If you
read any of his work, I think you will likewise conclude that Thomas Aquinas
was one of the most brilliant people to ever walk the earth. A Dominican monk by very deliberate and adult
choice, he devoted his life to study, learning and writing. A more educated man would be difficult to
find. It is surprising that Dawkins
takes such a dim view of Thomas, especially as Thomas held Aristotle is high
esteem. Actually, Thomas spent the best
years of his life reconciling Aristotelianism (classic Greek thinking, which
Dawkins so epitomizes) with Augustinian (classic Christian) theology. All of us do well to study his life and
works.
Thomas
Aquinas wrote five proofs:
1;
Everything changes and every change is produced by a cause, ipso facto there is
an ultimate cause, which is God.
2; Behind
all causes producing effects their must lie an ultimate first efficient cause,
which is God.
3; God is
the ultimate necessary cause, for there must be one cause that lacks the
possibility of not being.
4; There
exists a gradation in things, so there must be an ultimate degree of all things
and thus the cause of gradation.
5; The
governing and operating of the universe points to an intelligent force guiding
it to its ultimate end.
Dawkins
takes delight in dismissing the first three of these proofs as regress, but
they seem no more unbelievable than evolution, which is just regress in
reverse. If one is prone to believe
evolution then one must seriously consider Aquinas's concept of regress, because
to embrace evolution and not likewise hold to is to call yourself a scientist
with selective (one-way) conclusions and so loose all credibility.
Dawkins
believes that God cannot be both ominipresent and omnipotent, and appeals to
Karen Owens’ poem to mock such. Here he reveals the limitations of applying
human reason and human language to divine character. God can be and is omnipresent and also
omnipotent, and yet also has a personality - that is why we have
personality, for we were made in God's image (Gen 1:26).
Consider
this: We know that matter is made up of atoms, and atoms are made up of
subatomic particles. Each of those
particles spins in a certain direction.
We also know that we are on the verge of making computers that use atoms
as storage devices - an electron spinning one way is a zero and an electron
spinning the other way is a one.
Further, we've found that quantum physics allows some kind of
communication between subatomic particles that we do not understand, but we can
use it to manipulate the spin of particles.
This is the basis for quantum computing, which is cutting edge human
technology. Yet if we know this, is it really
so far of a reach to consider that all particles may already be 'ones
and zeros'? Taken to it's conclusion,
this line of thinking realizes that a lump of coal or a cubic meter of air has
more computing power in it than every computer mankind has ever made put
together. What then of the whole
universe? If you want to only consider
the physical world, consider this as the mind of God. To think that we haven't even touched on the
matter we cannot see, or energy in all it's forms! Such a mind would be capable of all things,
capable of manipulating matter and energy in all their forms. Indeed, we could be said to live and move and
have our being within it. Read Acts
17:28, or better yet, Acts 17:24-32 to catch the context. I am not saying that this is the mind of God,
because I believe the Scriptural record that God made all this matter to start
with. I am merely saying that if we an conceive
of how to do ‘impossible things’, then how much more can God
do them!
Dawkins
again appeals to evolution, this time as the solution to the creationists
argument from design. Evolution is such
a ridiculous theory that it hardly deserves my time in refuting it. Nevertheless if you are prone to consider it,
then consider this:
1) Given enough time and
generations, you can breed a smaller dog from a larger dog. You can breed a dog with a longer nose from a
dog with a shorter nose. But you cannot
breed a cat from a dog. Nor can you
breed a monkey from a fish, or a man from a chimp. Give a fish a zillion generations and you
will have a lot of fish, but not so much as a salamander. Consider the 'eternal' jellyfish (look it up
on Wikipedia). Still a jellyfish after
countless generations! Even bacteria do
not 'evolve' into multi-celled animals, though mankind has been breeding them
by the trillions for hundreds of years and is now probably on billions of
generations since we started studying them.
2) Evolution flies in the face of
entropy. If there is anything learned by
applying a lot of time to it, it is that 'it' degrades, not improves. Such is the way of a fallen world.
3) Darwin's logic was just as
flawed, and flawed on the same principle (of pride), as Dawkins.
The
ontological argument that Richard trots out is (in my opinion) a meaningless
word game and is even less deserving of my time than evolution. Worse, the three hundred 'proofs' that
Dawkins takes such delight in ridiculing are some of the most juvenile dribble
I've seen apart from some stuff on Reddit.
I would've thought a serious book would not resort to such. I can find a lot of stuff on the web worth
mocking, but doing so will not further our discussion.
One of
the more serious allegations Dawkins makes is that those who hear the voice of
God are mad. No doubt that those who do
not know Him cannot understand His voice, and it is clear from daily life and
the newspaper that many people hear voices they mistake for God. God speaks in many ways. Firstly through His Word (the
Scripture). Also through circumstance
(but this must be checked against His Word).
Also through people who have been reading His Word and listening to Him
(again, this must be checked against His Word). And also, to those who know Him and have
been made spiritually alive by Christ, through His voice speaking to our souls,
Spirit talking to spirit. Even that must
be checked against His Word. Those who
err (thinking God is speaking when He is not, such as Dawkin's examples in this
chapter) do so because they do not check what they are hearing against His
Word.
But if
you do not know God, you are (as I said earlier) spiritually dead and cannot
hear His voice beyond His command to rise up and live (to be saved). I would bluntly say that unsaved people who
claim to hear God give them specific directions that contradict Scripture are actually
listening to demons.
Dawkins
makes the assertion that people who meet God are foolishly imputing meaning
into their random experience. But then,
a deaf person could just as well say that people who hear music are simply
assigning unintended melody to vibrations in the air.
All who
hear music know it is music, and all who know God know when He is speaking to
them. As Jesus said, “My sheep know My
voice”.
In this
chapter Dawkins does a short pass at the Scriptural evidence. Here I am sorry to say that he makes some
outright stupid comments. To debate the
Scriptural evidence for God by saying that Jesus didn't really claim to be God
(or that the number of times He did are inconsequential) is totally foolish. Seven times in the Gospel of John, Jesus
clearly stated that He was, and the Jews of His day understood full well what
He was saying. It was for this claim
that they sought to charge Him before Pilate.
Actually
this whole section I will not comment on, because it is just stupidity for
Richard Dawkins to claim that his obviously unresearched commentary on the
Scripture has more validity than the millennia of Biblical scholars who devoted
their lives to it. It is not unlike me
writing a half-hearted diatribe against the collected works of Shakespeare and
quoting some unlearned individuals off the web to support my cause. But if you want a response to each of his
outlandish claims ask me later and I will.
Dawkins
goes on to appeal to the number of learned scientists that claim Christianity,
and finding few, uses it as another argument against God. I rather think that those who get much
education are in danger of greater pride, and it is their pride that causes
them to consider their own thought to be greater than faith. Only the few who exercise humility avoid this
trap. Recall my comments from the
preface. In the end you have to
determine if you want to follow the smartest man in the world (be that Dawkins,
or Darwin, or even Thomas Aquinas), or the God who made the world and every man
in it. I categorically reject Dawkins'
thinking on this line of thought. Being
so full of yourself that you consider most everyone else less intelligent, and
therefore having opinions that are less worthwhile, is the life philosophy of
Hitler. I hardly think that should be
admired.
Dawkins
mocks belief in God as the determining criteria for salvation. Indeed, belief in itself is not enough. James writes, "Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what
I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and
shudder." Belief w/o faith is nothing more than an
opinion, for it is a belief un-acted upon.
It is like saying you are a conservative, but never voting. Does that
matter? No. Even the demons believe in God. Yet they do not act on their belief, but on
their own wants and desires. A man who
says he has faith but does not change any of his decisions as a result of that
faith is not being honest with himself.
Faith that saves is faith that changes your decisions. At the very least, faith must result in
repentance. Faith leading to repentance
is enough to save. Not enough to reward,
but enough to save.
I will
not honor Unwin with any consideration of his attempt to quantify the probability
of God.
I will
say this; The greatest proof for God, for those who will not look at creation
or the Word of God or the individual testimony of those who have met Him, is
the resurrection of Christ. As the book
of Act declares, "Therefore having
overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all
people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will
judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all
men by raising Him from the dead.”
On the
resurrection of Christ hangs the faith of Christians because apart from the
resurrection there is no hope of salvation.
And what use would belief in God be if He was coming back to damn you
anyway? But because of the overwhelming
proof of the resurrection, all born again Christians place their hope
confidently in Jesus, and so look forward to His appearing.
After the
crucifixion and prior to the resurrection, the apostles were scared,
disillusioned men, cowering together in a room for fear of the same authorities
who just killed their leader. After the
resurrection they are powerful witnesses of Christ, refusing these same
authorities to their faces. It is
because of the resurrection that they testify to men on pain on death, and in
fact all except John are eventually martyred for their faith. This is
remarkable, because a man will die for a truth he believes in strongly, but no
one will die for what they know is a lie.
It is because of the resurrection that Saul - a highly learned Pharisee
of the Jews who is running around imprisoning and killing Christians - is
converted. After studying the matter for
3 years he changes his name to Paul.
Before his own consequent martyrdom he travels the world explaining the
Gospel and starting up churches. It is
because of the resurrection that the church of Jesus Christ is started. It is because of the church that we have
hospitals, universities and all manner of ministries for the poor and
disenfranchised. Prior to the
resurrection none of these institutions existed. It is because of the resurrection that people
all over the world for two millennia have put their hope in Christ and been
changed forever as a result. It is
because of the resurrection that Jesus Christ can and will return in power and
glory. It is because of the resurrection
that I testify to you. It is also
because of the resurrection that Richard Dawkins writes against Jesus and
religion in general, for the resurrection is the ultimate humiliation of all
the spiritual forces arrayed against God Most High.
No comments:
Post a Comment