A Review of the God Delusion (Part 1)
In his debate with Antony G.N. Flew, Doctor Thomas B. Warren observed that, with all the writing Flew had done on God that he seemed to have a God fixation. The same could be said of Richard Dawkins, whose other books include The Blind Watchmaker, River out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbably, Unweaving the Rainbow, A Devil’s Chaplain, Outgrowing God, and (of course) The God Delusion (first published in 2006). Probably he would argue that he is merely trying to keep mankind from believing in foolish and harmful things, but surely it would not require volumes to accomplish that goal—would it?
Baseball fans once commented that the great hitter, Honus Wagner, could stretch any triple into a single. Dawkins is just the opposite. He can take one paragraph, which is sufficient to make the point, and stretch it into two or three pages. He is nothing if not verbose. Usually, he comes across as smug and quite pleased with himself. Scientists who agree with him are brilliant and fair-minded; theists are generally ignorant and say foolish things. For example, he quotes Kurt Wise on page 19 as saying that
…if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.
As Dawkins rightly points out, how can one deny the evidence? The Bible does not teach this idea. Paul wrote: “Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21-22). Evidence is crucial to true Christians, and we do not agree with Wise’s statement. This pattern of quoting “authorities” and arguments as invalid persists throughout the book. The main problem is that Christians likewise disagree with much of what he does—and for the same reason. But we recognize that he deals inadequately or not at all with compelling arguments for the existence of God.
That he has a high opinion of himself is seen in his response to a Canadian critic who asked:
…does Dawkins really think this world would be a more human place if we all looked to The God Delusion instead of The Bible for truth and comfort? (21).
Without hesitation, he responds, “Actually yes…” (21). As the old expression goes, “On what does this, our Caesar, feed?” Perhaps, Dawkins can put together an edition of this book in which he highlights all the passages that bring comfort and hope to mankind. In a departure into humility, he admits that his book may only supply moderate comfort—to the bereaved, for example. What comfort is that? “Your toddler is now extinct, and you’ll never see him again” (see 2 Sam. 12:23).
“Imagine!”
Dawkins wants everyone to “imagine,” as the John Lennon song advocates, a world with no religion. He lists several things the world would have been better off without, such as the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York, suicide bombers, the Crusades, the witch hunts, Israeli-Palestinian wars, no conflicts in Northern Ireland. His problem is that Christians agree with the premise of all those conflicts. We know that Islam is a violent religion. We recognize that Jesus told Peter to put away the sword (Matt. 26:51-52) and that bearing arms is not part of Christianity.
But let’s imagine a little further. How about we imagine a world in which Mark David Chapman was not a psycho and killed a tremendous talent? If it be argued that he thought he was pleasing God in his action, there are two responses: 1) Jesus taught that we are to love one another—even those we perceive as enemies (Matt. 5:43); and 2) Chapman also thought he was living out the role of Holden Caulfield (from The Catcher in the Rye). Whatever his thinking, he was not following any Biblical principle.
How many died in the Crusades? It is estimated that about 1.7 million people died (many of whom never even made it to the battle). How many “witches” died at Salem? 19—before the foolishness was stopped. It is estimated that 3,500 died in Northern Ireland. All in all these “Christian” related atrocities total less than 2 million deaths. The higher figure for those who died in the Inquisition is 300,000. Let’s raise it to 3 million for all these. Now, imagine there was no Hitler, who killed twice that number of Jews! And he certainly did not kill all those people in the name of religion!
But let’s imagine a world without heaven under the direction of another Lenin—Vladimir Lenin. According to Wikipedia: “Opponents were suppressed in the Red Terror, and tens of thousands were killed or interned in concentration camps.” But Stalin did much more damage. A conservative estimate is that 20 million people died during his reign. So, this communist had twice as many people killed than Hitler, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the “witches” in Salem, and Northern Ireland combatants combined. Imagining there’s no heaven does not seem to be an improvement for mankind.
Of course, Dawkins is out to trash religion; therefore, he does not list (at least in the “preface”) all the atrocities committed in the name of irreligion. He blithely states that “atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind” (26). Lenin and Stalin would probably agree—not to mention Mao Tse-Tung (Zedong), who put to death, in one way or another, between 40 and 80 million people. So, we do not need to imagine what life would be like on earth without heaven; the Communists have shown us.
Near the end of his “Preface,” Dawkins turns to humor, quoting author Robert Pirsig: “When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion” (28). Say, that’s about as funny as the comment made about the atheist at his funeral. One wag said, “It’s too bad that he’s all dressed up with nowhere to go.” Dawkins follows the previous joke with another: “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down” (28).
The author missed a good opportunity to ingratiate himself with his audience by not following up with a third quip. Instead he chose (yes, atheists have free will, too) to call believers “dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads” who are “immune to argument” (28). Of course, those who don’t agree with his conclusions will not be “open-minded” or able to break from their “childhood indoctrination” (28). This method of addressing the existence of God is akin to the logical fallacy of the lawyer who asks the defendant, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” In essence Dawkins asks the reader, “Have you changed from the brainwashed, Christian ideology of your youth? Or have you grown up to be logical, fair-minded, and objective—like me?” Now there’s a choice!
Einstein
Most of chapter 1 is taken up with Einstein who, according to one statement that he wrote, did not believe in a personal God. Dawkins printed some criticisms of the scientist—one of which is noteworthy—for its errors. The one cited below was written by the president of a historical society in New Jersey. After correctly saying that “God is a spirit and cannot be found through a telescope,” he then makes a great blunder, commenting: “As everyone knows, religion is based on Faith, not knowledge” (38).
Some Christians may hold to such a view, but they did not obtain it from the Scriptures. Imagine Moses appearing before Pharaoh and saying, “I am a man of faith, with a personal relationship with Jehovah. Based on my faith, you should let Israel go.” No. Moses told Pharaoh what was going to happen before it happened, and he was right ten times out of ten. God gave Pharaoh evidence—not theological drivel.
At Mount Carmel, even God’s people were not sure about their God. God gave them, along with the wicked King Ahab and the prophets of Baal, what is called evidence—the consuming of the sacrifice prepared by Elijah (1 Kings 18). Fire did not come down from heaven and destroy Baal’s sacrifice—only the one for Jehovah.
Jesus did not come to earth to tell people, “I’m looking for personal relationships; trust Me that I am from God.” He worked miracles—hundreds of them—probably thousands. Did He not think knowledge was important? He told His followers, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). Does that sound like one who does not believe in knowledge?
Maligning God
Dawkins begins his second chapter by saying just about every malicious thing he can dream up about God. He opens with the following words on page 51:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously, malevolent bully.
One cannot help but chuckle when he gets to the word megalomaniacal. Dawkins, the author of this diatribe, is a human being (made in the image of God) who has taken it upon himself to rail mercilessly against the Creator who made him, whose power has been demonstrated time and again. And he calls God a megalomaniac? That’s funny. God could say about His power what Will Sonnet said in a short-lived television series: “No brag—just fact.”
A brief response will begin by mentioning that the God of the Old Testament is not fictional. Pharaoh probably wished that He was—as well as the prophets of Baal. But He is the great “I AM.” Dawkins might want to notice that He does not and has not changed. “For I am the Lord, I do not change; therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob” (Mal. 3:6). Was that mercy we saw there instead of vindictiveness?
God is jealous; why should He share glory with an idol that was invented by men? How is He petty, unjust, and an unforgiving control-freak? How many opportunities did He give Israel to repent before allowing them to be taken captive? He gave commands that He expects to be obeyed (out of gratitude for what He has given us). Those commands were for Israel’s good (Deut. 10:12-13). If God was as vindictive as you portray Him, Richard, your book would never have seen the light of day, and probably you would have been long gone.
God did call for the Canaanites to be destroyed from the face of the earth because of their excessive wickedness and their refusal to repent in 400 years’ time (Gen. 15:13-16). Yes, infants were included, but they alone will be among the saved. God allowed a son of Jeroboam to die young “because there was something good in him,” which, had he become an adult would likely have changed (1 Kings 14:13).
The charge of being anti-woman will not stand up under scrutiny. God can scarcely be called racist since He created them all (Acts 17:24-26). God is not homophobic; homosexuality is a sin, just like fornication and adultery. God did not create homosexuals.
These charges hurled at Almighty God do not hurt Him or enhance Dawkins. They remind one of a youth that is mad and frustrated and yells out insults, as if they will do some good. They never do.