University of Zanjan Philosophical Meditations 2228-5253 Articles in Press 2026 05 24 A Critique of Dawkins' amazing atheism A Critique of Dawkins' amazing atheism 735962 10.30470/phm.2025.2047030.2608 FA Abbas Ghorbani Assistant Professor, University of Tehran 0009-0004-8101-0696 Journal Article 2024 11 28 On one hand, the Darwinian biologist Richard Dawkins promotes atheism based on empirical science and adds natural selection as a third option to the creation-chance dichotomy. On the other hand, there are biologists who, despite accepting natural selection, believe in the existence of God and the option of creation. Thus, the question arises as to whether Dawkins is justified in denying the existence of God based on empirical science. In this research, the works of this scientist are reviewed using a library method and a descriptive-analytical approach, and it is concluded that Dawkins' claims are flawed in terms of validity due to his non-compliance with the rules governing research. In addition, he has confused the realm of empirical science and metaphysics, and his improbable argument based on materialism and God's complexity is ineffective. There is abundant parapsychological evidence and near-death experiences that point to the existence of an immaterial being, and metaphysical arguments for the existence of an immaterial, simple, and not complex, but rich and powerful God who designs and governs the universe. His cumulative process argument is also inadequate and, even if correct, is compatible with the existence of God, despite Dawkins' views. On one hand, the Darwinian biologist Richard Dawkins promotes atheism based on empirical science and adds natural selection as a third option to the creation-chance dichotomy. On the other hand, there are biologists who, despite accepting natural selection, believe in the existence of God and the option of creation. Thus, the question arises as to whether Dawkins is justified in denying the existence of God based on empirical science. In this research, the works of this scientist are reviewed using a library method and a descriptive-analytical approach, and it is concluded that Dawkins' claims are flawed in terms of validity due to his non-compliance with the rules governing research. In addition, he has confused the realm of empirical science and metaphysics, and his improbable argument based on materialism and God's complexity is ineffective. There is abundant parapsychological evidence and near-death experiences that point to the existence of an immaterial being, and metaphysical arguments for the existence of an immaterial, simple, and not complex, but rich and powerful God who designs and governs the universe. His cumulative process argument is also inadequate and, even if correct, is compatible with the existence of God, despite Dawkins' views.