Response to The God Delusion-chapter 7

“Those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible have either not read it or not understood it…”

I am not the only person who scores very high on reading comprehension tests, has read the Bible multiple times, and thinks quite differently about it than Richard Dawkins. 

To illustrate his above statement, Dawkins has chosen some of the most difficult to understand Old Testament stories and retold them dripping with sarcasm and worded in the most inflammatory way possible, attempting to show that the God of the Old Testament was a horrible ethnic cleansing tyrant, who hated everyone except Jewish men.  He has passed over any of the stories that illustrate God’s compassion on anyone who comes to Him recognizing Him as the one true God.  There are many examples of this, and I have already cited the city of Nineveh in the story of Jonah.  Additional examples of this would be Rahab, a prostitute in the city of Jericho, and Ruth, a Moabite woman.  They were women, making them, according to Dawkins, loathed second class citizens.  They were foreigners, making them, according to Dawkins, hated by the Jews and by God Himself.  However, because they accepted Him and exhibited faith, they were accepted by God and even appear in the genealogy of Christ (a bit of inexplicable inclusion if Dawson’s viewpoint is believed).

Taking the Old Testament as a whole, rather than focusing on a handful of difficult stories, demonstrates an extraordinarily patient God who is giving man a chance to find Him by obedience to a specific code of rules and regulations.  Man is not successful in keeping these rules.  In the end, all they accomplish is to show man his need. Therefore, no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. Romans 3:20 Still, those who are found with faith, are recognized as children of God, in spite of their inability to keep the law.  Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.  Genesis 15:6

In the New Testament, which Dawkins claims is no better, we have a new approach.  Instead of keeping rigid rules, man is now given an ideal to follow through both Christ’s example and Christ’s directives.  An expert in the law, tested him with this question:  Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?  Jesus replied, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…the second is like it. “Love your neighbor as yourself.  Matthew 22:35-38 So now, we have the opportunity to know God through principles rather than procedures.

It is my contention that at the end of human history, we will have to accept that God has been totally fair with mankind.  He tried giving us a means of finding Him through rigid laws to be followed, and He gave us the opportunity to come to Him through a couple of basic ideals.  We haven’t managed it either way.  The only thing that bridges the gap between us and God is faith in the atonement of Christ.

Atonement is an impossible concept for Dawkins.  Not only does he not accept the existence of God, but he doesn’t accept the notion of sin and that it separates us from God.  He sees the sacrificial death of Christ as an exercise in sadomasochism. To Dawkins it is “vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent…barking mad, but for its ubiquitous familiarity which has dulled our objectivity.”  Of course, as Paul put it, …the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing…I Corinthians 1:18

Dawkins attempts to prove that even the New Testament intended salvation only for the Jews, and that “Jesus limited his in-group of the saved strictly to Jews.”  Ah…not so.

Matthew 8:5-13 tells the story of a Roman centurion who seeks Christ’s help to heal one of his servants.  Their conversation results in Christ saying, …I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.  I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.  But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness….”  This sounds suspiciously like being a Jew isn’t adequate, and that those of faith from around the world will displace some who are Jews by birth who are without faith. 

Another story in the New Testament which makes it clear that Christ’s message of salvation is not for the Jews only is found in Acts 10.  Cornelius, a centurion of the Italian Regiment who is described as devout and God-fearing, sent for Peter.  Before the servants of Cornelius arrive at Peter’s home, Peter has a vision in which he is told not to call anything unclean which God has made clean. (v. 15) He is told not to hesitate to go with the men who will come to him with a message.  He goes to the home of Cornelius and finds a large gathering of Gentiles wanting to hear the message of salvation through Christ.  He says to them, You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him.  But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.  I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism, but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.  Acts 10: 28 and 34

This stands in direct contradiction to this quote from Dawkins, “It was Paul who invented the idea of taking the Jewish God to the Gentiles. Hartung puts it more bluntly than I dare: ‘Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs.’”

So…

1.        Christ Himself took his message to Gentiles

2.       It was Peter, not Paul, who first had the insight that the gospel was for the Gentiles also.

3.       Jesus isn’t in His grave to turn over.  (My opinion vs Dawkins and Hartung, of course)

Apparently it is frequently pointed out to Dawkins that Hitler and Stalin were atheists and committed terrible atrocities.  He acknowledges that Stalin was an atheist, but says there is no evidence that it was the cause of his brutality.  He notes there is some question in Hitler’s case.  Hitler claimed to be Catholic, although no one is sure whether this was just a matter of convenience for him.  So…let’s grant him that Stalin’s and Hitler’s behaviors may not have been related to atheism.  Let’s talk instead about regimes that are openly atheistic and oppressive of religion.  It is characteristic of these regimes to be brutal and to impoverish large percentages of their populations. E.g. a number of countries during the era of the Soviet Union, China and North Korea.  Perhaps, he would argue that in these countries atheism amounts to a religion and that any nation which doesn’t allow freedom of religion (i.e. imposes a state religion) has an excellent change of being oppressive.  This may well be true.  But, I certainly have no desire to live in North Korea in particular, and I bet he doesn’t either.

His concluding comment in this chapter is “why would anyone go to war for the sake of an absence of belief?”  There is a sense in which he himself has figuratively “gone to war” by writing this book.  As to actual war, I hope we never have to take on China or North Korea or a resurrection of one of the Soviet states.  They would not be going to war strictly for an absence of belief, but their atheism would certainly be a contributing factor to the underlying philosophy that caused aggression.

Response to The God Delusion-chapter 6

In discussing the roots or morality and how goodness can come about without religion, Dawkins begins by pointing out how awful religious people can be.  He quotes letters sent by supposed Christians to atheists.  As a Christian, I apologize to Dawkins and his allies for this nastiness.  Now mind you, Dawkins has said some plenty nasty things himself….even in this book, he has referred to God as a “psychotic delinquent,”   That does not, however, excuse foul and abusive language coming from those opposing his atheistic view.

Dawkins argues that religion is not necessary for humans to have a sense of morality.  I actually don’t disagree with this.  However, I believe that our moral sense comes from God, the Creator, whether or not we are particularly religious.  When the Bible says we are created in the image of God, I believe it means that we have a number of things that make us different from the rest of God’s created beings.  We have free will, we have creativity, and we have a conscience which give us moral insights.

Dawkins says that moral behavior can come about without God through the Darwinian pillars of care for kin and reciprocal altruism, with secondary factors such as reputation and the advantages gained by conspicuous generosity also playing a role.  He suggests that the kindness of one person to another is a sort of “mis-firing” or “mistake.”  In ancestral times, when men lived in “small and stable bands,” looking out for those around them would have been advantageous, because these individuals were genetically related.  Our urge to kindness/altruism now is a left over remnant from that time.  Hence, we are kind to those around us even though their survival doesn’t promote the survival of our own genes.

The results of a number of studies seem to point to the notion that atheists are just as moral as are the religious.  I suspect this is entirely possible.  “The main conclusion of Hauser and Singer’s study was that there is no statistically significant difference between atheists and religious believers in making these judgements. (sic)  This seems compatible with the view…that we do not need God in order to be good …or evil.”  The problem with reaching this conclusion is that I expect they have not accounted for the general influence of Christian values present in society or the possibility of at least some of these atheists having had their values influenced by Christian parents.

One of my main problems with this chapter is that Dawkins seems to believe that the way in which Christians are influenced to be good by religion is through fear. (i.e. The notion that God is watching and He is going to punish us for bad deeds.)  I guess that idea is prevalent in some religious sects.  However, my personal belief is that most of us cannot achieve our own standard of goodness…to say nothing about God’s standard.  I reached that conclusion even as a child.  I knew that I didn’t obey my mother, that I told lies, and that I was not always kind to my little brother.  I disliked these thing about myself.  I never thought about God raining down punishment on me.  I wanted His help to be “good.”  I tried to do it on my own, and I just couldn’t manage it.  Maybe I was innately a worse person than most, although I seriously doubt that. (I actually had a grandmother who thought I was perfect.  Ha!)  When I in absolutely childish faith asked Jesus to “come into my heart,” I was looking for help in living, not an escape from hell after death.

Dawkins does in the conclusion of this chapter comment, “…it is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones.”  He, of course, doesn’t believe morals have to be absolute.  I believe there are moral absolutes…however, let’s be clear that not every rule thought up by a religious group rises to the standard of being a moral absolute!

Response to The God Delusion-Chapter 5

This chapter contains so much foolishness that it is hard to know where to begin.  Dawkins is by this point in the book assuming that any reasonable person is convinced of Natural Selection.  Therefore, he must find a reason for religion that is consistent with the principles of Natural Selection.  i.e. “Knowing that we are products of Darwinian evolution, we should ask what pressure or pressures exerted by natural selection originally favoured the impulse to religion.” 

He goes into a description of “anting” in birds.  No one has come up with a verifiable reason why it is advantageous to spread ants on their feathers, but they do it, so it must be advantageous or it wouldn’t have come about by Natural Selection.  Religion is apparently just the same.

The possible reasons he sees for religion are that people are being manipulated by a parasite and it is to the advantage of the parasite, it is of group (though not individual) benefit, it has no genetic benefit but a benefit that mimics genetic benefit.  Also, religion may be similar to the placebo effect.

He gives a preposterous illustration of “good” soldiers marching in front of an on-coming train because their drill sergeant was distracted and forgot to say ‘halt.’  He claims good believers will do the same.  I beg your pardon!  I expect that many soldiers would not march in front of a moving train.  If I was the head of the line, I wouldn’t.  I would feel a sense of responsibility for those following me. I might be willing to march to my death, but not for no apparent reason!  I was once caught outside by some Mormons canvasing our neighborhood.  There was no escaping them as my husband and I were out working on a clubhouse for our kids.  After they talked a long time, they informed me that I wasn’t “very teachable.”  I replied, “I do not go into my own church and swallow whole everything I hear.  Why would I accept everything you are saying?”  We are not all gullible.

Religion may, of course, be due to something else….like a misfiring in the brain.  Huh?  It would seem that a flaw such a misfiring of the brain in so many people would have by this time in human history been eliminated by Natural Selection, even without the help of Dawkins.

In something I see as totally inconsistent with his earlier contention that children don’t know where they stand on such issues, he then talks at length about monism vs dualism, and declares that children are innately dualistic.  That is, they believe in both mind and matter, and that they are distinct from one another.  The monist believes that “mind is a manifestation of matter.”  “….children are even more likely to be dualists than adults are…..This suggests that a tendency to dualism is built into the brain….and provides a natural predisposition to embrace religion.”  Again, it seems strange that he would put such an argument forth.  If religion is bad, why hasn’t Natural Selection eliminated this tendency in the brain, which after all, in the view of the naturalist, is merely an extension of matter?  Interestingly, Christ Himself said, I tell you the truth anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it. Luke 18:17

Dawkins spends considerable time discussing memes and how they are passed on.  Eventually he gets to his point that religion may contain memes which have survival value.  Religion may survive, because people are indoctrinated with these meme which themselves have survival value.  One of these which he cites is, “There are some weird things…that we are not meant to understand.  Don’t even try to understand one of these, for the attempt might destroy it.  Learn to gain fulfilment in calling it a mystery.”  I certainly believe there are things we as finite beings are unable to understand, but the notion that the attempt to understand them will destroy them is ludicrous.  Truth cannot be destroyed by our feeble attempts to understand it.  It may remain a mystery to us, but we won’t destroy it…..we won’t even destroy our appreciation for it, which may even be enhanced by its elusiveness.

One of the problems with this whole chapter is that it focuses on “religion.”  As a Christian I am not interested in “religion.”  What I am interested in is a “relationship” with God that is made possible through the sacrifice of Christ.  And yes, that is a mystery!  I have spent my life exploring it, asking questions about it, seeking truth.  I don’t fully understand it, but I delight in it.  The Almighty Creator of the universe loves me!  He also loves Richard Dawkins, who hasn’t figured it out yet.

Response to The God Delusion-chapter 4

I was actually looking forward to Chapter four, because Dawkins kept promising that he would show the economy of Natural Selection and that it was not a matter of luck.  I took economy to mean that it was efficient and conserved effort.  Not being a “matter of luck,” I assumed avoided randomness.  I was disappointed.  If the word economy even occurred in chapter four, I missed it.  Certainly, it did not comprise a major part of the discussion.

Dawkins claims to annihilate the concept of Irreducible Complexity in this chapter.  I am not going to attempt to refute this (although I do tend to believe in Irreducible Complexity), because the amount of information he gives is not sufficient for me to be sure of my argument.  I am not criticizing him for this, because to have given a thorough explanation would be beyond the scope of the book.  I have not read the papers he says support his viewpoint.  He is totally within his rights leaving out more detail.  I have done the same in saying that I can’t deal with everything in this blog….in my response to the last chapter, I skipped over his criticism of the scriptures as contradictory and mythological.

I do have some overarching criticisms of this chapter, however.

1.        Why Natural Selection represents economy is never explained.  He does spend a lot of time on why it is consciousness raising, that being a pretty vague concept.  I wonder if he will later in the book get around to explaining the origin of consciousness from a purely naturalistic perspective.

2.       He describes Design by a Creator as leaping from the base of a mountain to the top, while Natural Selection inches up the backside of the mountain step by step.  Since Natural Selection is not a conscious entity, how does it know enough to advance step by step?  Why doesn’t it go in endless circles around the mountain or sit at the bottom making a campfire?  If it is advancing, then every single baby-step has to be advantageous in some way, or the whole notion breaks down.

3.       He never explains why the next step isn’t random or luck of the draw.  Decades ago, I read an article in the Smithsonian, which always espouses an evolutionary viewpoint.  In the article (which I think was about pine cones) the author made reference to the design being directed by Mother Nature.  I chuckled to myself.   Huh?  Anthropomorphizing Mother Nature?  How did that get by the editors?  The author must have subconsciously been thinking that the “evolution” of the pine cone wasn’t random.  Someone was in charge.  Couldn’t be God, so it must be Mother Nature.

4.       While many very complex goals can be achieved by taking one small step at a time, others cannot.  Somewhere along the way there is an impossible step.  For example, given enough time I could walk from my home in upstate New York to New York City, but I could not walk to London, England, no matter how much time I had.  I cannot walk on water….well, short of a miracle occurring.  Breaking things down into very small increments doesn’t always achieve the goal.

5.       He criticizes those who believe in Creation for believing in a God of the gaps.  But he does essentially the same thing with the Anthropic Principle.  If Natural Selection can’t explain some very improbable occurrence, then he throws the Anthropic Principle at it.  Yes…it is unlikely, but we are here, so it must have happened!

6.       He says that if there was a Creator, He would have to be very complex.  I totally agree with that.  However, he seems to believe himself and to think that theologians believe that the “first cause” must be simple.  There may be some theologians who believe that, but certainly not all. 

“To suggest that the original prime mover was complicated enough to indulge in intelligent design, to say nothing of mindreading millions of humans simultaneously, is tantamount to dealing yourself a perfect hand at bridge.”

Exactly!  Dawkins wants us to believe that the unlikely is possible through the Anthropic Principle (we are here so it must have happened), but not believe the unlikeliness of a complex, infinite, omniscient and omnipotent creator.  Believing either looks a lot like FAITH to me.

Dawkins raises the “who designed the Designer?” argument.  Of course, he doesn’t believe what the Bible says, so this won’t convince him, but it is an explanation of why those of us who believe the Bible aren’t concerned with this argument.  God is eternally existent.  Can we really comprehend that?  No…the human mind cannot really wrap itself around either infinity or eternity.  As previously stated, we are stuck in one-dimensional, one-directional time.  But God says that His name is “I Am.”  (Exodus 3:13-14).  No other explanation is needed.  I picture him roaring “I Am!”

By the way, Dawkins can feel free to ask me the questions, he claims aren’t asked in polite society.

Do I believe in miracles?  Yes

Do I believe in the virgin birth?  Yes

Do I believe in the resurrection?  Yes

He claims, regarding educated loyal Christians, that answering these questions, “embarrasses them because their rational minds know it is absurd, so they would much rather not be asked.”

I am educated.  The vast majority of people who know me would say that I am rational.  I am not embarrassed.  I am just willing to admit that there are things that my mind is incapable of comprehending.  Miracles, the virgin birth and the resurrection are not absurd.  They are beyond the capacity of my mind.

I know that Richard Dawkins as a naturalist cannot accept anything that cannot be comprehended with the human mind.

But…

As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:9

Response to The God Delusion-chapter 3

One of Dawkins first assertions in Chapter 3 involves the belief that God is omniscient and omnipotent.  “..it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible.  If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence.  But that means he can’t change his mind about this intervention, which means, he is not omnipotent.”  This is ignorant of the very nature of God.  He exists outside of time…He encompasses time, so the cute little poem Dawkins then quotes about the future is irrelevant.  We humans are stuck in one dimensional time that only travels in one direction, although the possibility of multiple dimensions of time has been discussed.  God does not share our limitations.

Dawkins dismisses the notion that the need for absolutes is a proof of God’s existence.  He doesn’t use the word absolutes.  He talks about a standard for perfection.  He ridiculously says that if this is so, then “there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God.” However, the absolute standards that are attributed to God are not related to physical qualities, such as odor.  He is the standard for love, goodness, truth and the like.

He tries to shoot holes in the notion that if man can think it, it must exist.  So, since we can think of God, He must be there.  I don’t mind the holes shot in that, as long as they also go through his idea from the last chapter that somewhere there are aliens with such advanced technology that we would view it as almost supernatural.  Just because he can think it, doesn’t make it so.

The Argument from Personal Experience—Dawkins completely ignores the most relevant aspect of this.  He focuses totally on seeing visions and hearing voices, which the vast majority of people of faith do not claim.  The real argument from personal experience should be the evidence of a changed life, which is overwhelmingly experienced as a result of faith.  Last week, I read the book “Unbroken” which is the biography of Louis Zamperini.  I have not seen the movie that came out recently, but I have read that it stops short of the time when Zamperini went to a Billy Graham crusade. Zamperini came back from his experience as a POW with PTSD.  He was alcoholic and experienced nightmares and flashbacks.  His marriage was barely holding together.  At the Billy Graham crusade, he accepted Christ as his personal Savior.  He went home and threw out his alcohol and cigarettes.  The biography says he never again experienced a flashback or nightmare about those horrible experiences he had had.  That is the personal experience of a changed life, because one has met the living God.  I’m sorry that Dawkins has never had this experience, but it doesn’t mean that it and the God who brings it about don’t exist.

The Argument from Scripture---It would take an entire book to deal with the claims Dawkins makes in these few pages.  I will just say that I have read the Bible from cover to cover numerous times, and do not see the inconsistencies he tries to assert are present.  However, I totally accept that the Bible can’t be used to prove God’s existence, if you don’t believe it to start with.

The Argument from Admired Religious Scientists---at least he admits that there are some and names some of them.  However, he then says that they are a minority in scientific societies.  This should not be surprising.  If a person makes his beliefs known, he is probably less likely to me elected to such a society.  As to the study of Mensa members purporting to show an inverse correlation between IQ and religious faith, I doubt that people of religious faith are inclined to join Mensa.  Having consistently scored in the 98^th and 99^th percentiles on various tests in high school and college, I considered joining Mensa about 40 years ago.  In the end, I couldn’t see any reason to do it other than to have something about which to gloat.  This is not compatible with my faith, so I never applied.  I expect this is a common attitude among believers.  Dawkins takes a little swipe at Wheaton College in this chapter.  Shortly after I graduated, so it was probably in the 1970s, I saw an article in Time magazine that said Wheaton had more valedictorians and National Merit Scholars as a percentage of the student body than any of the Ivy League schools.  Intelligence and belief are not mutually exclusive.  I suppose it would drive Dawkins wild as a naturalist, that when I took my Graduate Record Exams in 1968, I scored off the top of scale on the Natural Sciences portion of the test….that was over 99^th percentile even on the boy’s scale…AND…I was and am a believer in God.

Pascal’s Wager—Dawkins believes that Blaise Pascal’s argument that you stand to lose an awful lot if you don’t believe and turn out to be wrong, so play the odds and believe, is strange. He says “believing is not something you can decide to do as a matter of policy.”  Tellingly, he then says, “at least, it is not something I can decide to do as an act of the will.”  But of course, that is the whole point.  Accepting Christ as a personal Savior is exactly an act of the will.  It is a decision….and God does know if it is genuine or empty words said thinking that one can avoid hell fires.  Dawkins asks, “Why…do we so readily accept the idea that the one thing you must do if you want to please God is believe in him?  What’s so special about believing?”  Well, of course, for those of us who believe the Bible, that is what it says we must do….if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.  Romans 10:9-10

Dawkins thinks God would value honest skepticism over dishonest belief.  I don’t think either of those is going to cut it.  God is looking for a sincere heart.  In dismissing Pascal’s argument, he fails to mention some other things Pascal said:

“There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus.”

 “Faith is different from proof; the latter is human, the former is a Gift from God.”

“There are only two kinds of men: the righteous who think they are sinners and the sinners who think they are righteous.”

Too bad Blaise Pascal isn’t around to debate with Richard Dawkins…..although in truth, no one is argued into belief.  It actually is by an act of the will.

Near the end of this chapter, Dawkins disparages faith.  “I have challenged religious but otherwise intelligent scientists to justify their belief, given their admission that there is no evidence; ‘I admit that there’s no evidence.  There’s a reason why it’s called faith’ (this last sentence uttered with almost truculent conviction, and no hint of apology or defensiveness).”

That’s right…no apology.  Now faith means putting full confidence in the things we hope for; it means being certain of things we cannot see….and it is after all only by faith that our minds accept as fact that the whole scheme of time and space was created by God’s command…that the world which we can see has come into being through principles which are invisible. Hebrews 11:1-3 (New Testament in Modern English, Phillips translation)

Richard Dawkins finds this revolting, insane, unscientific foolishness, but there you have it, in the Bible thousands of years before Dawkins was around to argue about it.

I’m so sorry, Richard.  I wish you could see it.  I wish you could find it in yourself to make a conscious decision to believe.

But as Blaise Pascal also said….

“In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't.”

Response to The God Delusion-chapter 2

Dawkins begins the second chapter of “The God Delusion" with this statement.  “The God of the Old Testament 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.”

If I were to respond to every one of these terms, I would have no room for comments on the remainder of the chapter, so let me just hit a few:

“character in all fiction”  Dawkins has not yet proved that God is fictional.  He expects to do that eventually in this book, but this tirade near the beginning assumes it before “proven.”

“jealous and proud of it”  If there really is a God who is the creator and sustainer of everything in the Universe, if He really understands all of it, and operates outside of time so that He see the beginning and the end, He has every right to insist that we honor and reverence Him.  In fact, it is to our benefit to do so.  I remember saying to one of my daughters once, “I am going to win this argument, because it is in your best interests for me to do so.”  This was not motivated by unreasonable demands and arrogance on my part, but on my knowledge that I did actually know what was best for her in this particular circumstance.  If God is God, He does know best and has the right to expect us to yield to Him.

As to all those terms that involve killing of various people….such activities were one reason that God wanted His people to be separate from neighboring tribes and religions who did, for example, practice infanticide.  They have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent.  They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal….something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. Jeremiah 19:4-5

“unjust, unforgiving control freak”  Perhaps Dawkins is unfamiliar with the book of Jonah.  Jonah is sent to prophesy against Nineveh, but the city actually repents, so God forgives and does not destroy it.  This makes Jonah angry.  I guess he thinks it makes him seem foolish, because the destruction he prophesied will not now happen.  Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry….is this not what I said when I was still at home?  I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.   …the Lord said…Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left….should I not be concerned about that great city?  God has always been compassionate on those who repent.  He has at various times dealt a severe blow against those who do not.

Dawkins attempts to categorize Christianity as a polytheistic religion because of the concept of the trinity.  He insists on seeing this as three separate Gods.  Those who believe in the trinity see this as one God who manifests Himself in three different ways.  He never really addresses this explanation of the trinity, but goes on about the saints in Catholicism, seeing these as additional proof of the polytheistic nature of Christianity.  Although I am not Catholic and do not pray to saints, I resent the nasty little bit of sarcasm he employs in this discussion.  Sarcasm is another sign that one’s argument is weak and must be bolstered by nasty jabs.

“I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.”  Good….now we know exactly where he stands.

In his section on Monotheism, Dawkins quotes Gore Vidal….”God is the Omnipotent Father…hence the loathing of women for 2000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly males delegates.”  This is a great misinterpretation of Christianity which clearly puts men and women on equal footing before God.  Individuals or sects may have difficulty dealing with this, but Christ had female disciples and appeared to women first after the resurrection.  Christianity does not support loathing of women.

Dawkins states the Christianity was founded by Paul.  I don’t know of anyone within Christianity who would adhere to this view.  There may be some within Catholicism who believe it was founded by Peter.  Some may say it was founded by the disciples in general.  I would argue it was founded by Christ Himself.  Following His resurrection (which Dawkins, of course, doesn’t believe in), Christ said to his disciples, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.  And surely, I am with you always to the very end of the age. Matthew 28:18-20 This is the establishment of the Christian church and its purpose.

In his discussion of Deism, Dawkins refers to God as a psychotic delinquent.  Once again….name calling is a sign of a weak argument.

Chapter 2 does contain a totally reasonable explanation of the spectrum of belief to unbelief with agnosticism in the middle.  This is a good analysis.

In his discussion of agnosticism, he relates the thoughts of a friend who “regards God as no more probable than the tooth fairy.  You can’t disprove either hypothesis, and both are equally improbable.”  Seriously?  We all know the tooth fairy doesn’t actually exist, and we can come as close to proving it as any other scientific fact.  We all know who the tooth fairy really is.  We can’t definitely prove that no tooth fairy exists anywhere, but we can prove innumerable cases where the tooth is slid out from under the pillow by a parent and a coin put in its place.  Given hundreds of thousands of such incidents, it is as safe to say there is no tooth fairy as it is to say the earth revolves around the sun.  Making God analogous to the tooth fairy just doesn’t fly.

“What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn’t) but whether his existence is probable.”  Dawkins expects to make him improbable later in the book.  I don’t’ expect him to be successful.

“…a universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without.”  I agree.  I believe in a creative superintendent!

Now Dawkins gets nasty regarding theologians.  He criticizes his fellow scientists (some whom he names are even atheists) who are willing to let theologians weigh in on God’s existence.  “What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot?  Why are scientists so cravenly respectful towards the ambitions of theologians, over questions that theologians are certainly no more qualified to answer than scientists themselves?  Unlike my astronomer friends, I don’t think we should even throw them a sop.”  Dawkins seems to like to criticize others for “overweening arrogance,” but I’m afraid that in this, he exhibits it himself.  He does not want to believe that fellow evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould meant what he said in his book Rock of Ages.  I wonder if it is okay if we don’t believe what Dawkins is saying in The God Delusion.

Chapter 2 also contains a discussion of a “prayer experiment.”  He points out that the results did not show any impact from prayer, so those who believe in prayer are quick to point out the flaws of such a study.  If there had been a positive correlation, he believes many religious groups would be trumpeting the results.  He is probably….and sadly…right about this.  However, I am sure that there were those who understand the genuine nature of prayer, who would have questioned the study from the outset.  Christ Himself tells us that it is not appropriate to put God to the test.  God is not a monkey who performs acts at our bidding.  The purpose of prayer is to conform our mind and will to the mind and will of God.  Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.  Matthew 6:10

And then, he says, apparently with a straight face, “Whether we ever get to know about them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine.  Their technical achievements would seem as supernatural to us as ours would seem to a Dark Age peasant transported to the twenty-first century.”  Oh, dear, Dr. Dawkins….this is not science.  How can you be so sure of this and at the same time so sure there isn’t an actual God lurking out there.  It would be laughable, if it wasn’t sad.

Response to The God Delusion--Preface & Chaper 1

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.