Response to The God Delusion-chapter 10

The God Delusion concludes with a discussion of whether we “need” God for anything.  “Does religion fill a much needed gap?  It is often said that there is a God-shaped gap in the brain which needs to be filled…”

 If Dawkins is trying to quote Blaise Pascal, he hasn’t quite got it right.  “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.”  Vacuum…not gap, heart…not mind, and not just any God.

Dawkins does allow for four possible roles for religion:  explanation, exhortation, consolation and inspiration.  He believes he has already eliminated looking to religion for any explanation….that is the purpose of science.  Exhortation is out, because he doesn’t see religion as a proper source of morality.  That leaves consolation and inspiration to be explained away in this final chapter

So, God may be comforting, but he isn’t really anything more than an imaginary friend.  Two of my children had vivid imaginations and well-developed imaginary friends.  Neither of them seemed to use these friends as a form of comfort.  My daughter had one friend on whom she projected all of the naughty things she might have liked to do herself, but refrained from as her “Jinny Johnny Monee” did these for her.  Her second friend “Jennifer-in-the Mirror” was more a rival.  Looking in the mirror on the car visor, she was disgusted that Jennifer had a knit hat exactly like the one her aunt had knit for her.  Neither of these friends would qualify as “a good model for understanding theistic belief in adults,” which is Dawkins claim regarding imaginary friends.  My son had several friends who were off having adventures in a strange land he made up.  He also talked to his stuffed animals, but they were not for comfort to him.  He referred to them as his “sons” and took care to read to them, and try to protect them from such things as airport security machines.  Again, this did not parallel a relationship with a deity.

Dawkins doesn’t think that those who say they believe in the after-life really do.  He quotes a nurse as saying that, having seen many deaths,”the individuals who are most afraid of death are the religious ones.”  It is convenient for his argument that he can quote this particular nurse, but I am also a nurse, and I do not agree with that statement.  He asks why believers don’t look forward to death.  The answer is that some do.  Many people are not in a state in which they are able to talk about their impending death.  People of faith, who I have known and who have been coherent and verbal prior to death, have talked about it. 

A few days before her death, my mother-in-law cried out asking for me to help her.  I asked her if she was in pain, and she answered, “I don’t know.”  I asked what I could do for her, and she responded, “I don’t know.”  I then said, “Mom, do you just want to go see Jesus.”  She cried and said, “Yes, oh yes.”  A bit later, while my husband and I sat holding her hands, she said, “This is a sad time for everyone.”  I said, “I hope it isn’t too sad for you, Mom.”  She laughed out loud, “Oh, No!  I’m going to be better off than the rest of you!”  She also told my father-in-law very firmly that she was leaving “to go be with the Lord.”  She exhibited no fear and no difficulty in talking about her impending death.

Dawkins lastly turns to inspiration and whether God is needed for it.  He, of course, doesn’t believe so.  He talks about all the trillions of people who could have existed, but don’t, so we are “staggeringly lucky to find ourselves in the spotlight.  However, brief our time in the sun, if we waste a second of it, or complain that it is dull…couldn’t this be seen as a callous insult to those unborn trillions who will never be offered life in the first place?”  

Now wait just a minute here, a few pages back he is talking about life pretty cheaply.  It is perfectly alright to abort a fetus, who will never know the difference.  Death is no problem because we weren’t conscious before birth, so why should that be a problem after death. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the logic in now talking with grandiose sentimentality about callously insulting unborn trillions…who, of course, never existed, aren’t conscious, can’t feel pain, and don’t know they are being insulted.  It is apparently okay to get all sentimental about the “unborn” when it is convenient to the point he wants to make.

He likens man’s ability to understand what is around him to looking through the small slit of a burka.  We can only “see” a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum with our eyes.  We are aware of additional portions of it by using instruments.  “Our imaginations are not yet tooled-up to penetrate the neighbourhood of the quantum.  Nothing at that scale behaves in the way matter—as we are evolved to think—ought to behave…..Common sense lets us down, because common sense evolved in a world where nothing moves very fast, and nothing is very small or very large.”  And later, “the assumptions that quantum theory needs to make…are so mysterious that even the great Feynman himself was moved to remark…’If you think you understand quantum theory…you don’t understand quantum theory.”

So…we are supposed to accept science, which defies common sense and can’t be understood because our range of sight as humans is limited, but we can also be certain (as he has declared in chapter 4) that there is NO GOD?????

In a world where nothing moves, very fast, and nothing is very small or very large, there is a God who encompasses all of it.  He does not need to be fast, because he is omnipresent.  He permeates the very small and even the very large moves within Him.  Does it defy common sense….maybe.  Is it explainable through science….probably not, but then currently neither is quantum theory.

Dawkins ends with “….we may eventually discover that there are no limits.”  I wish he would discover the One who has no limits.

Then the Lord answered Job out of the storm.  He said, “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?  Brace yourself like a man; I will question you and you shall answer me.  Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.  Who marked off its dimensions?  Surely you know!  Who stretched a measuring line across it?  On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone, while the morning stars sang together and the angels shouted for joy!”

After four chapters (Job 38-41) of such questions, Job wisely responds, “Surely, I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. I repent in dust and ashes.”

I am not opposed to science and looking for answers. (I actually have an undergraduate degree in chemistry.)  But, there are limits to the human mind….Dawkins himself has admitted that. 

I would hope that no one would lose his/her faith or wallow in despair after reading this book.  It contains way too much misinformation and faulty reasoning to be taken seriously.

Response to The God Delusion-chapter 9

Are there seriously people out there, besides, Dawkins, who believe that indoctrinating a child in a religion is worse than sexual abuse?  We are not talking about radical Islam here.  “….horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.”  I am forcing myself to read the rest of this book.  I am not Catholic, but I find this statement by Dawkins so offensive that I would put The God Delusion in the trash….but for the fact that the copy I’m reading was borrowed from the library, and that I set my mind to reading the entire book as an exercise in intellectual honesty.

Dawkins suggests “…that the extreme horribleness of hell, as portrayed by priests and nuns, is inflated to compensate for its implausibility.  If hell were plausible, it would only have to be moderately unpleasant in order to deter.  Given that it is so unlikely to be true, it has to be advertised as very very scary indeed, to balance its implausibility and retain some deterrence value.”  I’m not sure I follow the logic here.  Deterrence has a great deal more to do with likelihood of something happening than how horrible it is.  It would be horrible to be in a fiery plane or car crash, but most of us still chose to travel, because we don’t think the odds of the disaster are all that good.  The horribleness of the event, if it were to happen, is not sufficient deterrent.

Dawkins tells stories of a number of “conversions” from Christianity to atheism.  There are many examples of conversion from varieties of unbelief to Christianity.  His stories don’t prove anything.

Nicholas Humphrey is approvingly quoted as saying, “…children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense, and we as a society have a duty to protect them from it.  So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.”  He is essentially wiping out the whole concept of parental rights!  Dawkins acknowledges that what constitutes “nonsense” may be open to debate, but extols the glories of science and teaching a child how to think, rather than what to think.  He passes over the fact that “how to think” can also be a matter of opinion.  He also doesn’t take into account that scientific knowledge changes over time.  What was taught as truth 50 years ago, may not be truth now.

Is he seriously suggesting that society should step in and stop parents from teaching children their beliefs?  This sounds like a repressive totalitarian state!  And it’s off the North Korea we go! 

One of the groups that comes under Dawkins’ criticism is the Amish.  “Even if the children had been asked and had expressed a preference for the Amish religion, can we suppose that they would have done so if they had been educated and informed about the available alternatives?”  I guess Dawkins is not familiar with the fact that in their late teen years, Amish young people are allowed a time of “wilding,” during which they can try out alternatives before making a conscious decision to be baptized and stick with the Amish faith.

After all of his ranting, he abruptly switches tones and tacks on a section on the value of the Bible as literature.  He acknowledges its influence on conversational language and on other great literary works.   He believes “We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage.”  He is right about that, but it does reduce what might have been belief to sentimentality.

Of course, if he agrees with introducing children to the Bible as literature, he does run the risk of thoughtful children asking questions such as:  Is this true?  Is there a God?  Is this supposed to impact the way I think?  And, some of them may come up with answers Dawkins won’t like.

Response to The God Delusion-chapter 8

Evidently, many of Dawkins fellow atheists are of the live-and-let-live persuasion and don’t understand Dawkins’ hostility toward religion.  He claims he is motivated by concern for us poor uninformed folks who are missing so much. “My passion is increased when I think about how much the poor fundamentalists, and those whom they influence, are missing.”  I suspect there is something more behind his apparent rage than altruistic care for others.

He takes on what he sees as the “dark side” of absolutism.  I certainly agree that it has a dark side.  When the beliefs of any one religious group are forcefully imposed on others, things can get nasty.  He particularly cites blasphemy, homosexuality and abortion as areas where religious fundamentalists go to extremes trying to impose their perspective.  Personally, blasphemy makes me cringe. (I've done a lot of cringing while reading this book.)  Homosexuality causes me conflicted feelings as I believe it is a “sin” to practice it, but I have sympathy for those whose inclinations are in that direction.  Abortion breaks my heart.  It is a horrific means of birth control and shows a disrespect for life, but I stop short of calling it murder.

As members of a society, we have an obligation to move things in the direction of what we believe is “right” and in the best interests of society as a whole.  Those of us who believe in the God of the Bible are obviously going to disagree with those who don’t on those issues.  That is why we have discussions and get to vote on issues.  I certainly do not support the idea of killing abortion doctors and bombing abortion clinics.  

In his discussion on abortion, Dawkins does give some misinformation.  He states, “I wonder what these people would say if they knew that the majority of conceived embryos spontaneously abort anyway.  It is probably best seen as a kind of natural ‘quality control.’”  I have searched and cannot find any reliable source that says the “majority” abort spontaneously.  Sources often say between 10 and 30 percent.  Last I knew, a majority meant over 50 percent.

Dawkins discusses the idea of “slippery slopes.”  I think he is on a “slippery slope” himself in his belief that all life is a continuity.  Because he is a naturalist and an evolutionist, man is a more highly developed animal whose life has no greater intrinsic worth than that of any other animal.  This has some scary implications.  Those of us who believe that man was specifically made in the image of God attach greater value to human life.  “The evolutionary point is very simple.  The humanness of an embryo’s cells cannot confer upon it any absolutely discontinuous moral status.  It cannot, because of our evolutionary continuity with chimpanzees and, more distantly, with every species on the planet.”  Interesting.  Carried to what I see as a ridiculous, but not totally illogical extension, I wonder if we should stop taking antibiotics, because bacteria have as much right to live as humans do.

Dawkins believes that “the take-home message is that we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism…”  I suppose this is true of some religions…the Kool-Aid drinking cult of Jim Jones comes to mind.  But, Dawkins is making a sweeping generalization regarding all religions, and I cannot accept that.  He has gone back and forth between Christianity (of all varieties) and Islam throughout this book, making them all equal.  If he really wanted to deal with “the God delusion” appropriately and fairly, he would not lump all religions together. Not all religions have the same concept of God and therefore, do not manifest themselves in the same way.

Dawkins has created a horrible, sticky, tangled mass of vitriol, rather than a clear-headed argument.

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