet evolved to the point where it can prove otherwise is not the least bit reasonable.
Ricky, I don’t feel the need, nor do I feel I have to prove the existence of an invisible, supernatural power. The burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic. There is ample evidence that life in a mutitude of forms existed before man and did for millions of years and the bible just doesn’t account for that. Most people in the world are not Christians and they are not just backward, 3rd world natives who don’t know any better.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Brian,
The Bible accounts for the creation of all animals. What more do you need? Your only quarrel with the Biblical account of creation from what I can tell is that it claims God did it all, and it didn’t happen million of years ago.
Almost half of the world’s population is Christian in name. Almost half. That’s quite a number.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:55 am
Brian,
I believe that categorically denying the God(s) when science has not evolved to the point where it can disprove their existence is equally unreasonable. Both sides of this issue are arguing faith, not science and faith, by definition, isn’t coldly reasonable. I suppose that, if we were all to be coldly reasonable and logical, we’d all have to agnostic. We just don’t know the answer.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Jonolan, based on some of your responses to comments on this post, I’m curious as to whether you believe that there is an absolute moral code. Certain posts make it sound like you’re a relativist. Just wondering.
Signed,
A relatively intolerant, but always curious, moral absolutist
May 9th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I’m not relativist. I guess you could call me a “motivationalist” I find more moral weight in one’s desires and goals than in the details and empirical outcomes of one’s actions on the mortal world.
I most definitely believe that there is an absolute moral code. Accepting that we can’t prove or disprove that the God(s) exist doesn’t preclude the belief in Right and Wrong.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Ricky, firstly the bible does not account for ALL creatures and you know that. Secondly, it accounts for creatures AFTER man, not before. And lastly, you can alter that stats by using the phrase “Christian name” if you want to but the fact is that 2/3 of the world are not Christian. There are roughly 2.1 billion Christians.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Actually, according to the Bible, animals came before humans, not the other way around.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Brian,
I agree with the Razzler, in the fact that animals did come before man. Just follow the chronological order. Man was created on the sixth day.
Secondly, where is your Scriptural proof for Creation not accounting for all creatures?
May 11th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Scriptural Proof? Are you seriously saying that the only resource that is valid to show that there was a whole world of creatures that these early authors were not aware of (there are still multitudes of species that we haven’t even yet come across) is the Bible?
Sorry, I don’t use that book as proof of anything. I do find that many Christians use it exclusively though and insist that any science that contradicts it is ignorance or lies.
I will concede on the animals first issue. However, I will not concede to the ridiculous notion that they existed in the flash of an eye and for just a few days before the “creation” of modern man. To believe so would invalidate an enormous amount of hard evidence and that would truly be ignorance at its peak. You stick with those ancient writers who believed that the sun revolved around the earth, the flat earth that is, and I will stick with and I will stick with the anthropologists and all of the others who have proven them wrong.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:09 am
It can be argued that the book of Genesis is a pastoral book. I believe that it teaches us the truth that God created the world and everything in it, and that everything was good before human selfishness and greed got in the way. I do not believe for a second that Genesis is a scientific book, beccause there are now details as to HOW God created the world. That just isn’t the point of the book. The whole 7 day thing could be a metaphore, to show that the world was created in stages. That doesn’t seem to have anything to contradict science, in my humble opinion. Not all Christians deny the accuracy of science, not all Christians insist that science and faith cannot be compatible.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:27 am
I think that everyone should remember and understand that very, very few Christians believe in “Young Earth Creationism.” Few can or will take their Book(s) as the literal, verbatim truth and fact.
I sort of alluded to that here:
Thank you all for your comments. It’s been an interesting discussion so far and, while passionate, it has been respectful of the people involved. Thank you all again for that.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Hi, thanks for your comment on my post, just thought I’d return the compliment. Reading the discussion above, I wondered if you’d read any of Habermas (’Modernity versus Postmodernity’ is particularly good), and his view that to engage in any moral/religious debate, one must believe in a universal moral code? Do you reckon subjectively defined faith is possible/desireable?
May 11th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Dawkins- “almost certainly”… I love it!
May 12th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Hector,
I’ve studied Habermas’ work. Habermas is too caught up in defining the role of language for my tastes. Also, his universal moral code is snarled up in what I consider the the fallacy of achieving “good will” as the underlying goal of people. I really don’t give most people that much credit for abstract thought as a core motivation for their actions.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
ExpatBrian: “You stick with those ancient writers who believed that the sun revolved around the earth, the flat earth that is, and I will stick with and I will stick with the anthropologists and all of the others who have proven them wrong.”
Beg pardon, but which writers associated with the Biblical authors believed in flat-earthism and geocentricism? If I remember correctly, those ideas weren’t connected with the Bible, only offshoots of the Church. I would appreciate sources on that instead of muted libel.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Hannah,
I think it’s safe for Brian to say that the ancient writers of the Torah, Bible and Qu’ran - and their associated apocrypha - believed in a flat Earth and the Sun circled it. That was the science of the day, based on what their scholars could observe.
The mistake, Brian, is using that as an argument against theism. Just because something was discovered or developed by an ancient people doesn’t make it wrong or ridiculous. It’s also a poor exercise in discourse to imply that the bulk of modern theists believe the same things about the natural worlds as their ancient predecessors.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:20 am
I would like to offer my opinion. Though Mr. Dawkins says it is “almost” certain God as Devine creator does not exist, I say it is absolutely certain God exists. God said let there be light and there was light. Who can create light? Even Franklins experiments and inventions are put together with the ingredients provided by creation.
As for my belief, The God I serve is not my delusion. The Bible I read says itself I in my own understanding cannot and will not agree with it’s teaching. Only by yeilding to the God who inspired the words can I know Him.
This God is the only God who is from everlasting to everlasting. He is the beginning and the end. We cannot find His beginning. We will never see His end. He always was and always will be. No other religion can state with such “arrogance” it is the original. All of the world religions have a father who can be traced to a date in history. Only Christianity and Jewish faith have a beginning even before the dating of history.
What I find to be arrogant is to think man can create a religion.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:24 am
I must adress the comment before mine. The writers of the Bible may have thought the earth was flat, but the God who created the earth corrected their mistake.
[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: Isaiah 40:22, KJV
May 17th, 2008 at 3:50 am
I wasn’t arguing against the theism of the day. I was making an example that, just because these men wrote what they perceived to be true at the time, that does not make it the truth. Perceptions about the natural world cannot be assumed to be the only incorrect perceptions they may have had. The only evidence they give on the accuracy of their writings is that they are inspired by the word of God. That’s a little too convenient for me.
I also did not say that theists today believe the same things, nor do I think that they do. At least the reasonable ones. But when a believer like Brett gives us the absurd example of Let there be light and there was - therefore God must exist because how else could there be light, that tells me that there are still theists out there who cannot and will not fathom any evidence beyond the book. Its as absurd as that tiresome and absurd watchmaker in the woods argument.
Jonolan, if it wasn’t for your down to earth, common sense approach to this issue, I would never allow myself to be drawn (once again) into a discussion on the existence of a godhead.