Dear Dr. Dawkins,
I have been wanting to read your book “The God Delusion” for
several years. Having recently broken my
shoulder, I find time on my hands. In
the past two weeks, I have read 10 books, 2 Greek plays, a number of articles
in Time and Smithsonian magazines, and oh yes, some A. W. Tozer devotionals
online. I have also continued with my
habit of daily Bible reading.
I have wanted to read your book since meeting the father of
a young man who committed suicide after reading it. The young man’s college professor had ridiculed
his faith and suggested he read your book.
I have no idea why he allowed it to destroy him rather than discussing
the book with someone less likely to be devastated by your attacks. I did not know him and only met his father
briefly.
I thought after reading The
God Delusion, I would write one blog, but I have found so much to react to
in the first few chapters, that I realize I need to reign myself in or I will
be writing a book myself. Others, more
capable than I, have already written rebuttals, which I am sure you dismiss.
But….here are my thoughts.
Preface
“..to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave
and splendid one.” Why is it brave and
splendid? It can’t be so just because
you declare it to be so. Is it always
brave to stand up to opposition or are there some situations in which it is
just plain fool-hardy. Exactly what does
splendid mean? One of its synonyms is
glorious. Since you are a naturalist, I
hope you aren’t being inconsistent by suggesting something so exquisite that it
causes a feeling of transcendence.
“Imagine…a world with no religion.” You then list all sorts of negative things
produced by religion. This is only
justifiable if you also list all of the positive things produced by religion. I could find numerous examples of positive
social change brought about by “religious” groups, and of individuals who have
laid down their lives in the service of others.
I do not want to imagine a world completely without religion, although I
recognize that some awful things have been done in its name. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure
and faultless is this; to look after orphans and widows in their distress and
to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. James 1:27 (NIV)
“Far from pointing to a designer, the illusion of design in
the living world is explained with far greater economy and with devastating
elegance by Darwinian natural selection.”
You promise to explain this is chapter four. I have not read it yet, but I am wondering
how natural selection, which is sort of trial and error with fittest surviving,
can be more “economical” than directed design by someone intelligent who has
the blueprint.
“There is no such thing as a Christian child.” “…children are too young to know where they
stand on such issues.” WRONG!! I accepted Christ as my personal Savior at
the age of 7, quite apart from parental influence. My parents had only come to the understanding
of their need about 6 months before I did, and had never explained to me what
they had done. I did watch my Dad throw
out his cigarettes and pour all his beer down the toilet, but I didn’t know
why. I came to Christ because I
understood that I was powerless to be “good” on my own. I marched down the aisle at the end of a service
where the evangelist yelled and screamed and jumped on the front pew….all of
which was a huge turn-off to me at the time.
But, I knew if I went forward someone would explain to me one-on-one how
I could get rid of the weight of sin and its accompanying guilt which I already
understood was on my shoulders. It was not placed there by that
evangelist. I had been praying for weeks
before that in the quiet of my bed at night, that God would help me to find
Him. I have reassessed and repeated that commitment at a number of points in my
life, as I matured in my understanding.
But, don’t try to tell me that I didn’t know what I was doing on
November 2, 1952. It changed the whole
direction of my life.
In the preface, you equate religion with insanity. I suppose this makes those of us who practice
religion “insane,” and yet a very large percentage of us are fully functional,
productive people. This kind of name
calling is usually put forth by someone who knows his/her argument is
weak. It is not a fair method of debate.
Chapter 1
You quote Carl Sagan in a way that indicates that religious
people don’t have the same admiration for the wonders of the Universe that
scientists have. To which I say: The
Heavens declare the glory of God; and the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Psalm 19:1
When I consider your heavens the
work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what
is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? Psalm 8:3-4
I do agree with your definition of God, which you say is “the
way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that
is ‘appropriate for us to worship’.” At least, we go into this with one term
defined in the same way. To be fully
descriptive I would add some adjectives such as omnipotent and omniscient, but
that isn’t necessary at this point.
You accuse society of having an “overweening respect for
religion.” The illustration you cite is
that conscientious objector status is more easily achieved through religious
objection to war than by other means. I
wonder if you can support this claim with data.
One of my uncles was a conscientious objector in World War II. I never questioned my uncle about this, but
knowing that he was an admirer of humanist and pacifist Aldous Huxley, I doubt
that he pleaded religion to support his views.
He felt he could not carry a gun, and so he served on a hospital ship in
the Pacific. I would like to see
statistical support for your illustration.
Perhaps this has changed in the years since this book was written, but I
don’t see “overweening respect for religion” in today’s society.
I totally agree with you regarding the illustration of the
boy’s T-shirt as “hate speech.” It
should not be defended on either the grounds of free speech or freedom of
religion. It does not help a thing and
only leads to animosity.
You end chapter one talking about the deference which is
given to the Islamic religion. This is
not universal to all religions.
Christianity and Judaism are not currently receiving the same
deference. For some reason, it has
become politically incorrect to criticize Islam. I, therefore, object to you setting the rest
of the book in this context, since later you admit to taking on Christianity,
because it is the religion with which you are most familiar.
Chapter 2
And….do you ever take Christianity and Judaism on! This chapter begins with an absolute tirade
against the God of the Old Testament whom you say is “…arguably the most
unpleasant character in all fiction:
jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a
vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist,
infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal,
sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Wow!
I hope you feel better having that off your chest. This blog is getting too long, so I will
respond to that in the next one.
No comments:
Post a Comment