A Review of the God Delusion (Part 14)
Although Richard Dawkins has a few kind remarks to make about Jesus, he manages to find fault with the way the Lord treated His family, even quoting a comedienne for saying that a tactic of cults is to separate a person from his family. Of course, what Dawkins reveals is that he does not understand what Jesus meant about hating mother and father. He is teaching that God (including Himself) must come first in terms of priorities.
Original Sin
The next objection relates to the Atonement, which Dawkins says "no good person should support" (284). The reader will recall that even after nearly 300 pages into his book, Dawkins has yet to offer an objective definition of what is good and what is evil—except for his own thoughts on the subject. But he is wrong in the particulars of his attack. The Bible nowhere teaches "'atonement' for 'original sin'" (284). That doctrine does not lie "at the heart of New Testament theology" (284).
In the first place, the phrase, original sin, does not occur either in the Old or the New Testament. No one is condemned because of Adam's or Eve's first sin. That bad decision to sin, however, is representative of all of us. We all made the same choice that they did—we rebelled against the command of God (and still do). No one stands condemned because of what the first couple did; we have all committed our own sins.
Once again, Dawkins shows disdain for the penalties of sin: banishment from the Garden of Eden, removal of the gift of eternal life, painful labor in growing crops for men, and painful labor for women in having children (285). In Dawkins' universe, apparently, sin would go unpunished. When he has the power to create his own universe and sustain it, then he can run it as he sees fit.
Atonement
Not only does Dawkins believe that God is too hard on punishment, he also despises God's remedy for it—the Atonement for sin. He finds it abhorrent that Jesus would be made to suffer on the cross to pay the price for sins. But this fact is indeed ironic. He is an atheist who does not believe in spiritual concepts, but he claims to know that the price for sin (a spiritual concept) is all wrong. So, what is his solution to the sin problem? Oh, that's right; he doesn't think sin is a problem.
In fact, he protests that, after the first sin, Adam and Eve knew they were naked. His objection to nakedness being a problem is expressed by Sam Harris, in his "Letter to a Christian Nation":
Your principal concern seems to be that the Creator of the universe will take offense at something people do while naked. This prudery contributes daily to the surplus of human misery (286).
No, that is not a principal concern, but it is a valid one. Even worldly people recognize that what "people do while naked" matters. No one would accuse former Eagles' member, Don Henley, of being a Christian theologian, yet he protested the very thing that only Christians are supposed to be preoccupied with in the song, "Everybody Knows," a few lines of which appear below:
Everybody knows that you've been faithful,
Oh, give or take a night or two.
Everybody knows you've been discreet,
But there were so many people you just had to meet
Without your clothes.
Everybody knows.
At the end of the song, the last lines are these:
Everybody knows it's coming apart.
Take one last look at this Sacred Heart
Before it blows.
God the Creator knows what is best for man, including his sexual behavior. He also knows that the only remedy for sin is the shedding of innocent blood. Whether Dawkins or any other atheist understands that "without shedding of blood, there is no remission" of sins (Heb. 9:22) is irrelevant. Jesus' death on the cross for our sins is sufficient to remove them all. If Dawkins refuses to take advantage of the forgiveness of sins that is available to him, that's his privilege. But he is wrong to rebuke others for seeking salvation just because he fails to comprehend God's grace and mercy. One would think the cross cost Dawkins something instead of God.
Loving One's Neighbor
To a Jew, loving one's neighbor meant loving a fellow Jew because the Law was given to a nation of Jews. But Dawkins is wrong when he says that Jesus taught the same thing. Has he never heard of Jesus' illustration of the Samaritan who helped a Jew who had been left for dead? Afterward, Jesus asked: "So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?" (Luke 10:36). The point is that people are supposed to love everyone and be a neighbor to everyone.
The disinformation continues. Dawkins says:
Jesus was a devotee of the same in-group morality—coupled with out-group hostility—that was taken for granted in the Old Testament. Jesus was a loyal Jew. It was Paul who invented the idea of taking the Jewish God to the Gentiles (292).
This unfounded assertion not only ignores Jesus' teaching regarding the Samaritan, it credits Paul falsely with the idea of preaching to the Gentiles. Consider what Jesus told the disciples after His resurrection:
"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…" (Matt. 28:18-19).
"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe shall be condemned" (Mark 16:15-16).
Maybe Dawkins has never made it to the end of Matthew or Mark, but going to the whole world was part of Jesus' charge to the apostles before Paul ever thought about being a Christian. As a matter of fact, on the morning He ascended into Heaven, Jesus repeated what He had said earlier about spreading the gospel: "But you shall receive power after the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth" (Acts 1:8).
Furthermore, it was not "the Jewish God" that Paul would later take to the Gentiles. It was the gospel of Christ—that people could be saved through Him. It was Jesus, His Deity, and His death on the cross for our sins that the apostles (including Paul) took to the whole world. Dawkins does not know the Scriptures well enough to be taken as a serious critic of them.
Apparently, no one ever told Dawkins that the Book of Revelation contains descriptions that are symbolic; thus, he makes himself look foolish trying to impose literal meanings on obvious symbols (292). He rambles on, talking about religious strife again, ignoring the fact that true Christianity does not authorize violence.
The Moral Zeitgeist
The next few pages are devoted to the topic of "the moral Zeitgeist," which is "a consensus about what we do as a matter of fact consider right and wrong…" (298). One wonders, "A consensus of whom?" Philosophers? Theologians? College professors? Homemakers? Blue collar workers? Christians? Muslims? The closeness of the last several political elections should show that there is not a lot of consensus on a number of issues. Was there a consensus of opinion that brought about prohibition? And another one that terminated it? What's the consensus on the ever-divisive issue of abortion?
A web site, sporting the new ten commandments was discovered by Dawkins. The first one is a version of "The Silver Rule": Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you." The Golden Rule is better, since it encourages taking positive action toward others (Matt. 7:12). But why should anyone obey the silver version? It did not come from God (since it's an atheist website). Many disagree with it and spend their lives stealing from others. The same can be said of murder. The moral Zeitgeist once pronounced abortion as wrong; every state had laws against it. Was it right then, or is it right now?
Some of the ten are not bad; one is Biblical: "Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them" (299). Dawkins says that these are just precepts that "any ordinary, decent person today would come up with" (299). On what objective standard is the word decent based? Since God is not mentioned anywhere in these ten commandments, they tend to glorify and exalt man as supreme. Apparently, no one else is greater.
Dawkins' Favorite Commandments
Not content with an average "decent" person's commandments, Dawkins has some of his own. The first one listed is: "Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business" (300). Does anyone see any flaws in this man-made commandment?
First, how does one know that no one else will be damaged? Suppose a man makes a pass at his friend's wife. Hopefully, she would make it clear that she is not interested. But what if she responds and has an "affair," as long as no one is damaged. But suppose she eventually tells her husband; who can predict what the fall out might be? Second, what if a man is a member of NAMBLA and seduces a 15-year-old male? Even if no one discovered the relationship (because they were all minding their own business), can Dawkins predict that no damage will be done psychologically to the youngster?
What if a young unmarried couple living together separates and she later marries her ex's boss? Who knows what damage he might receive for his former flouting of God's sexual laws? What if a child is conceived out of wedlock; can Dawkins guarantee he will never suffer damage, if his father never owns him?
His third commandment is: "Do not indoctrinate your own children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you" (300). The second sentence we can probably all agree on, but the first one is objectionable. Don't indoctrinate your children? Right. Let Dawkins and others of his ilk do it instead. Children are going to obtain values and ethics from somewhere—maybe from books they are reading, television programs (or movies) they are watching, and certainly from what they are taught in school. Only parents cannot indoctrinate?
Christian parents, for example, will teach their children that homosexuality is a sin, but their teachers at school may try to convince them that such a practice is fine—just a preference like what flavor ice cream they like best. Therefore, if Christian parents refrain from indoctrinating their children, someone else will do so.
Indoctrination is not necessarily a dirty word—especially when youngsters are taught to think for themselves. Parents have the right to teach their children what the Bible teaches about God, Jesus, and salvation.