A Review of the God Delusion (Part 15)

The best of the modern "ten commandments" that Richard Dawkins and others have "invented" are the ones that agree with the Word of God. One anonymous source suggested that everyone treat their fellow human beings "with love, honesty, faithfulness, and respect." Wouldn't that include, "You shall do no murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not bear false witness," and other godly precepts?

Another of the "modern" ten commandments was, "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." Doesn't that sound like 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 and Matthew 7:1-5? As for the last statement, the preaching of Christianity called for both pagans and Jews to give up long-cherished beliefs. Atheists have originated nothing new. And when they champion immoral sexual behavior, that is not new, either; pagans have been practicing that for centuries.

After arguing in favor of a social, moral Zeitgeist—where there is a consensus of what morality is—Dawkins then devotes several pages to exceptions (we presented some previously). He talks about how, over time, cultures have changed their views on women's rights and racism. He acknowledges how "swiftly the Zeitgeist changes" (306), which defeats his main thesis.

Evolution Promotes Ending Racism?

The following claim is (incredibly) made.

Then too, there is improved education and, in particular, the increased understanding that each of us shares a common humanity with members of other races and with the other sex—both deeply unbiblical ideas that come from biological science, especially evolution (307).

This must be the craziest claim ever made. The Bible does not teach equality, but evolution does? How could anyone make such a claim with a straight face? One would think that Dawkins never read Paul's sermon on Mars Hill in Athens. He said: "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings" (Acts 17:26). He later adds that human beings "are also His offspring" (v. 28). The fact that God made us all implies equality. We have the same Maker (God); we are of the same blood (regardless of race); we are all His children.

Those who have obeyed the gospel have an additional sense in which they are His children. They are His spiritual children as well as His physical offspring. "There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). This truth was proclaimed centuries before Darwin entered the world.

Was it evolution or Biblical principles that terminated the slave trade in England? Dawkins would have his readers believe that the moral Zeitgeist is "not driven by religion" (308). Yet William Wilberforce introduced legislation for 18 times before succeeding. According to Wikipedia, "William Wilberforce (1759-1833) is often called the 'father' of the British abolitionist movement." They also state: "Wilberforce was convinced of the importance of religion, morality and education." How could Dawkins overlook the role of religion in the abolition of slavery in his own country?

Instead, Dawkins wants to credit evolution with positive societal change. Evolution taught "the survival of the fittest," which promoted the idea of a superior race. Evolution also rejects God, which removes an objective source for morality. The results are currently being felt in society. Youths are taught that the material is all that there is. So why not try to get the most we can—at other people's expense? Suicide rates are up. Why? Many have bought into the idea that at death we just cease to exist. Many think that such a state is better than the one they are in; so, they check out early.

Hitler and Stalin

People often ask atheists about Hitler and Stalin who, even at a conservative estimate, killed more than 25 million innocent people. Dawkins suggests that's just a coincidence, like the fact that both men wore mustaches. Seriously? Yes; he asserts that "there is no evidence this his atheism motivated his brutality" (309). One might ask, "Is it also just a coincidence that no Christian leader has killed millions?"

The New Testament teaches that murder is wrong (Rom. 13:9). Neither Jesus nor His apostles led Christians into battles where they slaughtered their enemies. The New Testament teaches that one soul is worth more than the entire world (Matt. 16:26). Souls are to be saved, not slain (Matt. 28:18-20). All human beings are the offspring of God. Can anyone who believes these truths set up death camps and annihilate significant portions of society?

But if man has no soul and is just a material body, he is expendable. There are plenty more left after several million are killed. Why should resources and time be spent on the mentally ill, the handicapped, Alzheimer patients. They consume resources and have nothing to offer in return. Why not just put them to sleep? They'll be better off not existing anyway.

If there is no God and no spiritual side of mankind, then there cannot be anything wrong with murder, either—not if the moral Zeitgeist approves it. Some already champion that life in the womb can be destroyed, as late as the ninth month of pregnancy—or even after a child is born!

The best that Dawkins can do to defend his position is to cite "Christians" who agreed with mass murder. He says that Hitler never renounced his Catholicism (310). Two fallacies with this approach beg to be pointed out. First, Catholicism is not the same as Christianity as taught in the New Testament. Jesus never authorized a pope, cardinals, archbishops, or any hierarchy beyond what exists in the local congregation. Mary is not worshiped; purgatory is never mentioned. Also missing is the worship of dead people; in the Bible saints are living Christians. Confessionals are also absent. Much more could be pointed out.

Therefore, it would not matter if Hitler were a Catholic with an A+ rating. Catholicism does not follow the Scriptures. Martin Luther is cited as hating Jews and wanting them out of Germany. He did not follow the New Testament wholly, either. Oh, but both Luther and Hitler referred to the Jews as "a brood of vipers," a phrase that John the Baptizer used—not of all Jews—but of the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Matt. 3:7). John was not referring to all Jews—otherwise, the Jews from Jerusalem, all Judea, and from all around the Jordan would not have gone out to be baptized of him (Matt. 3:5). The leaders of the Jews (the Sanhedrin), were corrupt. Besides, John (and later, Jesus) exposed their hypocrisy; he did not call for their death but their repentance.

What Dawkins needs is a passage of Scripture that calls for Christians to be violent—and there is none. What he also needs to do is to prove that, without the existence of God, people abstain from violence anyway. He fails to establish that point as well.

For some reason, maybe because of irony, Dawkins includes a factoid about Hitler. He was "always adamant that Jesus himself was not a Jew" (313). Did he skip the first chapter of Matthew? He is called Jesus because "He will save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). Luke 3 contains the genealogy of Mary and includes such famous Israelites as David and Abraham. One wonders what race Hitler thought Jesus was.

Who, If Anyone, Gets the Blame?

Christianity cannot be blamed for the actions of men like Hitler and Salin because they cannot find any authority in the New Testament to justify their actions. Can atheism not be logically blamed? Dawkins answers, "No," because they did not act in the name of atheism. But such a fact is irrelevant. Jesus once said, "He who is not with Me is against Me…" (Matt. 12:30a). No one needs to claim to be doing something in the name of atheism in order to actually be doing so.

With Jesus comes moral standards. Without Him, moral standards may be established, but they originate from men and are subject to change; they are not absolute and permanent. Also, the atheist rejects God, rejects the value of a soul—or that a soul even exists—and rejects that a Day of Judgment (reckoning) will ever occur. If there is no day of accountability, then why not do what a person can get away with?

Take, murder, for example. In 2022, according to the Internet, only 50% of murders were solved. (Where is Columbo when you need him?) Many are no doubt thinking, "I'm clever enough to get away with it." How many valued the life they took? How many of them fear the Judgment? No, they did not kill in the name of atheism, but they believe the tenets of atheism.

Does that mean that all murderers are atheists? Of course not. Some might even be Christians who are violating their own belief system. If most murderers are atheists, then why aren't there more killings? Many children these days are reared against a background of Christian principles. Even if they are not Christians, society still says that murder is wrong, and so most people refrain from harming someone. But that can change. Consider how many people can be talked into having an abortion—even though it violates Christian principles. On the other hand, many who are not religious give birth to a child anyway because their social circle is opposed to abortion. Therefore, the influence of Christianity makes a better society even among atheists.

But a society where God becomes absent can degenerate. It has already happened. In Genesis 6, we read of an intermingling between those who were of the godly seed line of Seth and those who followed the way of Cain (Gen. 6:1-4). Eventually, with every generation moving further and further away from God, the whole world became corrupt. Everyone's thoughts were evil; the earth was also filled with violence and corruption (Gen. 6:5, 11). And God destroyed the earth with a Flood. The next time it will be with a fire (2 Peter 3:10-13).

Killing Ourselves Over Ancient Literature

Sam Harris, who wrote The End of Faith, blames religion for the world's woes. Dawkins records him as writing: "We are, even now, killing ourselves over ancient literature. Who would have thought something so tragically absurd could be possible?" (316). People go to war for a lot of reasons. As Genesis 6:11 points out, the earth was filled with violence. And it was not over an ancient book, since none had yet been written.

Dawkins laments that some believe their own religion "is the only true one" (316). Both Jesus and the apostles declared the validity of only one Savior and one true religion (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Now, where does anyone in the New Testament say, "Go out, and kill others over the matter." The message is to convert—not kill.

An Absence of Belief

Dawkins closes his 7th chapter (finally) with this sentence: "By contrast, why would anyone go to war for the sake of an absence of belief?" (316). Atheism is not the absence of belief—but a strong belief that God does not exist. It is a belief because it cannot be proven. How can it be the absence of a belief when atheists suggest their own ten commandments, which entails a belief system. As for going to war, he has done so—ideologically. He has been battling vigorously, if unsuccessfully.