In 2006 the eminent biologist Richard Dawkins published his best seller ‘The God Delusion’. While science is dismissed by Sheldrake Dawkins disregards God. Who wins the argument? We begin with ‘The God Delusion’.
Dawkins’ title is intentionally aggressive, indicating that is experiencing a delusion. Dawkins defines his objective that ‘there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who intentionally designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us’.
But individuals who believe in God wouldn’t put it that way. Some, for instance, might just say they believe in God and that God is Love that is eternal. They might feel hurt to be told that they’re deluded.
It’s simple, and sometimes useful, for Dawkins to target outmoded religious dogma and practice. The assertion that God created the world in 7 days (and the like) is a straightforward target. On the other hand, the scandal of state-subsidised religious schools is an objective that is tricky yet a laudable one. But such issues of detail take focus away from the actual issue.
Dawkins knows that he cannot prove that God doesn’t exist so he makes the weaker assertion the existence of God is’ not probable’. But God isn’t a horse running in the Derby and there’s no rational foundation for betting on the chance of his existence.
For engaging in discussions such as this, a novel was written by the great biologist Stephen Gould about the rules. In effect Gould says that in any discussion about science and religion, the participants must recognise two Zones of thought.