Is God a Delusion?: What is the Evidence? [Paperback]

This book by Nicky Gumbel (NG) is a reasonable attempt at a response to Richard Dawkin's book "The God delusion" but is not altogether successful. I offer the following 6 comments:-

1. In a section on Miracles NG writes:-

"They [people of Jesus' day] also knew that it was not `natural' for someone who had been dead for three days to come back to life." (page 22)

Christians claim that the Resurrection of Christ was one of the most significant events in human history. But it's astonishing how many Christians talk - as NG does here - about Jesus being dead for three days or that "three days later Jesus rose again". Three days implies 72 hours or thereabouts. If the crucifixion occurred on the evening of Good Friday and the Resurrection on the morning of Easter Sunday that is around one and a half days or about 36 hours. Why are Christians so casual and careless about this if it is as important as they claim?

2. In a section "How come there is `something rather than nothing'?" we read:-

"We may wish to consider the question: what is easier to believe, that God created something out of nothing, or that nothing created something out of nothing?" (page 30)

This is a very fair and important question. But it's worth noting that physicists who specialise in quantum mechanics and the like are increasingly of the view that something can indeed come out of nothing. The bizarre world of quantum mechanics is way beyond most people's understanding and we face the difficult choice of whether or not to accept - without understanding it - what the physicists tell us.

In terms of everyday thinking, it is indeed easier to believe that God (rather than nothing) created something out of nothing. But we have to ask whether everyday thinking is adequate here.

3. In a section "How come science cannot meet our deepest needs?" NG says:-

"Science is hugely important and valuable. However, if you take a reductionist view of life, reducing life to material and matter, you end up with the conclusion that Dawkins ends up with, that life is empty." (page 32)

Well, the purpose of science is to help us understand reality, it doesn't claim to try to meet our deepest needs.

And is it really fair to say that Dawkins concludes "that life is empty"? He doesn't believe in God and he has no expectation of in any sense surviving his own death but I nonetheless have the impression that Dawkins lives a very full, energetic and enthusiastic life. For example reading his book "The greatest show on earth", which communicates his passion about the staggering variety of life on this planet, I do not get any impression at all that for Dawkins life is empty.

NG concludes this section:

"Reading these books by leading atheists, such as Dawkins, has made me so thankful to be in a relationship with Jesus Christ, to have found a meaning and a purpose to life." (page 35)

Whether there is in reality anything that corresponds to the words "to be in a relationship with Jesus Christ" is open to question. It may well be that all NG is really saying here is that his beliefs as a Christian help provide him with more comfort, meaning and purpose than would be provided by the belief that there is no God and that this life is all there is. And I'm sure that is the case - religious beliefs in general do provide comfort, meaning and purpose. But the important question is not whether those beliefs bring comfort but whether they are actually true.

4. In the chapter "Does religion do more harm than good?" NG writes:-

"....there are situations where it is extremely hard to be a Christian today. It is almost impossible to put Christian beliefs into practice without coming across obstacles....possibly for the first time since Constantine in the fourth century, Christians in Western Europe are now on the back foot." (page 38)

Something that has struck me again and again down the years is how diffident most Christians are about what they say they believe. For example, if in the last 30 to 40 years Christians in the UK had shown more conviction about the Christian Gospel then it wouldn't have been necessary for the Alpha course to be created. It may well be true that Christians in Western Europe today are on the back foot, feeling that they're losing out to Islam on the one hand and "aggressive" atheism and secularism on the other. But I think Christians have only themselves to blame for this.

5. NG is blessed with the ability to communicate very clearly. But one section in this book titled "Faith is universal" is an exception to this. It's too long to quote in full but hopefully the following does it justice:-

"Everyone has beliefs....Although Dawkins acknowledges that you cannot conclusively prove that there is no God, he declares that it is virtually certain to be the case that God does not exist, and therefore he is an atheist. Nevertheless, this in itself is a belief....Whatever we believe, faith is universal." (page 62)

I've read and re-read this section (the original, in full) and struggled to make sense of it. I think what NG is getting at could be re-stated as follows: There are some words that have a 100% quality, e.g. fact, certainty, proof. And other words that have a less than 100% quality, e.g. belief, theory, evidence, faith. And in as much as atheism is a belief (that God does not exist) it's really no different than "faith".

And of course this can - and does - lead on to the accusation that atheism is "a faith". Or that the theory of evolution is as much a matter of faith as believing that God created the universe 6000 years ago. The mistake here is that `belief' gets equated with `faith' or `theory' gets equated with `faith' by virtue of their all being in that less-than-100% category.

6. In a section "Evidence of the nature of human beings" NG writes:-

"Dawkins himself must have a sense of right and wrong, else he could not use words like `good' and `evil'. However, logically these words cannot be used if it is true that `there's no such thing as universal good or absolute good or absolute evil'....If things just are, then there cannot be absolute right and absolute wrong." (page 73)

And

"Atheism could be said to be a form of wish fulfilment because something within us wants moral autonomy; we do not like the idea of anyone telling us that certain things are wrong. As some people say, they want to be free to live their own life." (page 75)

There are two issues here: (i) the relationship between the existence or non-existence of God on the one hand and good and evil on the other. (ii) the relationship between belief or disbelief in God on the one hand and good and evil on the other. Taking these in turn:

(i) Murder is evil. Rape is evil. Acts of kindness or generosity are good. Few people would disagree with these assertions. Is it the case that murder is evil because God exists and He says murder is evil? If so, could God have instead chosen to say that murder is good? Or that all acts of kindness are in fact evil? By virtue of His sovereignty presumably He could. But most people who believe in God would be appalled at the thought that He might decree that murder is good and that kindness is evil. So, it looks as if certain things are good and other things are evil quite independently of God. Quite independently, perhaps, of whether or not He actually exists. These are difficult issues.

(ii) Is it really the case that atheists such as Dawkins wilfully chose to disbelieve in God out of a desire to be free from any moral constraints and therefore to be free to live lives of evil? Does NG really believe that? Do we really have no sense of good and evil unless we believe in God? Do we really need to have beliefs based around hope of reward and/or fear of punishment in order to be persuaded to choose good rather than evil? In The God delusion, these kinds of issues are explored in the chapters "The roots of morality: why are we good?" and "The Good Book and the changing moral Zeitgeist". I do not see in NG's book any real attempt to engage with what Dawkins says in those two chapters.

I bought this book hoping that the parallel between Nicky Gumbel and Richard Dawkins would prove true. Both are glib, both are excellent public speakers/writers and both have an eerie skill with quotation. Hence I thought the former would be the Nemesis of the latter.

To some extent he does, and many of his arguments are the penetratingly effective stuff that Nicky Gumbel is good at. His arguments against religious belief being child abuse and against the 'God of OT' argument are both strong and compelling.

Unfortunately, due to all the other 'Flea' books, it comes over as a little tawdry and cliched (esp when doing the 'Mao & Stalin' or 'famous scientist' routine).

Despite this flaw, the content is rather good all in all, using some effective and strong arguments against Dawkins and his acoloytes. Two that I'm glad he's tackled are the C.S. Lewis trilemma one (about Jesus being 'honestly mistaken') and Hitchens' ridiculous argument that Martin Luther King based his morality on humanism.

Mr Gumbel also, unlike many fleas, puts forth some evidence and reasons why he believes what he believes as opposed to just damning Dawkins. Furthermore, he balances his clergyman's point of view with a theologians perspective - written by Dr Graham Tomlin, which is one of the best bits of the book.

So, all in all, this book is a good rebuttal of Dawkins, although it does sound cliched and is not as vivid as it could be. If you want a book that is definitely Gumbel in his element, try Searching Issues or Telling Others. In addition, if you want a good 'flea', try Darwin's Angel or In God We Doubt, which are both quoted to good effect within this book.

This book has been written in response to Richard Dawkin's `The God Delusion' and is from a Christian perspective.

The book answers some of the statements made in `The God Delusion' and tries to give a balanced and level headed approach to the Christian point of view.

If you are going to, or have read `The God Delusion' and want both sides of the argument, then this book is for you.

It is relatively short, but very easy to read and contains many interesting and thought provoking statements.

I wouldn't dismiss this book straight out of hand just because it supports a theological viewpoint, but would read it as a counterbalance to `The God Delusion'. One you have read both books, you will be able to formulate a balanced opinion on the subject matter.

All in all a good read.