God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins

It will be difficult to do justice to the book. The concision, clarity and brilliance of Thomas Crean O.P's book is a hard act to follow and it is a complete refutation of Dawkins' delusions. While I have read several good responses to Dawkin's less than sophomoric (Plantinga) ill-considered and poorly researched works, Crean's book does precisely what it sets out to do and not just from a generalized theist perspective, but from the perspective of a Catholic theist and philosopher. He is very effective and provides helpful examples to help us grasp his subtler points. With the utmost civility and good manners, a welcome contrast to some new atheist writers, he dismantles the house of cards in which the body of Dawkin's book resides. He first diagnoses the fundamental error of Dawkins thesis being an inductive argument from complexity which he thinks mistakenly can be applied to God. It can't. He doesn't attempt to even defend the principle, and as Crean argues and also illustrates with the example of a cathedral, the product of a simple idea, complexity cannot be the ultimate explanation of anything. Such an ultimate 'explanation' or cause must be simple. Crean next addresses the unarticulated philosophy of Dawkins, materialism , defined as the belief that 'Everything that exists is matter or a property of matter. This would include human free will and thoughts to a materialist. Here he points out, Dawkins is no longer doing science, but philosophy as no scientific grounds exist to embrace materialism and deny the spiritual. Mind is not banished from the universe so easily. Crean asks if materialism is necessary or even possible. Referring to Thomas Jefferson's refusal to move beyond the import of the senses, Crean points out that the idea of "being" and the idea of 'material' are quite distinct from each other. Materilism is not necessary. Oddly, Dawkins does not give a single reason in support of materialism. In the case of human thoughts, Crean asks how an electron can be "about" something. An electron is what it is: it's not 'about' something else like tomorrow's weather. He shows how materialist attempts to explain thought involve other absurdities. How many electrons in the idea "Nothing in excess"? Does the circumference of circles as two times pi times the radius depend upon matter? Must there be round physical things for this to be true? In a section on Aquinas and his five proofs for the existence of God, Crean shows clearly that Dawkins does not even understand what Aquinas was arguing, thinking it related to the Big Bang and not the real and immediate cause of being right now and always. He points out that a First Cause must cause changes without being changed itself. If it does change, it is not the first cause. This must be beyond change, unlike the varieties of physical change we commonly see. Crean proceeds calmly and dispassionately dismantling the arguments made and presupposed by Dawkins on the possibility of miracles citing the predicted events at Fatima witnessed by some 70,000 people and to which Dawkins does not advance a single argument beyond his apparently blind faith in materialism. So too in textual criticism of the gospels Dawkins is revealed to be, how shall I say it, unreliable. Crean in like manner demonstrates the glaring deficiencies of Dawkin's treatment of the development of morality and religion, ending with a final chapter on Dawkins treatment of the Catholic Church. This is an excellent, scholarly book from a man who has, unlike Dawkins, actually devoted his considerable talents and intelligence to the various subject matters addressed. It is a beautifully concise and lucid education in the most fundamental issues of our day and a complete refutation of Dawkin's amateurish rants.It's good that Dawkins wrote his forgettable book which has occasioned this vastly more interesting and informative work of Thomas Crean O.P. You will enjoy this short, readable book immensely.

Crean has written a well structured presentation of the fallacies (and sometimes absurdity) of Dawkins' arguments. The first chapter confronts Dawkins' argument that all that exist is based on physical reality. This is the most abstract chapter of the book. The point made by Crean is well made: Dawkins claims that materialism is a clear and obvious stance ignoring three millenniums of philosophy. Crean does a short presentation of what Dawkins should have considered to present a balance view of the question. Some of Dawkins statements are made with such an arrogant tone that they appear absurd. For example, Crean discusses, in Chapter 2, Dawkins statement: There is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator [i.e. of the first way] with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity, of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts. Crean destroys such a statement to pieces. He remarks: why would goodness not be consider a human quality whereas reading innermost thoughts is. If Dawkins' followers do not see the absurdity of this statement they have lost all capacity of critical analysis. Dawkins' sloppy argumentations continue with such mundane mistake of misreading what he is quoting. For example, in Chapter 4, Crean points out that Dawkins misread a quote of St John's Gospel The passage quoted by Dawkins: "Others said, this is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" (Jn 7:41-2) From this passage, Dawkins claims that the followers of Christ were saying that He was not born from the right town. But this is not what the text says. The statement is not made by *followers of Christ* but by some other people. The lack of knowledge of Dawkins on such matter as exegesis or plain interpretation of Biblical passages is so obvious that Crean had an easy task. Crean remains very patience given Dawkins' absurd and incoherent statements. I find Chapter 6 the most interesting: Crean clearly shows that Dawkins' attempt to show that evolution created human as religious and believing in God is a self-refuting argument. It has to be read to be appreciated. Crean arguments are compelling and coherent. Once you finish reading Crean's book you start wondering if Dawkins' is not actually doing it on purpose to make up simple arguments easily believable by the unwary without considering their strength and coherence.

Thomas Crean O.P. has written a remarkably lucid little book refuting Richard Dawkins. In point of fact, 'God is No Delusion' reads at times like a general introduction to Christian apologetics, covering, as it does, topics ranging from arguments for the existence of God, to a refutation of naturalism, materialism, and various arguments for the reliability of the New Testament. Crean writes so clearly, and so convincingly, that its like taking an introductory course in basic Catholic philosophy. For all the years I've spent in school, I wish I had had some courses, perhaps even a whole curriculum!, based on the approach taken in this book. There were too many 'Aha!' moments to count as the fresh breeze of Creans' thought cleared the cobwebs in my mind. I was especially intrigued by Crean's interpretation of Thomas Aquinas' Fifth Way. Whereas most people take Aquinas to be advocating an argument from design (ie: the human eye can't be explained by random mutation, so it must have been designed, and so on), Crean explains the Fifth Way is actually much broader, and much more subtle than is commonly assumed. It is, rather, based on what he calls a 'Principle of Finality' which states that every agent acts in view of an end. Everything that happens in the world, like salt dissolving in water, or electrons moving in an atom, show evidence of having an end which is inexplicable unless you posit an intelligence that assigns an end to each thing. After all, things don't will an end for the themselves, and laws don't exist except in intelligences, therefore, everything that has an end has it because of an intelligent cause. On this reading, the truth or falsity of evolution is entirely beside the point. I won't explain the argument beyond that, but I would highly recommend reading this book, and hope to read more of Crean in the future. And if possible, Fr. Crean, I would appreciate you writing an introduction to Thomistic Philosophy, as well as a whole book devoted to the Fifth Way as you understand it.

Raised a 'Young-Earth-Christian' but having accepted that the physical world tells a quite different story, I am actually looking for a synthesis of faith and reason that I can respect. Crean's book is not a contribution to such a search. On page 123, Crean makes the scathing claim of Dawkins, that "So little does our author care to enter into the mind of the believer, that he doesn't bother to argue his case." One might ask, since Dawkins presents his ideas over some 400 pages, and Crean dismisses them in about a third as many, who might have 'argued a case' in more detail.... but quantity is distinct from quality. Exactly the same criticism might be leveled at Crean. He parodies Dawkins' arguments, creating cartoons of them that he then pretends to dismiss with references to such works as the Catechism of the Council of Trent, (from 1566). All well and good, for the Catholic believer. But such a response simply fails to address the question, "What hard evidence exists for the validity of your religion?" Curiously, for any who might, like myself, have been ignorant of it, the cited Catechism, taken by many to be the most definitive statement of Catholic beliefs, includes the following jem: "Faith Excludes Curiosity From what has been said it follows that he who is gifted with this heavenly knowledge of faith is free from an inquisitive curiosity. For when God commands us to believe He does not propose to us to search into His divine judgments, or inquire into their reason and cause, but demands an unchangeable faith, by which the mind rests content in the knowledge of eternal truth. And indeed, since we have the testimony of the Apostle that God is true; and every man a liar, and since it would argue arrogance and presumption to disbelieve the word of a grave and sensible man affirming anything as true, and to demand that he prove his statements by arguments or witnesses, how rash and foolish are those, who, hearing the words of God Himself, demand reasons for His heavenly and saving doctrines? Faith, therefore, must exclude not only all doubt, but all desire for demonstration." Now, let's see. Isn't there an old riddle about someone named Epimenides who, being a Cretan, claimed, 'Cretans always lie'? Here the Catechism says, all men lie, so it would be arrogant to doubt the words of a man. Yeah, that trumps science, any day! Had I understood the Catholic church had so profoundly slammed the door shut on Crean's mind, I well might have saved the cost of this book.

Fr. Crean's genius puts most of us to shame and this includes without any doubt Dawkins who, if he ever read this book honestly, would take himself out of the public eye due to his shame. He might even apologize to his followers and explain his denial of God is only a bad joke.

God is No Delusion is a wonderful refutation of Richard Dawkins and the movement of scientific atheism that has become popular over the past few decades. Crean addresses many of Dawkins major 'objections' to God and religion, and he does it in an easily understandable way. The book gives clear reasons why Dawkins' philosophy is unsound and full of holes. I would have given this book five stars except for the obvious sexism and bigotry that the author injects into the book. Three such instances come to mind that were the most offensive. First, when the author states (pg 107) that Dawkins would never employ such an unfeminist an idiom as the quotation of Carlyle, 'men are mostly fools.' Pointing out the fact that Dawkins might be prone to feminism has nothing to do with the point of the book. It is as if to say that not only is Dawkins' belief in atheism wrong (which I believe it is) but that feminism is wrong as well. This is just a small example of the rampant sexism that is present in religion today and a large example of why many people go running towards atheism. Sexism is contradictory to what is in the Gospels, yet the Church teaches it as dogma (yes, I am a cradle Catholic too) that women are inferior to men through practices as the refusal to ordain women and the ban on birth control. A second example of Crean's bigotry is when he makes mention of children being able to know what is patently false and his example in the footnote is of two people of the same sex being able to marry (p 110). Again, it is as if this author could not resist his chance to push hatred into a book that is supposed to be about why to believe in God. Many modern professional people have difficulty with this doctrine, and since it is not germane to the conversation, why insert this hot topic at all?? Finally, the most insulting of his examples comes on page 133 where he actually compares women's suffrage and the destruction of family life. So we are to take it that a proper moral family is one in which the man is king and the woman has no say on anything, so much as she is not even intelligent enough to pick her leaders??? We are supposed to believe that this is what God wants? Only a very short sighted sexist individual would even insinuate that women being given their God given equal rights is what caused the decline of the family. There are many reasons for the changes in family structure that have taken place in the past decades. I am not going to preach that these changes are all for the better, but I don't think blaming women's rights is the correct or Godly way to look at the situation. It is a shame that such a good book has to be tarnished with such obvious bigotry. Crean needs to understand that for many folks, when they see such bigotry and sexism, it makes them question God. After all, how could a God that is all good, all loving, and merciful condone hatred and sexism? The answer is that God doesn't, the male dominated Catholic hierarchy does. And we wonder why child molesters are still rampant in our churches? Overall, read the book, but beware of the author's subtle opinions against women and homosexuals. If you can ignore his ignorace on those topics, the refutation of Dawkins is very good.

Fairly well written, excellent points made, overall a very good read!

God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins by Thomas Crean, O.P. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2007 160 pages By: Samuel A. Nigro, M.D. January, 2008 This short book is an incredibly erudite disquisition and then absolute discrediting of Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion. Reading this book took me back to the wonderful days at the University of Notre Dame when we students were treated to amazing academic presentations that I thought were no longer possible. What a treat this short book is! Father Crean is a scholar who dissects Richard Dawkins to the bone revealing him to be, if not brainless, then a fraud, liar, and, at best, a public relations expert. All must read this book! I will not duplicate the truth and wisdom of the book encouraging you, the reader, to not miss it yourself. Instead, I will use this review to add my past efforts to deconstruct Richard Dawkins. My book review of The God Delusion focused on Dawkins imprecision and fraudulent refusal to use the accepted scientific definition of “delusion.” A false belief of symptom of mental illness...delusions are distinct from cultural religious based beliefs and may be seen as untrue by outsiders. Encyclopedia of Medicine, 2006. Dawkins admitted to ignoring severe objections and criticisms from three psychiatrists about his use of the word “delusion.” Second, in my book review of God is Not Great, by Christopher Hitchins, I noticed Hitchins claiming that the evolution of the eye was accommodating by evolution – and the reference was a book by Richard Dawkins entitled “Climbing Mount Improbable.” So I got the latter book and found the reference used by Dawkins to claim “the central message of this chapter is that eyes evolve easily and fast, at the drop of a hat” (Pg 190). Dawkins’ referenced article was Proc. R. Sc. Lond. B (1994) 256 53-58. Dawkins’ description of this article in his book “Climbing Mount Improbable” is an academic crime. In psychiatric terms, Dawkins’ description of this article consists of multiple confabulations which made me think of brain damage because that is where most confabulations are regularly seen. All are encouraged to read his referenced article and compare it to what Dawkins has to say on it in his book pages 160-163. Finally, I have yet to hear from the editors of Scientific American responding to my objection to Dawkins (along with Case Western Reserve Physicist Krauss) and their belief that “teaching is seduction.” This admission is an absolute proof of not only the incompetence of Richard Dawkins but of his own immorality. Just look up the contemporary and usual definition of “seduce,” and you will know what I mean. I sent all my findings to the Chancellor of the University of Oxford as well as to all the major newspapers in the United States. Their protection of this proven liar, blow-hard and academic criminal is proof positive of the unreliability and dishonesty of the press and media in the United States. I hope Thomas Crean’s God is No Delusion gets a more fair, honest, and forthright presentation to the public which has the right to know when someone of Richard Dawkins’ standing is proven to be a fraud and a fool.

ドミニコ会士による、リチャード・ドーキンス『神は妄想である』への応答。 目次を並べると、内容は大体想像できよう。 序 １.ドーキンス教授の主張 ２.ドーキンス教授と聖トマス・アクィナス ３.ドーキンス教授と奇跡 ４.ドーキンス教授と福音 ５.ドーキンス教授と道徳の起源 ６.ドーキンス教授と宗教の起源 ７.ドーキンス教授、道徳と聖書 ８.ドーキンス教授とカトリック教会 ９.二つの道 ドーキンスの古臭い無神論へ対応しているためか、反論も古典的なものである。また、当たり前と言えば当たり前だが、全体にローマ・カトリック目線で書かれており、非カトリックにはいささかとっつきにくい所があるかも知れない。しかし、哲学的・神学的に含蓄深い読みごたえのある一書ではある。

As an inveterate agnostic I don't think this is an argument that can ever be convincingly won either way, but Crean is certainly winning after this reposte. Dawkins' arguments and thinking exposed as sloppy and bigoted. A fascinating read.

Fabulous...rips dawkins apart

Fr Crean presents a high minded rejoinder to Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion'. Fr Crean destorys Dawkins' central atheistic argument within the first chapter, and then proceeds meticulously and charitably to pick apart his other arguments one by one. The chapter exaplaining some of the aspects of Thomist metaphysics and epistemology are alone worth buying the book for.

Crean's theology is good, but he starts to ramble a bit about the science. A thorough refutation of Dawkins' work, and something that people who have read the God Delusion should also read to prevent them being too heavily biased in either direction.