In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins challenges what he calls the argument for God from Experience. People claim to see signs or hear voices from God or other celestial beings. While Dawkins uses the broad term experience, it is plain in his discussion that Dawkins is arguing against the narrower topic of miraculous signs or experiences. Dawkins is completely unimpressed with stories of miraculous signs or experiences.

Dawkins points out that some people claim to see pink elephants. Some people believe they are Napoleon or Charlie Chaplin. The Yorkshire Ripper heard the voice of Jesus telling him to kill women. When a few people hear voices or see visions, we call them insane. When a large group of people claim to hear voices or see visions, we call them religious. Dawkins believes that they both share irrationality.

Dawkins devotes a great deal of time to optical illusions. He believes that the human brain possesses “first-class simulation software” that creates these illusions (Dawkins 88). He describes a mask in his home. When the mask rotates, it appears to eat itself. If everyone understood psychology the way Dawkins does, they would realize that the visions they saw were simply optical illusions. People who interpret optical illusions as religious visions are simply gullible.

I first note that miraculous signs and visions are not the first line of argument pursued by Christian apologists. C. S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, Dinesh D’Souza and William Lane Craig do not regularly present contemporary eyewitnesses who believe they have seen or heard God.

That being said, the vacuous nature of Dawkins arguments become quickly apparent. The thing that separates the insane from the religious vision is not the frequent occurrence of the latter. The religious vision is one that is consistent with a comprehensible moral system. The insane vision is not. For example, a Christian religious vision is one that would conform to the moral system set forth in the Bible.

Dawkins inadvertently makes this point. Dawkins does not believe that God told the Yorkshire Ripper to kill women. Christians heartily agree. Why? The command the murderer received is inconsistent with the moral teachings of the Gospel.

Insane people hear voices that instruct them to kill their parents or their children. Believers hear voices instructing them to become ministers or open orphanages in Africa. There are non-believers who have aesthetic or philosophical objections to the latter. But only a very silly or dogmatic person could fail to distinguish the difference.

Occasionally insane people imagine they hear the voices of religious personalities. This does not make their visions religious. We know that Jesus did not tell the Yorkshire Ripper to kill women because the message was inconsistent with the teachings of the Nazarene. We can go to the Bible and quote passages that condemn the actions of the murderer. Notice that this argument does not depend on your belief in God. Both the Atheist and the Christian can agree that the Gospels condemn the murder of women. This is not a matter of faith. It is simply a matter of understanding the text.

Jody Foster may visit me in my dreams and instruct me to kill the President. If the assassin succeeds, the American people can hardly seek redress against Foster.

It is difficult to comprehend what Napoleon and Charlie Chaplin have to do with Dawkins’s argument. Dawkins has constructed an argument designed to challenge the testimony of Christians who claim to have seen or heard God. Is Dawkins also constructing an argument to challenge those who claim to be Moses? Dawkins is so anxious to associate religious people with insanity that he interjects random forms of insanity into his argument.

Dawkins’s discussion of optical and audial illusions is interesting. But it leaves us asking who is gullible. Dawkins is aware that optical and audial illusions exist. Of course, everyone you have ever met believes the same thing. People who have never seen angels believe their eyes can play tricks on them. People who claim to have seen angels agree. Possessing the same information about optical illusions as unbelievers, they still feel that they had a genuine experience with an angel.

Dawkins describes occasions when he thought he heard a voice or saw a vision. He explains how further investigation revealed that these were caused by natural phenomenon such as the wind blowing through a keyhole or a trick of the light. He then jumps to the fantastic conclusion that all voices or visions are the result of natural phenomenon.

Dawkins projects his childhood experiences upon all experiences of all people. There is no philosophical or scientific basis to suggest anything of the sort. On the contrary, historical evidence would suggest that people frequently have very different experiences.

I have never seen an angel. I would not give uncritical credence to someone who said that they had. But the proper response to such a conversation ought to be intellectual curiosity rather than dismissal.  Dawkins’s discussion on optical and audial illusions shines no new light on the subject.

There is one startling feature to Dawkins’s argument I have yet to mention. Dawkins is a scientist. Science is dependent on evidence. Everything we know about evidence we learn from our senses. Dawkins’s entire argument against miracles is that you cannot trust your senses. How then can he trust science?

Dawkins loves evidence: as long as the evidence supports his faith in Naturalism. I admire his faith. If only he had a greater commitment to evidence.