February 2008
« Jan   Mar »

Elgin’s Books

  • Christianity and Secularism

  • Evidence for the Bible

  • A Review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion – Summary

    The following is an outline of my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion

    Part I – Chapter One
    Three major problems with Dawkins’ approach

    Part II – Chapter One
    Discussion of the “educated elite,” and how it is a negative term. How the errors of the educated elite are similar to the errors of atheism.

    Part III – Chapter One
    How Dawkins statements show that hope and faith disguised as science are a major factor.

    Part IV – Chapter One
    Dawkins’ claim that there is a belief that religion should not be attacked.

    Part V – Chapter Two
    Dawkins’ view of God, and his idea that theology “has not moved on in 18 centuries.”

    Part VI – Chapter Two
    Dawkins discussion of the Founding Father.

    Part VII- Chapter Three
    Aquinas arguments for the existence of God.

    Part VIII – Chapter Three
    Dawkins main rebuttal to Aquinas, the problem of the definition of Natural and Supernatural.

    Part IX – Chapter Three
    More problems with Dawkins attempt to rebut Aquinas – the wrong type of sequence.

    Part X – Chapter Four
    Point 1- 3 of Dawkins central argument of the book.

    Part XI – Chapter Four
    Point 4- 6 of Dawkins central argument of the book.

    Part XII – Chapter Five
    The origin of Religion – the freedom of speculation, in absence of evidence.

    Part XIII – Chapter Six
    The origin of Morality – the role of chance and meaning.

    Part XIV – Chapter Six
    The origin of Morality – the evolution as a tautology – evolution as a source for morality.

    Part XV – Chapter Seven
    Morality in the Bible – Dawkins errors of interpretation.

    Part XVI – Chapter Seven
    The Moral Zeitgeist as a moral foundation

    Part XVII – Chapter Seven
    The role of absolutism and Summation

    9 comments on “A Review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion – Summary

    1. Thank you for writing all this up. I know that faith is based on spirituality and the heart, but it’s so frustrating sometimes to be accused of having “vacuous” and “ill thought out” beliefs, especially when Christians often spend a great deal of time and agony reasoning out our beliefs and worldview. It’s nice to have rebuttal material.

      By the way, I read the discussion between you and Chris on his blog and I read your conversion story. I thought that it’s a wonderful story and was wondering if you would post a longer, more detailed version on your blog

    2. Pingback: A Review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion - Summary

    3. Great work. I am doing my PhD thesis on a Christian response to Atheists and your work is very valuable to me. I am also including “evolutiion” the religion of Atheists as a component to be reviewed. It appears that men like Dawkins can leverage their credentials in their chosen vocation to nearly anything that they want to have dialogue about, reserached or not ! Dawkins, while a brilliant biologist, it just spewing hate and discontent . Your reviews have been excellent, may God bless you for your responses.
      Have you reviewed chapters 8,9 and 10 as yet ?

    4. Bob,

      No. As I wrote at the beginning of XVII “The latter part of the Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” becomes increasingly speculative as he applies his view of atheism and religion to topics such as homosexuality, abortion, and children and these issues would be better treated in more general discussion of the individual topics than a specific review of Dawkins’ slant on them.”

    5. What a pathetic attempt to pretend like you actually have a counter argument to Dawkin’s God Delusion! Your dogma is founded on wishful thinking and delusion. Your belief and faith are irrelevant to any critical consideration of your imaginary friend. Cling to your blankie if it makes you feel better, the rest of us are beginning to grow up.

    6. Ghoulslime,

      It always amazes me how those supporting atheist arguments do so with such irrationality. I write a 17 part point by point refutation and the best you can do to respond is sling a few ad hominem attacks? If you actually have any specific problems the numerous errors and irrationalities it pointed out in Dawkins book, then why don’t post them. You are hardly going to convince anyone that your position is the rational one when you defend it which such irrationality.


    7. My intention was not to convince anyone of anything, blood drinker. My intention was to level derision at a stupid, irrational, and delusional person. You think you have an imaginary friend in the sky who hears you mumble magic words into the side of your bed at night. And you have no evidence to support this position.

      ***Pausing to giggle***

      Saying that I am irrational does not change the fact that YOU are the ideologue who is making the dogmatic defense of an unproven postulation. Which one of us worships a two-thousand-year-old zombie, and eats his flesh and drinks his blood on a regular basis? What a laughable clown you are! Why would I need 17 points to point that out?

    Leave a Reply to Elgin Hushbeck Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>