It is
impossible to read Dawkins unbelievably arrogant view of God without
acknowledging the irony of his (Richard's) pride. He claims God is full of all kinds of evil
and then pronounces that he knows this because God does not appear to him the
way he (Dawkins) thinks is appropriate.
He writes, "any creative intelligence...comes into existence
only...), as if he (Dawkins) is the universe's authority on creation! For a simple created man to pass judgment on
creator and uncreated God is the ultimate in conceit, and that is a huge understatement. As pointed out in my response to his
preamble, this error is the underpinning of all Dawkins writes.
RIchard
states that what he calls the God delusion is founded on local traditions of
private revelation. Nothing could be
further from the truth. The Christian
faith teaches that a simple consideration of the world around us shows that
someone has been at work- there is a design inherent in everything from
microbes to insects to humans. And not
merely biological, but everything from sub-atomic units to the movement of
galaxies.
As
Bonaventure wrote in the 1200's, "The
beauty of things in the variety of light, shape and color, in simple, mixed and
even organic bodies - such as heavenly bodies - and minerals like stones and
metals, and plants and animals, clearly proclaims the divine power that
producers all things from nothing, the divine wisdom that clearly distinguishes
all things, and the divine goodness that lavishly adorns all things."
Richard
testifies to this himself when he earlier commented on Darwin's wonder at the
order of things around him. This is what
Biblical scholars call "the general
revelation of God". The
creator-nature of God is thus at the very beginning of the Bible (the written revelation of God), because such
is the basic starting point of all who would seek Him. The fundamental error of mankind is that
instead of searching for WHO, we instead look in to ourselves and determine
that we shall discover by our own means and by our own devices HOW things came
to be apart from God.
So the
error of Man in Genesis 3 is that instead of considering first God, they (Eve
and Adam) considered first their own wants and desires, listening to the lie of
Satan. What Dawkins purports is exactly
the same lie - that the answers to our needs and desires are up to us to
discover because we are capable of discovering them and have the right to do so
- apart from God.
It was
for that reason that when mankind first fell, God immediately came to them and
asked, "Where are you?" He didn't
ask that because He didn't know where they were, He asked that because He
wanted them to realize they were lost - that God was now apart from them, but if
they now chose to follow His voice they could find their way back to Him. They had taken it upon themselves to choose
wrongly, and it was now up to them to choose rightly. To make a different decision – a new decision that is the opposite of the old decision – what we call, ‘to repent’.
Dawkins
assumes that there is a progression in religion, from animist beliefs to
polytheism to monotheism. Actually the
Bible clearly lays out that there is, has always been and always will be ONE
God, and that everything else mankind chooses to worship instead of Creator God
is a lie. Now if I tell you that X is
(one thing) but you choose to say that for you, X is something else, you are
then free to make up anything you want as the definition of X. The Scripture (God's revealed words) clearly
argues against false gods, whatever form those false gods take. So you read (in the Scripture) God's detest
and judgment on all the many forms that man makes up his mind to worship apart
from Him. Not because He is vindictive
and egocentric, but because He cares about his created children and is jealous
for their wellbeing – in the same way as a father
is jealous for the wellbeing of his own children. Idolatry always leads away from God - be that
the idolatry of many gods (see how Paul spoke to that issue in the book of
Acts) or the idolatry of a different 'god' (see how the prophets all spoke
against Baal) or the idolatry of created things (like ‘idols’ of silver and gold and cash).
He then
brings up the Trinity and makes it clear that this is a very confusing
concept. It is hardly unreasonable to
know that Dawkins struggles with the Trinity.
The most learned and gifted of men who have studied this matter for most
of their lives will freely admit that they barely scratch the surface. Even Thomas Aquinas (a much brighter and more
learned man that Dawkins), who wrote very well and very deeply of the Trinity,
admitted as much. Is it unreasonable for
us to understand that we (created and fallen mankind) cannot fully understand
the nature of God Most High? If we could
completely understand Him, He would not be beyond us. It seems as though Dawkins would be happier
if his god were small enough for him to understand. Perhaps he (Dawkin's god) is, because dare I
say it sounds to me like he only worships himself.
That a
mature Christian can claim to know part of the unknowable (in claiming to know
God is Triune in nature) and yet simultaneously also admit that they do not
grasp that fully is hardly (of itself) a difficult thing to understand. Does a child not know who it's father
is? Yet the child does not understand genetics,
has not performed any DNA testing and cannot even explain how this 'other' came
to be his father. Yet the child 'knows'
who his dad is! If a child who does not
yet speak fluently can grasp that, why can Dawkins not grasp that a child of
God knows who God is? Better yet, why
can he not grasp that he does not know God because he has no relationship with
Him?
Dawkins
goes on to ridicule the Catholic Church for their veneration of saints. I cannot
defend that practice, for the Bible clearly lays out that we are all equal in
Christ. There is no 'saint' that is to
be prayed to - to do this anyway is to engage in idolatry. God alone heals, God alone delivers. The Catholic Church has many good qualities – they honor Jesus Christ, they revere the Scripture. But Catholicism as it is most often practiced
is rife with error - from calling priests, "Father", (which the
Scriptures specifically forbid – see Matthew 23:9), to the
deification of Mary (the Scriptures specifically forbid the worship of created
beings, see Ex 20:3, Rev 22:9), the use of penance (we are saved by faith, see
Eph 2:8-9), etc. This is why most
evangelical Protestants see the vast majority of Catholics to be still in need
of a right relationship with God.
I find it
interesting that Dawkins admits he is attacking all 'gods' and finds this
fitting and useful, but he does not seek to so much as think critically about
his own thinking! This error is
immediately obvious in his treatment of Judaism, Islam and Christianity as
three branches of the same thing. A
more foolish thing to say would be hard to find apart from some of his earlier
comments in this book. It is like saying
that a truth is just like a lie because they are both spoken. Even a cursory reading of the Koran will plainly
reveal that the god of Islam is not the God of the Scriptures.
On his
treatment of American history I cannot say much, for I am not an American
scholar by any means. Yet even I know
that America was of course not founded on
Christianity. But it was founded by (largely) Christians. To deny the history of the USA on the basis
of a paragraph taken out of context is...well, it is consistent with Dawkins'
writing so far, but it certainly is a distortion of the truth. I encourage you to do a bit of research for
yourself on that matter. And remember
that Jefferson was not the be all and end all of American thought. Dawkins' fascination with Jefferson is only
because Thomas Jefferson was one of the more outspoken atheists of his day - at
the time an anomaly. His persistence
that atheists make up a persecuted majority is, frankly, not believable. That he found one example of an atheist being
'threatened' means little - not to belittle the fellow who felt threatened, but
honestly - that the best Dawkins can do is pull a single example out of Bible
Belt America! Really, out of 360 million
people, tens of thousands who die violently every year and you can only find
one example, and that of someone being threatened? Untold millions of Christians have been
killed for their faith, and hundreds more every single day. I was hosted in
Columbia in 1995 by a brother in Christ who was killed for his faith later that
same year, so I can honestly say I have even personal met (at least one) of
them. Consider the "Prayer for the
Persecuted Church" movement - they have much evidence of this kind of
thing happening all over the world (especially in Muslim and communist
(officially atheist) countries). Read
Foxes book of Martyrs – there is no small list of
names of those tortured to death for their faith.
Dawkins
goes on to state that atheists must be dishonest to be elected to power. Am I supposed to believe that this is a
testimony about how persecuted the atheists are? Am I to take his word that they lie - as proof
in place of lack of evidence? That is
not only a weak argument, it's just...well actually it’s just sad. What kind of argument is it to say that you lie
because of what we should understand as obvious truth? If you are willing to lie about something to
get power for yourself, then it obviously isn’t something that is helping
you gain courage, or integrity, or honesty, or really anything else useful for
governing others.
Further
into the chapter Dawkins is devoted to trying to line God Most High up to a
celestial teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is again failed logic, because no one
has ever had their lives completely changed by a teapot or a spaghetti
monster. Yet millions and millions of
people world over and through millennia have had their lives forever changed
through an encounter with God. Has
anyone ever been healed by a Spaghetti Monster?
Has anyone had an addiction removed, or a ruined marriage reconciled by
a celestial teapot? No. Yet such is the normal experience of
those who meet God Most High.
On his
point of the value of Theology, I will concede that a person who refuses belief
in God cannot perceive any value from theologians or their work. Of course, if Dawkins were physically blind
he might just as well argue against the value of photography, painting or
ophthalmology. Does his insistence that
God is not real discount theology? No,
no it does not. Like the blind
complaining that too much money is spent on cameras and eye health, Dawkins
complains that the rest of society is preoccupied with something he cannot
understand. All that does is illustrate
to everyone who can see, just how totally blind the complainer is.
He writes
that all enlightened modernists reject Deuteronomy and Leviticus. I guess
that's another display of his pride (thinking that only unenlightened people
could accept these two books of Scripture).
Such a comment can only come from someone who does not understand the
Bible. Dawkins would be so much wiser if
he would instead ask why he does not understand these books instead of
dismissing them off-hand.
He (Dawkins)
spends quite a bit of time trying to establish that the question of God's
existence is a scientific question and not exclusively a theological
question. I would only point out that
every field of human scientific study is equally unable to define God and yet
equally able to find Him (if in fact you are looking for Him). If on the other hand you are trying to prove
that He is not there, you will no doubt not find Him. He is always present to
those He knows, always found by those who seek, and always impossible to those
who disbelieve. With faith you can find
Him everywhere, but without faith you can never find Him, no matter how
advanced your science is, "...for he
who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those
who seek Him."
The
"instrument" by which God is found is faith, as surely as the
instrument galaxies are found with is a telescope and the instrument microbes
are found with is a microscope. You cannot find galaxies without a telescope,
nor microbes without a microscope - so too you cannot find God without
faith. The interesting thing is,
galaxies and microbes are physical things and so you use a physical
instrument. God is Spirit, and you must
use a spiritual instrument. To get a
physical instrument you must have technology and money. But you can have faith by belief. In fact, everyone has 'faith' of one kind or
another, because you either believe God or you believe something else
(like the lie that there is no God). To make my point that science can 'prove'
the Bible with faith and certainly not without faith, just consider....well,
consider the galaxies. You look out with
the most powerful telescopes mankind can build and what do you find? You find that you are lost! You cannot see the edge of the universe no
matter which way you look. You find
yourself unconnected with everything else beyond earth except by things you
cannot see. Alone in all the
universe, except for the dogged persistence that somewhere, somehow there must
be life that we can recognize. Do you
know what that dogged persistence in such a belief is? It is faith.
So...chose wisely what kind of faith you will have!
Dawkins
goes on to cite the one scientific study that was done on the effects of
healing prayer. To try to 'prove' the
spiritual on the basis of a scientific study is an interesting concept, but in
practice I think not an overtly wise thing to do. Is omnipotent God, who has chosen and does
choose to reveal Himself to those who seek Him, suddenly wanting to perform
miracles on demand for the benefit of those who doubt? I think not - in Luke 23:8-9, Jesus refused
to act like a divine Santa Claus for unbelieving Herod, and He is the same
yesterday, today and forever. So I think
God will never yield to the idea that we can demand certain results from Him at
specific times just to prove Him as God - to do so is to yield to
mankind's innate and fallen desire to rule over Him. Worse, to demand such is the same demand Satan
put on Christ in the desert (see Matthew 4:1-7). And consider that the whole point of Missio
Dei (the mission of God - what we might call God's modus operandi) is to
reconcile fallen mankind to Himself, not to stun us into submission by impressive
miracles. Actually, if you study the
nature of miracles in the Scripture, you find that they never produce faith in
those who did not have faith already - instead, they harden the hearts of those
who do not believe. Read again the story
of the 10 commandments, or the story of the resurrection, or even the story of
the Jewish people themselves, who witnessed hundreds of fulfilled prophesies
and the answer to untold numbers of prayers over millennia in the appearing of
their Messiah, and still did not believe!
Dawkins
touches again on the issue of creationism.
Creationism, like the resurrection of Jesus, is one of those issues that
atheists must try so very hard to debunk, because the truth of the matter
definitively proves them wrong (by their own logic). Again Dawkins majors on the minors in his
thinking. Mankind, fallen and apart from
God, is unable to find Him without listening to His voice. The fall from relationship with God - our
spiritual death - is so complete that we cannot even hear that (His voice)
unless He has mercy on us and opens our ears to hear Him. This in itself is a miracle, a miracle you
have experienced yourself. For you are
(spiritually) dead in your sins, and yet God gives life to your ears to hear
His call in the Gospel. You deny His
call - that tug in your heart - at great personal peril, because He does not
sustain a miracle forever, but only for a time (after all, that’s why it’s a miracle and not a ‘law of nature’). That is why the Scriptures say, "Today is the day of salvation, today, if you
hear His voice, do not harden your heart." If you respond to his call with acceptance,
salvation comes - you are given new (spiritual) life - life that does not die a
physical death. You are literally 'born
again', spiritually. Then the Spirit of
God can led you into truth, and you will have a similar conviction to mine.
No comments:
Post a Comment