So what makes Dawkins views so uninteresting?
His central argument requires God to be a complicated material object. Dawkins paints God as an enormously complex material object. He says,
However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the
Ultimate Boeing 747.
It doesn't matter that the statement is incorrect about probabilities. What's more worrying is that Dawkins assumes that God is not spiritual, but a material object - his very definition of complex implies something, like the 747, which is made of many parts.
This is totally irrelevant to a rational person. Christians don't believe in a God who is a material object made of material parts. A material object could not be the Christian God. A famous Christian argument states that material object isn't the first cause. A material object couldn't have any of the properties of God, and couldn't be responsible for actions ascribed to God. It's not the same God who acts in my life, and not the God who has acted in history. So if Dawkins is trying to argue against God, why does he define his god in a way which doesn't apply to a Christians or Jews?
In fact, this exactly the opposite of what Christians believe. We don't believe in gods which are material objects. We don't believe in sacred raisin cakes. We don't think that idols created the universe.
Dawkins also equates the word "faith" with irrational belief.
Faith means blind trust, in the absence of evidence even in the teeth of evidence.That's not how Christians use the word where faith is trust in God. It doesn't reflect the way it is used in the Bible (see Hebrews 11 for examples). We certainly do trust God, but we're not blind. How could you describe Abraham as having blind trust when God appeared to him? Abraham would have been blind if he couldn't see God. Abraham knew that God existed, and did as God commanded.
Dawkins continues with weak arguments and aggressive rhetoric will make his case true. He is constantly putting words (his own) into others mouths - which comes across as distinctly fishy when you've read the original authors.
When he addresses C. S. Lewis he does so for about half a page, before dismissing him. How does he do it so easily? Easy. He says that Lewis didn't consider the possibility that Jesus was just a morally good preacher - but that's exactly what C. S. Lewis does consider. It makes you wonder whether Dawkins even read what he was writing about...
Dawkins points out there are terrible things (shock, horror) that happen in the Bible. For example, he dwells on Lot's incest at length and so says that we can't have got our moral lead from the Bible. He tries to claim that because it is Lot (Abraham's nephew) who is doing it that we should follow. The Christian view is that people aren't perfect, and that goes (especially!) for people whose lives are reported in the Bible as well as for us today. In fact, if he'd bothered to read a little further he would have seen how badly Lot's actions were condemned and what consequences they had. But like so many things, he conveniently left that out...
There are so many bad arguments here, that don't even seem to even engage straightforward Christian responses, (2, 3, 4) to his writing while insulting their intelligence. It makes me wonder if his real aim is to promote his chosen view of science and religion: That they are in conflict. He's obviously gone to great lengths to present himself as a scientist fighting against religion. In a sense then, it doesn't matter to him what people reply. For him, I suspect it's more important to have a heated and hate filled argument - to prove that "science" and religion are at odds - than to search out the truth.
I could go on and on boring anyone who stumbles on my blog to tears, but I won't. The God Delusion isn't worth it. Do something more worthwhile with your life.
Thanks to TwentyHertz for the world's most boring CCTV camera view, and Bart Koop-Henzen for a material, but complicated, 747 and J0nny_t for the war photo.