Has science eliminated God? Richard Dawkins and the meaning of life. Alister McGrath

Has science eliminated Has science eliminated God?God?

Richard Dawkins and the Richard Dawkins and the meaning of life.meaning of life.

Alister McGrathAlister McGrath

Richard Dawkins (born Richard Dawkins (born 1941)1941)

The Selfish GeneThe Selfish Gene (1976) (1976)The Extended PhenotypeThe Extended Phenotype (1981) (1981)The Blind WatchmakerThe Blind Watchmaker (1986) (1986)River out of EdenRiver out of Eden (1995) (1995)Climbing Mount ImprobableClimbing Mount Improbable (1996) (1996)Unweaving the RainbowUnweaving the Rainbow (1998) (1998)A Devil’s ChaplainA Devil’s Chaplain (2003) (2003)The Ancestor’s TaleThe Ancestor’s Tale (2004) (2004)

Dawkins’ four grounds of Dawkins’ four grounds of criticism of religioncriticism of religion

1. A Darwinian worldview makes belief 1. A Darwinian worldview makes belief in God unnecessary or impossible. in God unnecessary or impossible. Although hinted at in Although hinted at in The Selfish The Selfish GeneGene, this idea is developed in detail , this idea is developed in detail in in The Blind WatchmakerThe Blind Watchmaker. .


2. Religion makes assertions which are 2. Religion makes assertions which are grounded in faith, which represents a grounded in faith, which represents a retreat from a rigorous, evidence-retreat from a rigorous, evidence-based concern for truth. For Dawkins, based concern for truth. For Dawkins, truth is grounded in explicit proof; truth is grounded in explicit proof; any form of obscurantism or any form of obscurantism or mysticism grounded in faith is to be mysticism grounded in faith is to be opposed vigorously.opposed vigorously.


3. Religion offers an impoverished 3. Religion offers an impoverished vision of the world. “The universe vision of the world. “The universe presented by organized religion is a presented by organized religion is a poky little medieval universe, and poky little medieval universe, and extremely limited”. In contrast, extremely limited”. In contrast, science offers a bold and brilliant science offers a bold and brilliant vision of the universe as grand, vision of the universe as grand, beautiful, and awe-inspiring. beautiful, and awe-inspiring.


4. Religion leads to evil. It is like a 4. Religion leads to evil. It is like a malignant virus, infecting human malignant virus, infecting human minds. This is a moral, rather than a minds. This is a moral, rather than a scientific, objection to religion, which scientific, objection to religion, which is deeply rooted within western is deeply rooted within western culture and history.culture and history.

The Structure of the LectureThe Structure of the Lecture

1. An evaluation of the approach set 1. An evaluation of the approach set out in out in The Blind WatchmakerThe Blind Watchmaker

2. The relation of faith and evidence2. The relation of faith and evidence

3. Religion as a meme? Or a virus of 3. Religion as a meme? Or a virus of the mind?the mind?

4. Religion impoverishes our 4. Religion impoverishes our appreciation of nature?appreciation of nature?

5. Why is religion such a bad thing?5. Why is religion such a bad thing?

The Blind WatchmakerThe Blind Watchmaker

In a universe of blind physical forces and In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe had precisely The universe we observe had precisely the properties we should expect if there the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.pitiless indifference.


Living things are too improbable and too Living things are too improbable and too beautifully “designed” to have come beautifully “designed” to have come into existence by chance. How, then, into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin’s answer, is by gradual, answer, Darwin’s answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. come into existence by chance.


Each successful change in the gradual Each successful change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple evolutionary process was simple enough, enough, relative to its predecessorrelative to its predecessor, , to have arisen by chance. But the to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance constitutes anything but a chance process. process.


But why does this lead to atheism?But why does this lead to atheism?

If anything, it leads to agnosticism, or If anything, it leads to agnosticism, or an understanding of God’s an understanding of God’s relationship with the world based on relationship with the world based on secondary causality – such as that secondary causality – such as that developed by Thomas Aquinas in the developed by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century.thirteenth century.


Problem 1:Problem 1:

At the most general level, the scientific At the most general level, the scientific method is incapable of adjudicating method is incapable of adjudicating the God-hypothesis, either the God-hypothesis, either positively or negatively.positively or negatively.

T.H. Huxley on AgnosticismT.H. Huxley on Agnosticism

Some twenty years ago, or Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word thereabouts, I invented the word “Agnostic” to denote people who, “Agnostic” to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with utmost confidence.dogmatise with utmost confidence.

T.H. Huxley on AgnosticismT.H. Huxley on Agnosticism

Agnosticism is of the essence of science, Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. . . Consequently know or believe. . . Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology.also the greater part of anti-theology.

Stephen Jay GouldStephen Jay Gould

To say it for all my colleagues and for To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.can’t comment on it as scientists.


If some of our crowd have made If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney and have their find Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it (as long as she knuckles rapped for it (as long as she can equally treat those members of can equally treat those members of our crowd who have argued that our crowd who have argued that Darwinism must be God’s method of Darwinism must be God’s method of action). action).


Either half my colleagues are Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional compatible with conventional religious beliefs – and equally religious beliefs – and equally compatible with atheism.compatible with atheism.



Dawkins’ arguments lead to the conclusion Dawkins’ arguments lead to the conclusion that God need not be invoked directly that God need not be invoked directly as an explanatory agent within the as an explanatory agent within the evolutionary process. This is consistent evolutionary process. This is consistent with atheist, agnostic, and Christian with atheist, agnostic, and Christian understandings of the world, but understandings of the world, but necessitates none of them.necessitates none of them.



The concept of God as “watchmaker”, The concept of God as “watchmaker”, which Dawkins spends so much which Dawkins spends so much time demolishing, emerged as time demolishing, emerged as significant in the eighteenth significant in the eighteenth century, and is not typical of the century, and is not typical of the Christian tradition.Christian tradition.

Dawkins on FaithDawkins on Faith

Faith “means blind trust, in the Faith “means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence.”teeth of evidence.”

The Selfish GeneThe Selfish Gene, 198., 198.


Faith is the great cop-out, the great Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. . . . Faith is not the lack of evidence. . . . Faith is not allowed to justify itself by argument.allowed to justify itself by argument.


It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, “mad cow” disease, and AIDS virus, “mad cow” disease, and many others, but I think a case can be many others, but I think a case can be made that made that faithfaith is one of the world’s is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. Faith, virus but harder to eradicate. Faith, being belief that isn’t based on being belief that isn’t based on evidence, is the principal vice of any evidence, is the principal vice of any religion.religion.

W. H. Griffith-Thomas on W. H. Griffith-Thomas on FaithFaith

[Faith] affects the whole of man’s [Faith] affects the whole of man’s nature. It commences with the nature. It commences with the conviction of the mind based on conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence; it continues in the adequate evidence; it continues in the confidence of the heart or emotions confidence of the heart or emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned based on conviction, and it is crowned in the consent of the will, by means of in the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct.are expressed in conduct.

A qA q uestion . . . uestion . . .

If the sciences are inferential in their If the sciences are inferential in their methodology, how can Dawkins methodology, how can Dawkins present atheism as the certain present atheism as the certain outcome of the scientific project?outcome of the scientific project?

Richard Feynmann: Richard Feynmann: scientific scientific knowledge is a body of statements of knowledge is a body of statements of varying degree of certainty – some varying degree of certainty – some most unsure, some nearly sure, but most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.none absolutely certain.

Timothy Shanahan, “Methodological Timothy Shanahan, “Methodological and Contextual Factors in the and Contextual Factors in the Dawkins/Gould Dispute over Dawkins/Gould Dispute over Evolutionary Progress.” Evolutionary Progress.” Studies in Studies in History and Philosophy of ScienceHistory and Philosophy of Science 31 31 (2001): 127-51. (2001): 127-51.

Is God a Virus? Or a meme?Is God a Virus? Or a meme?

Just as genes propagate themselves in Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain pool by leaping from brain to brain by a process which, in the broad by a process which, in the broad sense of the term, can be called sense of the term, can be called imitation.imitation.

Four fundamental problems Four fundamental problems about memes . . .about memes . . .

1. T1. There is no reason to suppose that here is no reason to suppose that cultural evolution is Darwinian, or cultural evolution is Darwinian, or indeed that evolutionary biology indeed that evolutionary biology has any particular value in has any particular value in accounting for the development of accounting for the development of ideas.ideas.


2. There is no direct evidence for the 2. There is no direct evidence for the existence of “memes” themselves.existence of “memes” themselves.


3. The case for the existence of the 3. The case for the existence of the “meme” rests on an analogy with “meme” rests on an analogy with the gene, which proves incapable the gene, which proves incapable of bearing the theoretical weight of bearing the theoretical weight that is placed upon it.that is placed upon it.


4. Quite unlike the case of the gene, 4. Quite unlike the case of the gene, there is no necessary reason to there is no necessary reason to propose the existence of a “meme” propose the existence of a “meme” as an explanatory construct. The as an explanatory construct. The observational data can be accounted observational data can be accounted for perfectly well by other models for perfectly well by other models and mechanisms.and mechanisms.

Is cultural evolution Darwinian?Is cultural evolution Darwinian?

The case of the RenaissanceThe case of the RenaissanceReappropriation of the past was Reappropriation of the past was deliberate, intentional and planneddeliberate, intentional and plannedIn other words, Lamarckian, rather In other words, Lamarckian, rather than Darwinianthan DarwinianAssuming, of course, that Assuming, of course, that evolutionary biology has evolutionary biology has anyany relevance to cultural developmentrelevance to cultural development

Do memes actually exist?Do memes actually exist?

Another objection is that we don’t Another objection is that we don’t know what memes are made of, or know what memes are made of, or where they reside. Memes have not where they reside. Memes have not yet found their Watson and Crick; yet found their Watson and Crick; they even lack their Mendel.they even lack their Mendel.

Do memes actually exist?Do memes actually exist?

Whereas genes are to be found in Whereas genes are to be found in precise locations on chromosomes, precise locations on chromosomes, memes presumably exist in brains, memes presumably exist in brains, and we have even less chance of and we have even less chance of seeing one than of seeing a gene seeing one than of seeing a gene (though the neurobiologist Juan (though the neurobiologist Juan Delius has pictured his conjecture of Delius has pictured his conjecture of what a meme might look like).what a meme might look like).

William BlakeWilliam Blake

The AncientThe Ancient

of Daysof Days

(1794)(1794)

The Flawed Argument for The Flawed Argument for MemesMemes

Biological evolution requires a Biological evolution requires a replicator, now known to actually replicator, now known to actually exist, namely the exist, namely the gene.gene.

So, by analogy:So, by analogy:

Cultural evolution also requires a Cultural evolution also requires a replicator, which is hypothesised to replicator, which is hypothesised to be the be the memememe..

Simon Conway-Morris on Simon Conway-Morris on MemesMemes

Memes are trivial, to be banished by Memes are trivial, to be banished by simple mental exercises. In any wider simple mental exercises. In any wider context, they are hopelessly, if not context, they are hopelessly, if not hilariously, simplistic. To conjure up hilariously, simplistic. To conjure up memes not only reveals a strange memes not only reveals a strange imprecision of thought, but, as Anthony imprecision of thought, but, as Anthony O’Hear has remarked, if memes really O’Hear has remarked, if memes really existed they would ultimately deny the existed they would ultimately deny the reality of reflective thought.reality of reflective thought.

Martin Gardner on MemesMartin Gardner on Memes

A meme is so broadly defined by A meme is so broadly defined by its proponents as to be a useless its proponents as to be a useless concept, creating more confusion concept, creating more confusion than light, and I predict that the than light, and I predict that the concept will soon be forgotten as concept will soon be forgotten as a curious linguistic quirk of little a curious linguistic quirk of little value. value.

Martin Gardner on MemesMartin Gardner on Memes

To critics, who at the moment far To critics, who at the moment far outnumber true believers, memetics outnumber true believers, memetics is no more than a cumbersome is no more than a cumbersome terminology for saying what terminology for saying what everybody knows and that can be everybody knows and that can be more usefully said in the dull more usefully said in the dull terminology of information transfer.terminology of information transfer.

God as a virus?God as a virus?


Real viruses can be seen – for Real viruses can be seen – for example, using cryo-electron example, using cryo-electron microscopy. Dawkins’ cultural or microscopy. Dawkins’ cultural or religious viruses are simply religious viruses are simply hypotheses. There is no hypotheses. There is no observational evidence for their observational evidence for their existence. existence.

Tobacco Mosaic VirusTobacco Mosaic Virus



There is no experimental evidence that There is no experimental evidence that ideas are viruses. Ideas may seem to ideas are viruses. Ideas may seem to “behave” in certain respects “behave” in certain respects as ifas if they they are viruses. But are viruses. But analogyanalogy is not is not identityidentity – and the history of science illustrates – and the history of science illustrates only too painfully how most false trails only too painfully how most false trails in science arise from analogies in science arise from analogies mistakenly assumed to be identities.mistakenly assumed to be identities.



The “God as virus” slogan is shorthand for The “God as virus” slogan is shorthand for “the patterns of diffusion of religious “the patterns of diffusion of religious ideas seem to be analogous to those of ideas seem to be analogous to those of the spread of certain diseases.” But the spread of certain diseases.” But Dawkins does not give any evidence-Dawkins does not give any evidence-based arguments for this, and prefers to based arguments for this, and prefers to conjecture as to the impact of such a conjecture as to the impact of such a hypothetical virus on the human mind. hypothetical virus on the human mind.

Aaron Lynch on “Thought Aaron Lynch on “Thought Contagion”Contagion”

The term “thought contagion” is The term “thought contagion” is neutral with respect to truth or neutral with respect to truth or falsity, as well as good or bad. False falsity, as well as good or bad. False beliefs can spread as thought beliefs can spread as thought contagions, but so too can true contagions, but so too can true beliefs. Similarly, harmful ideas can beliefs. Similarly, harmful ideas can spread as thought contagions, but so spread as thought contagions, but so too can beneficial ideas. . . . too can beneficial ideas. . . .

Aaron Lynch on “Thought Aaron Lynch on “Thought Contagion”Contagion”

Thought contagion analysis concerns Thought contagion analysis concerns itself primarily with the mechanism itself primarily with the mechanism by which ideas spread through a by which ideas spread through a population. Whether an idea is true, population. Whether an idea is true, false, helpful or harmful are false, helpful or harmful are considered mainly for the effects considered mainly for the effects they have on transmission rates.they have on transmission rates.

““All we need to do is recognize that All we need to do is recognize that cultural inheritance exists, and cultural inheritance exists, and that its routes are different from that its routes are different from the genetic ones.”the genetic ones.”

Stephen Shennan, Stephen Shennan, Genes, Memes and Human Genes, Memes and Human History : Darwinian Archaeology and History : Darwinian Archaeology and Cultural EvolutionCultural Evolution. London: Thames & . London: Thames & Hudson, 2002, 63.Hudson, 2002, 63.

Religion impoverishes our Religion impoverishes our view of the universeview of the universe

One of Dawkins’ persistent complaints One of Dawkins’ persistent complaints about religion is that it is about religion is that it is aesthetically deficient. Its view of the aesthetically deficient. Its view of the universe is limited, impoverished and universe is limited, impoverished and unworthy of the wonderful reality unworthy of the wonderful reality known by the sciences known by the sciences

Religion offers a ‘poky’ view of the Religion offers a ‘poky’ view of the universeuniverse

The universe is genuinely mysterious, The universe is genuinely mysterious, grand, beautiful, awe-inspiring. The grand, beautiful, awe-inspiring. The kinds of views of the universe which kinds of views of the universe which religious people have traditionally religious people have traditionally embraced have been puny, pathetic, embraced have been puny, pathetic, and measly in comparison to the way and measly in comparison to the way the universe actually is. The universe the universe actually is. The universe presented by organized religions is a presented by organized religions is a poky little medieval universe, and poky little medieval universe, and extremely limited.extremely limited.

The Nuremberg Chronicle The Nuremberg Chronicle (1493)(1493)

Responding to this criticismResponding to this criticism

A Christian approach to nature A Christian approach to nature identifies three ways in which a identifies three ways in which a sense of awe comes about in sense of awe comes about in response to what we observe.response to what we observe.

1. An immediate sense of wonder at 1. An immediate sense of wonder at the beauty of nature. This is evoked the beauty of nature. This is evoked immediatelyimmediately. I can see no good . I can see no good reason for suggesting that believing reason for suggesting that believing in God diminishes this sense of in God diminishes this sense of wonder. wonder.

2. A derived sense of wonder at the 2. A derived sense of wonder at the mathematical or theoretical mathematical or theoretical representation of reality which arises representation of reality which arises from this. Dawkins also knows and from this. Dawkins also knows and approves of this second source of approves of this second source of “awed wonder”, but seems to imply “awed wonder”, but seems to imply that religious people “revel in that religious people “revel in mystery and feel cheated when it is mystery and feel cheated when it is explained”. They don’t.explained”. They don’t.

3. A further derived sense of wonder 3. A further derived sense of wonder as the creation bears witness to its as the creation bears witness to its creator, “The heavens declare the creator, “The heavens declare the glory of the Lord!” (Psalm 19:1). For glory of the Lord!” (Psalm 19:1). For Christians, to experience the beauty Christians, to experience the beauty of creation is a sign or pointer to the of creation is a sign or pointer to the glory of God, and is to be particularly glory of God, and is to be particularly cherished for this reason. cherished for this reason.

Dawkins on mysteryDawkins on mystery

The impulses to awe, reverence The impulses to awe, reverence and wonder which led Blake to and wonder which led Blake to mysticism . . . are precisely those mysticism . . . are precisely those that lead others of us to science. that lead others of us to science. Our interpretation is different but Our interpretation is different but what excites us is the same.what excites us is the same.

Dawkins on mysteryDawkins on mystery

The mystic is content to bask in the The mystic is content to bask in the wonder and revel in a mystery wonder and revel in a mystery that we were not “meant” to that we were not “meant” to understand. The scientist feels understand. The scientist feels the same wonder, but is restless, the same wonder, but is restless, not content; recognizes the not content; recognizes the mystery as profound, then adds, mystery as profound, then adds, “But we’re working on it.”“But we’re working on it.”

Charles Gore on MysteryCharles Gore on Mystery

Human language never can express Human language never can express adequately divine realities. A constant adequately divine realities. A constant tendency to apologize for human tendency to apologize for human speech, a great element of agnosticism, speech, a great element of agnosticism, an awful sense of unfathomed depths an awful sense of unfathomed depths beyond the little that is made known, is beyond the little that is made known, is always present to the mind of always present to the mind of theologians who know what they are theologians who know what they are about, in conceiving or expressing Godabout, in conceiving or expressing God..

Charles Gore on MysteryCharles Gore on Mystery

‘‘We see’, says St Paul, ‘in a mirror, in We see’, says St Paul, ‘in a mirror, in terms of a riddle;’ ‘we know in part.’ terms of a riddle;’ ‘we know in part.’ ‘We are compelled,’ complains St ‘We are compelled,’ complains St Hilary, ‘to attempt what is unattainable, Hilary, ‘to attempt what is unattainable, to climb where we cannot reach, to to climb where we cannot reach, to speak what we cannot utter; instead of speak what we cannot utter; instead of the mere adoration of faith, we are the mere adoration of faith, we are compelled to entrust the deep things of compelled to entrust the deep things of religion to the perils of human religion to the perils of human expression’.expression’.

Religion is a bad thingReligion is a bad thing

Religion is a bad thingReligion is a bad thing

Now “science has no methods for Now “science has no methods for deciding what is ethical.” deciding what is ethical.” - - A Devil’s ChaplainA Devil’s Chaplain, 34., 34.

So how do we determine that religion So how do we determine that religion is “bad” is “bad” empiricallyempirically??

W. R. Miller and C. E. Thoreson. W. R. Miller and C. E. Thoreson. "Spirituality, Religion and Health: An "Spirituality, Religion and Health: An Emerging Research Field." Emerging Research Field." American American PsychologistPsychologist 58 (2003): 24-35. 58 (2003): 24-35.

A. J. Weaver, L. T. Flannelly, J. A. J. Weaver, L. T. Flannelly, J. Garbarino, C. R. Figley, and K. J. Garbarino, C. R. Figley, and K. J. Flannelly. “A Systematic Review of Flannelly. “A Systematic Review of Research on Religion and Spirituality Research on Religion and Spirituality in the in the Journal of Traumatic StressJournal of Traumatic Stress, , 1990-99.” 1990-99.” Mental Health, Religion and Mental Health, Religion and CultureCulture 6 (2003): 215-28. 6 (2003): 215-28.

A key review of the field:A key review of the field:

Harold G. Koenig and Harvey J. Cohen. Harold G. Koenig and Harvey J. Cohen. The Link between Religion and The Link between Religion and Health : Psychoneuroimmunology Health : Psychoneuroimmunology and the Faith Factorand the Faith Factor. Oxford: Oxford . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001 University Press, 2001

Of 100 evidence-based studies: Of 100 evidence-based studies:

79 reported at least one positive 79 reported at least one positive correlation between religious correlation between religious involvement and wellbeing;involvement and wellbeing;

13 found no meaningful association 13 found no meaningful association between religion and wellbeing;between religion and wellbeing;

7 found mixed or complex associations 7 found mixed or complex associations between religion and wellbeing;between religion and wellbeing;

1 found a negative association between 1 found a negative association between religion and wellbeing.religion and wellbeing.

For further reading, with full sourcing For further reading, with full sourcing and details of secondary studies, see and details of secondary studies, see Alister E. McGrath, Alister E. McGrath, Dawkins’ God: Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Genes, Memes and the Meaning of LifeLife. Blackwell Publishing, 2004.. Blackwell Publishing, 2004.

Documents

Has science eliminated God? Richard Dawkins and the meaning of life. Alister McGrath