Examine: Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Chapter 3

As concerning my slow, but continuous reading of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion:

Chapter 3

P. 78
Like most nonbelievers (and some Christians), RD misunderstands the attributes of God (i.e. omniscience and omnipotence), whereby, they are indeed hard to understand when man cannot and does not have the ability of such. But, how much more difficult for the natural man, that has not the Spirit?

Such a big word, for such a “sparing” point: parsimonious.

Interestingly, he never tells us WHY [but opinion], “it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a ‘big bang singularity’, or some other physical concept as yet unknown” over “invoking God” to terminate the beginning of creation. For by science, itself, states: matter/energy cannot be created/destroyed. Science also states: it cannot prove/disprove God. So, to say a “big bang singularity”, which is tested [assumingly] by science, seemingly defying science in creation [by its so-called ability to create matter/energy, if by chance, there was nothing before it] is not more parsimonious [sparing/stingy/close/tight], than saying, God, who is of the supernatural, has the power and did create the natural. Whereas, with the “big bang”, there is always a look to before, there is no before God, therefore we only have what God Himself, which has always been, has made.

Hebrews 11:3, Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

P. 79
As concerning RD’s continued “regress” [#5], we are left with a regress to his precious, “Evolution by natural selection”, for his natural selection apparently does not design, but simply makes things look designed. Yeah, that sounds logical. For RD writes, “Thanks to Darwin, it is no longer true to say that nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed”, then goes on to say “Evolution by natural selection produces an excellent simulacrum of design, mounting prodigious heights of complexity and elegance.” So, we should believe that design is created by random chance and mutations, not by design. Logical?

P. 88-90
Scripture declares, [2 Corinthians 4:3-5], “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.”

Interestingly, RD notes the very reasons that he is unable to accept and understand Christianity, God, and Christ, the Spirit, sin, repentance, and salvation, concerning his objections to “the argument from personal experience.”

“The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyes don’t present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time.” He continues a few pages over by stating, “And the same thing works for hearing. When we hear a sound, it is not faithfully transported up the auditory nerve and relayed to the brain as if by a high-fidelity Bang and Olufsend.”

Assumingly he fails to realize how close he has come to repeating the words of Christ:

Matthew 13:15, For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Am I saying a Christian is smarter and able to make them self see and hear, whereas an atheist cannot? No. It is the Spirit which must open our eyes, ears, minds, and hearts to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Remember, how he and his teacher both saw creation, but one chose faith and the other choose unbelief? Pray that God would open the eyes and ears of the lost, and saved their souls.

P. 92
As with anyone (well some Christians also) that take a low or no view of sin, they try to use a play on words, to call sin less than what it is.

In his “THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE” topic, he mentions that C.S. Lewis stated that “since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, he must have been either right or else insane or a liar”. Since RD is unable to argue with the obvious three choices (for he has written, “Jesus probably existed” [P. 97]), he illogically adds a fourth choice of “Jesus was honestly mistaken.” Honestly mistaken would be the same as a liar. If I run around everyday telling people I am the son of Martin Luther King Jr., and I am not, then whether I am “honestly mistaken”, mentally ill, or simply on purpose stating such to promote my agenda, I am a LIAR. Jesus was not a liar or mistaken, nor was he insane: He is the Son of God.

P. 93
RD loves to quote nonbelievers when he considers biblical matters. Even in Scripture he chooses to quote the Pharisees, which did not believe or understand Christ, as to why they did not understand the Bethlehem birth of Christ. Using a Scriptural record of the Pharisees’ rejection of the words of Christ, in no way, proves a Christ rejecter’s point. It simply states they rejected the truth, as does RD.

P. 96
RD’s reasoning of spiritual (biblical) things, leads me hoping and praying that God will show him mercy, and send the Spirit to convict his heart of sin, and give unto him understanding. He again uses a quote, yet by Thomas Jefferson, totally out of context.

The quote, from Jefferson to Adams, “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”, has little to do with whether Jesus existed, and more to the theology of Oneness verses the Trinity of God. [Ref]

P. 100
Again he notes, “What is remarkable is the polar opposition between the religiosity of the American public at large and the atheism of the intellectual elite.” Again I note, the things of God have been hidden from the wise and prudent, but revealed unto babes.

“Intellectual elite” does not mean they have spiritual understanding, nor does it mean that they are intelligent or elite concerning God, in their atheism belief.

Examine: Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Chapter 2

As concerning my slow, but continuous reading of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion:

Chapter 2

P. 31
I find it notably interesting that RD can begin a chapter describing one whom he does not know and whom he claims does not exist.

It appears that RD uses the Catholic Church and Thomas Jefferson as his authoritative resources, at least in the beginning of chapter 2. Just noticing there are many of today which disagree with the Catholic Church and there were those of yesterday that did not agree with Jefferson.

It also yields a lot of opinions that are somewhat without good foundations. (You would have to read to see what I mean here.)

P. 38-39
I believe RD misspeaks when he claims, “It is conventional to assume that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic were deists. No doubt many of them were, although it has been argued that the greatest of them might have been atheists.” For he clearly notes his opinion in saying, “Certainly their writings on religion in their own time leave me in no doubt that most of them would have been atheists in ours.”

P. 43
RD enjoys misquoting John Adams, for sure, out of context, (and maybe others) by not giving the complete quote(s) and not referencing where it may be found.

For one example, please consider RD’s quote of Mr. Adams, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were not religion in it.”

Now a fuller quote, “'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!' But in this exclamatic I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell..."” [Ref]

There is much more I could say in this section of the book, but I will refrain.

P. 45
He seems to insinuate that it is okay, acceptable, expected for an atheist to lie about their atheism to get into political power (I mean public office). Hmmm… What else is okay, acceptable, expected to lie about to get into office? What about while in office? What about reelection?

P. 51
He writes, “I’d be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated.” “I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 – I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.

His categories (only 1, 6, & 7)
[1] Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, “I do not believe, I know.”

[6] Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”

[7] Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.”

At first, his words may seem clever, but taking a further look at what he writes seems somewhat hypocritical on his part. I would say the majority of atheists I have conversed with on the internet, at least, write as if they are in category 7, for they are always telling Christians, “there is no God”. Saying, “there is no scientific evidence of God” is not the same as saying “there is no God”. As since RD points out that [7] exactly contrast [1], and [1] is built on faith, so must [7] be. For the choices 1-7 are based on faith, belief, and not on evidence.

For how many times have we heard that science cannot prove or disprove God, for He is of the supernatural realm, whereby the natural science has no means to examine? For this reason, RD decides to say, “What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn’t) but whether his existence is probable.” So since science cannot prove/disprove God, it turns to test His probability. But against what, the natural? This still leaves the atheist with no greater foundation to rest their case of “there is no God” on, but their faith/belief/hope that their presuppositions “there is no God” is correct. With no probability giving a definite “no” to “does God exist”, they are still left in category [6] or [7] by their choice to deny God exist, even though science and probability are unable to remove God from existence.

Examine: Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Preface and Chapter 1

As most of you know, or may not, Richard Dawkins has written the book The God Delusion. Since he is an open atheist, there is no reason to ponder why such a title. I do not personally know Mr. Dawkins, nor have we ever met, but I would like to take a look at his book to glimpse inside the mindset of one who openly, excitedly denies the existence of God.

What I shall present, continually in sections as I continue to read his story, is my questions and observations based on certain parts of his book. I will do my best to note the pages and places of each thought, based in Mr. Dawkins’ book so any owner of the book will easily be able to follow my thoughts, and so I will hopefully not be found guilty of taking things out of context.

RD = Richard Dawkins

Preface

P. 1
The very first page of the Preface RD speaks of “Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion.” I can’t help but wonder if he also noticed that Mr. Lennon would have us remove not only religion, heaven, and hell, but also countries and possessions. How many ready to give up religion are equally ready to give up country and all their possessions right now, today, also? Interestingly, it isn’t country or religion why we are unable to live in peace, but it is the sinfulness of man, which may use country and religion as a means, but it is merely just an outward expression of man’s inward deceitful, prideful, lustful heart of rebellion against God and a desire to make oneself a god.

P. 3 - 5
Interestingly, on page 3, we find RD claiming, “Being an atheist is nothing to be apologetic about. On the contrary, it is something to be proud of, standing tall to face the far horizon, for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind.” Yet, on page 5 he notes, “Indeed, organizing atheists has been compared to herding cats, because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority.”

So, it appears that the same qualities (notably independence and pride) which RD says is “healthy” are equally detrimental to his cause. Not to mention that these very qualities were the cause of the fall of Satan [Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12-19; Job 41:34], and the cause of every man, woman, and child rebelling instead of coming to Christ for salvation [Mark 7:21-23; 1 John 2:15-17]. A desire for independence from God and pride in oneself are not virtuous qualities.

Could you imagine a world run by atheists instead of religious persons (regardless of the fact that religious person are not always Scriptural or godly)? Can you “Imagine”?

Imagine there’s no Christians
Only atheists in sight
They reject all authority
For independence from each other they fight
Imagine all the people
Living for themselves…


(Now, don’t get upset, if you have read Dawkins book he enjoys poking fun at Christianity.)

RD also gives his opinion, on page 4 that, “Clearly we have a long way to go. But atheists are a lot more numerous, especially among the educated elite, than many realize.” On the surface this may appeal to the atheist readers as to give credibility to atheism simply because he claims some of “the educated elite” are atheists, but simply because “the educated elite” believe something to be true does not make it true (Isn’t this the very thing atheist claim of Christians?). Who exactly or what exactly are these “educated elite”, meaning are they “the educated elite” in all knowledge or merely their current field, whatever that may be?

To show that “the educated elite”, by itself, is not necessarily a fail proof policy to say “we should do as they do and believe as they believe”, Scripture declares Christ proclaimed, “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” Continuing by the moving of the Spirit, Paul declares, “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” We must remember, “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.”

Chapter 1

P. 11
At the beginning of Chapter 1, RD reminisces a moment about his past concerning his school chaplain, an Anglican priest. He recalls, “Why the same emotion [idea of nature/universe] should have led my chaplain in one direction and me in the other is not an easy question to answer.” He makes notes that looking at the universe and nature, “He [his chaplain] interpreted the experience in religious terms and it led him eventually to the priesthood”, whereas evidently it did not do the same for RD.

This again leads us to Scripture. [Romans 1]
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”

The Psalmist declares, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.” And Scripture declares the things are written upon our heart for while the law was given to the Jews, Scripture declares,“For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)”

So whereas RD’s chaplain choose to embrace the things of God which were within and without in nature, RD decided to rebel against them, therefore becoming a nonbeliever of that which is both inside of him and is observable in nature. It is simply acceptance verses rejection of the Truth revealed by God to every man, for Christ, “lighteth every man that cometh into the world”, but “men loved darkness rather than light”.

Clearly I haven’t covered all of my thoughts and objections, but here is a little to consider and I will continue as I have time, for I usually read more than one book at a time. If you desire to comment, whether agree or disagree, let's please try to stay within the current portion of the book presented. Currently the preface and Chapter 1. Thanks.

Richard Dawkins’ “Scarlet Letter”

When I was growing up, we had to read and watch the story entitled, The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, published in 1850.

In this story, “The scarlet letter "A" represents the act of adultery that she has committed and it is to be a symbol of her sin for all to see.” “She will not reveal her lover’s identity, however, and the scarlet letter, along with her public shaming, is her punishment for her sin and her secrecy.” “Dimmesdale, leaving the church after his sermon, sees Hester and Pearl standing before the town scaffold. He impulsively mounts the scaffold with his lover and his daughter, and confesses publicly, exposing a scarlet letter A seared into the flesh of his chest.” “When Hester dies, she is buried in "a new grave near an old and sunken one, in that burial ground beside which King's Chapel has since been built. It was near that old and sunken grave, yet with a space between, as if the dust of the two sleepers had no right to mingle. Yet one tombstone served for both." Even though the tombstone was decorated with a letter "A", the text does not indicate whether Hester is buried next to Dimmesdale or Chillingworth.”

So my question is this. Why did Richard Dawkins choose this similar marking to be the mark of his "The OUT Campaign" for Atheists?

“The Scarlet Letter attained an immediate and lasting success because it addressed spiritual and moral issues from a uniquely American standpoint.”

Is this the point that Dawkins is trying to make? Is Atheism a “spiritual and moral” issue? I highly doubt it, since I have been told Atheists do not believe in spirits [the supernatural] or morals [relative with no absolutes]. I am not saying that Atheists cannot or do not act moral, as to what they consider to be right and wrong, but their idea of morals is somewhat different than Christians. *If I am wrong, please correct me.*

As for Christians, we do see this as a “spiritual and moral” condition, as we do also from the story of adultery in Hawthorne’s book. I realize Atheist starts with the letter ‘A’, but to also color it red and have it posted completely noticeable across the chest, I can’t help but ponder if there is more meaning behind the choice. Maybe the meaning has already come about; please share with me the story behind the mark. Note I am not comparing Atheism with Adultery, for it is not I who has chosen the scarlet letter ‘A’, which already carried the meaning.

So, why do I consider this a “spiritual and moral” issue?

1. A person that does not put their faith in Jesus Christ is spiritually dead. Meaning they are a lost person in need of the Savior.

2. A person that does not believe in God is immoral in this point, for God’s law has said that we are to love Him with all of our heart, soul, mind, and might.

The ‘A’ might as well stand for “that spirit of [A]ntichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

---

I am thinking about printing myself up some of these... Any orders?

or