Response to "The God Delusion"

Having recently finished reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, I put the book down having come to some immediate conclusions, some of which are apparent early into the book. In no way am I personally attacking Mr. Dawkins but I must say that it is evident that almost everything written in his book is an elitist, angry, condescending and sometimes sarcastic tirade against theists. For sure it makes for very interesting reading. Notwithstanding he's probably a nice fellow. He seems to be a man that couches his words from the view of science and Darwinism but ultimately proves nothing chapter after chapter. There are some things in principle that I do appreciate about the book that I have gleaned and find useful. There are other things that I do not. I will summarize some things that are addressed in his book and condense them here.



One of the glaring things I find is that Mr. Dawkins basically 'cherry picks' his examples of why he believes there is no God, or as he puts it "why there almost certainly is not God" (emphasis mine). Several times he refers to theologians that refute the writings of scripture. Of course it fits right in with his view that there is no God because the theologians that he likes to refer to agree with him on some points. How convenient. He doesn't get detailed in referencing their bodies of work at all. He simply slips in their congruent views and we're supposed to simply believe it's true.

On the same note, Mr. Dawkins writes that the Bible is inconsistent throughout and therefore it is an unreliable text. I would challenge any reader to re-examine that claim. The Bible was written over a period of fifteen hundred years by over 40 different authors. It is amazing how they all have the same story sewn into the fabric of each book. The documentation of the New Testament surpasses most of the writings of antiquity. To say that there isn't evidence of this is absurd. It is very clear, in my opinion, that Mr. Dawkins ignores the literary evidence of the continuity of the Bible, ignores the manuscript evidence that supports it and simply cozies up to liberal theologian opinion that bolsters his own views.



Another thing that Mr. Dawkins does to prove that there almost certainly is no God, is to tell the reader that because the first cause of the existence of God causes a problem that he can't think of a solution to, then God really can't exist. I don't know how that is theological or scientific. Just because something seems out of the realm of discovery by a human being doesn't necessarily make it not possible or improbable. It simply makes it unknowable.



Constantly Mr. Dawkins refers to Darwinian natural selection. This is a process that he says is scientific. I am not a scientist but, as far as I know, in order for something to be scientifically proven, it must be observable and repeatable, you know, like in an experiment. The Darwinain teaching of natural selection is neither. No one has seen natural selection actually take place (it is assumed like many things scientifc in the past). That would be the convenience of a theory that is based on changes over millions of years. Notwithstanding that, in all of nature as far as I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, genetic mutations of any kind are disastrous and detrimental to a species, they do not improve it. To base the improvement for survival of a species upon genetic mutations (in other words, messing with DNA) seems like a far stretch of the imagination knowing what is available to know and understand about genetic mutations. The record of genetic mutations is littered with 'train wrecks' and all sorts of problems. Simply put, genetic mutations are not good for a species.



It is interesting to note that while Mr. Dawkins accuses theists of unfairly indoctrinating others with theistic teachings about God and the existence of a God, Mr. Dawkins seems impervious to the notion that perhaps he is the victim of the same thing. While he accuses believers of filling young impressionable minds with theistic teaching, he himself, once a young impressionable mind, has fallen victim to the same thing. He sat under the Darwinian teaching of professors not knowing for himself what it may have entailed. Having become enamoured and then convinced of Darwinism, he was indoctrinated by professors of the scientific merits of Darwinism. By the way, Darwinian evolution still has yet to be observed and even proven. To say that one has observed it would not be true as one would actually have to personally witness, record and communicate to the world the first-hand account of what happened. This has never come to pass. Again, it is assumed as fact.

Ultimately, in the end, The God Delusion may attempt to explain the improbability of God and magnify any virtues of natural selection and Darwinian evolution all the way back to basic earth but there is one glaring question that is never addressed or even attempted to be answered in the entire book...where did matter come from in the first place? Yes, there it is. Evolution / natural selection need matter to start from. Never mind the origin of "life" itself. There is not one scientist that can explain how the matter that is present in all of the universe got here in the first place. It had to come from somewhere. Where? Matter didn't evolve from nothing. Can we even dare suggest that inanimate matter existed in infinity past on it's own accord?

Don't Read This Part if You Don't Want the Truth.

Mr. Dawkins DID indeed make some good points. One of the points is that, particularly in American Christianity, Christians are biblically illiterate. They simply do not know why they believe what they believe. He is also correct that high profile Christian leaders in America have made some very bold, inflamatory statements that lack the very love that they say Jesus showed us with his lifestyle. I witnessed this (sadly) as I read Facebook news feeds from friends and aquaintances that are Christian. He cites examples of unorthodox views and teachings of different Christians that, I would say, are simply not biblical in there origins. He also points to the apparent intolerance by Christians when opposed by people with different views. He refers to a deep seated 'respect for religion' that is inherent in our culture and despises the fact that people can't step on other's 'religious toes'. That got me thinking.

I could spend all day joining with people of like mind and faith criticizing and berating Mr. Dawkins for all of the areas in which we disagree. However, of even more concern to me is the fact that his book, The God Delusion even had to be written. Perhaps we could spend more time seeking to live the life of biblical Christianity instead of demanding that a non-religious world aquiesce to what we Christians demand from them.

There's Probably No God Part 2

...There, you should feel good now.



After reading Part 1 of this blog, one would notice that the Canadian Free Thought Association urges the masses to believe "There's probably no god. Stop worrying and enjoy your life." I contend that this isn't just about the debate of the existence of God or not. This is about feeling good.



Getting a free pass for something feels good. For instance, I was skiing with my kids and because of windy conditions on the mountain, several portions of the mountain were closed. The resort issued "snow checks" or "free passes" to come and ski again due to adverse conditions. It felt good.



Getting off the hook from something feels good to. Getting pulled over for speeding and the authority with the badge gives you just the warning, you breathe a sigh of relief. You were just let off the hook. You feel good.



I contend that much of atheism proposes a 'no limits' lifestyle. There is no right or wrong or moral code, nor can there be for the essence of right or wrong or morality is up to the individual. There can also be no absolutes. Everything is contingent upon the will and whim of the individual.



Atheism says there are no absolutes...and says so with absolute surety! I'm not even sure how that can be possible.

The right to do what one wants, to pursue one's desires to produce maximum pleasure in life is at the heart of the "there is probably no god. Stop worrying and enjoy your life" philosophy. Selfish ambition, decadence, narcisism and self-gratification are the driving forces of life. Where does this lead? What road does this take a person down?

For some reason, the atheist or agnostic thinks people feel bad about things because of a belief in God. Guilt. Regret. Whatever you may call it, they think it's devestating. I hold that while a belief in God may proudce those things, and even should do so, it's not all bad. For if guilt or regret can lead to change, and change leads to a new start and way of life for someone, how can that be bad?

A person with a heart to be concerned about the needs of others, a willingness to help someone and a selfless appreciation of others can produce a lot of good in the world. What would happen if people, instead of living according to a self-centered/self-gratification lifestyle, lived according to the teachings of Jesus Christ on loving your neighbor, being concerned about other people and doing unto others as we would have them do unto us?

After Katrina hit New Orleans, it was the God-believers that were there first. The president asked the nation to pray. Church groups from all different denominations sent aid and even went and helped themselves, giving their own time and resources. I'm not saying atheists weren't there helping, I'm saying that there was and is something about a belief in God that is far more demonstrable than what atheism has ever produced. This is for a reason.

The real heart of atheism is humanism.

Yes, man wants to be the boss. He wants to be master of his destiny. He wants to be accountable to no one. He wants to call the shots. We're pretty high and might for a species that, like all others, ends up in a hole in the ground. The human that is not beholden to the dictates of a God can do anything he wants with impunity.

"If God is not, everything is permitted."

Fyodor Dostoyevsky


Humanism/atheism produced communism (Stalin, Lenin).

Humanism/atheism has, out of self-interest and exultation, anhiliated millions of innocent people (Hitler, Mao Zedong).

Humanism/atheism has watch millions starve to death.


Conversely...


Belief in God produced Mother Teresa who served for decades in Calcutta helping the poor, the orphaned.

Belief in God feeds, clothes and educates thousands of kids in Haiti through people like George DeTellis at New Missions (http://www.newmissions.org/).

Belief in God brings the prostitute and drug addict off the streets of Los Angeles, California through places like the LA Dream Center and introduces them to a brand new start in life.


Yes there are atheists that have not killed and yes there are believers in God that have done little for the cause of Christ. In the grand scheme of things however, one would have to admit that far more than atheism, a belief in God has the propensity to produce far more virtue in life.


To summarize, the atheist/agnostic/humanist doesn't want to be held accountable from a God or a higher power for anything they do in this life. Doesn't make them a bad neighbor. Doesn't make them a mass murderer either. It does make them at odds with what many people hold as the truth, and that being that they believe that God does exist and does play an active role in our universe. Because that God exists, they, one day, will be accountable for what they did do with their lives.

So you have a short version of what I think about atheism/agnosticism/humanism. Another question, however, comes to my mind. Does God believe in the atheist? What exactly does Christianity teach about the non-belief in the existence of God? What exactly does Christianity teach and compel it's followers to do?


Lots to discuss.
Worth a look.

There's Probably No God Part 1

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

This is the add that will most likely be seen plastered to the sides of city buses in Calgary, Alberta. The same add is in Toronto, London and Madrid. This statement was met with criticism from the Calgary Catholic Bishop. He said that the best date to launch such a campaign would be April Fool's Day. Obviously, this is going to be a hot button. The Free Thought Association of Canada has opened a can of worms on this one. Christians oppose this idea. I won't get into whether they should or should not because we do, in fact, live in a free country with the freedom of speech. We usually don't like it when people aren't saying what we want them to say. That's natural. I do, however, want to look at the very words that the Free Thought Association of Canada actually do say.

The statement, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." evokes a few sentiments that I think are worthwhile to look at.

1. Probably.

The word probably means "in all liklihood" or "presumabley". It is a word that definitely leaves room for error. It is based upon presumption and not evidence. Presume means "To take for granted that something is true or factual". This is in direct contrast with the word "true" which means, "factual". This idea of "there is probably no god is usually based upon no or a lack of evidence.

So you have a statement that is, in it's own beginning, saying it's not necessarily true, but should be believed as true, with no evidence to support it. The people who say "probably no god" should not be classified as atheists, as atheism proclaims that there is no god, while agnosticism proclaims that there is no knowledge of a god. The Free Thought Association of Canada can't even come out and say for sure that there is no god. Where's the guts?

The Free Thought Association people are, as a co-worker of mine suggests, "chicken atheists" at best.

2. No God.

This conversation can go on for infinity, that is if infinity exists since we humans are not infinite. So, for the purposes of our finite conversation on the topic of the existence of God, think about these things (and please take the time to research them if anyone lacks understanding)...

- DNA and RNA. How do we get DNA? From RNA. Where does RNA come from? It is made by DNA!

- Brownian movement. It's really cool.

- Stars. Okay, so attempts to explain our earth as being formed by no god are accepted by many, but how do other things in the universe just get there?

- Where did the substance to make Earth come from? Seriously, where did the first particles to make "stuff" come from? You just can't get something from nothing. It's a universal fact.

- The Theory of Evolution. Where are the missing links of species? If evolution is still happening, there must be evidence of it taking place. There simply has to be. Whether global warming is happening or not, the theory of evolution should simply allow the strongest of the species to adapt and survive so what's the worry anyway right?

3. Stop worrying.


The Free Thought people are really patronizing the population they speak to by saying this. They are minimizing people's real worries and elevating themselves as the authority by which their worries will be removed. They are saying in essence, "you are worrying about the possibility of God not being pleased with what you are doing. We're going to fix that by saying there is probably no god anyway." Linking worrying to the thought of the existence of a god does not seem rational. I know people that worry about money. They worry about their kids. They worry about whether or not their marriages will survive. They worry about keeping their house in this particularly declining economic environment. They worry about whether they'll have a job tomorrow. They worry if the chemo is going to work, and if it doesn't, who will take care of the kids? I have never met anyone who stays up all night worrying that God exists or not.

4. Stop worrying.

The proponents of the "no god" agenda use fear to manipulate their audience, yes, just like corrupt church leadership did in the Middle ages. Fear, guilt and superstition were used to make people fearful of doing or not doing certain things to propagate the church's agenda. That agenda, many times, was for the selfish ambition of the corrupt leadership. The atheist/agnostic position plays on the supposed or real fear of many and gives them a feel good pill that lets them off the proverbial providential hook. If it wasn't for the supposed fear of some people who believe in God, this particular position of "stop worrying about it" wouldn't be valid. The very act of using the "no god, stop worrying" is equal to the "God is watching, be afraid" mentality. Both are based upon perceptions that seem, to the adherent of those philosophies, to be true. But are they?

5. Enjoy your life.

It is very elitist, in my opinion, to simply say to someone, if you believe there is no god like "I" do, you will be free of worry and will enjoy your life. It is equally repulsive to me that someone can say that because a person believes in God, they will be full of worry and therefore not enjoy life. That is what they are saying when they write "there is probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life. What else can it really mean? Empirically one would have to admit that because of their belief in God, millions of people enjoy their life. Likewise, there are probably (in other words I don't have evidence but I presume that it could be the case) people that are afraid that, if there is a God, this God may not be pleased with them for whatever reason and therefore, may be worried about that. I want to thank the atheists for taking care of their problem. They have solved it beyond a shadow of a doubt and now, the world can be joyful. Or is the problem actually solved?

I, for one am not going to put my head in the sand and ignore centuries of history. There were, and still are, things done in the name of Christ that had and have no place in Christianity. Because a pope or a king or a priest or a minister or any other person past or present simply says that they are a follower of Christ and therefore excercises the authority to simply do things that are in opposition to the teachings of Christian scripture, does not in any way, shape or form make them Christian. My atheist and agostic friends, please understand this. I am not going to suppose that the abuse of power of some probably made you less than able to see the truth of Christianity, but if that is the case, I can understand. I would hope that those who embrace atheism or it's half brother, agnosticism, would be equally able to hear a Christian perspective as well.

In closing, I'd like to sum up what the slogan in the opening says in my own words...

We have no evidence or facts to back up what we believe, but, we're going to believe that there is no god. In fact, because we have the audacity to think that your life isn't enjoyable, and your belief in a god has produced fear and worry in your life, we want you to believe like us, with no evidence. Now you can stop worrying. There, you should feel good now...