A Review of the God Delusion (Part 17)
Before concluding the section on abortion, Richard Dawkins travels a bridge too far when he says that anti-abortionists "don't understand that evolution is a fact!" (339). Pro-Life people do not understand that evolution is a fact because it isn't. It has not been established as such, and in fact there is a great deal of evidence against the concept of evolution. Actually, Dawkins admits that evolutionists do not have all the answers.
In an interview with Speak Life (about eight minutes in), Dawkins was asked, "Are there still unanswered questions, for example?" He affirmed that there were.
Interviewer: "And what are they?"
Dawkins: "Well, for example, the origin of the whole thing. How did it get started? The origin of life. That's a big unanswered question."
If the origin of life is a big, unanswered question, how do we know evolution is a fact? Actually, neither the origin of the universe nor the origin of life is a mystery to those who read the Bible. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). Furthermore, God made man in His own image (Gen. 1:26-28). When someone decides he will be an atheist, he must reject the truths presented in the very first chapter of Genesis right off the bat. Having repudiated the truth, no wonder he has unanswered questions.
An interesting View
The following material is not based on anything in The God Delusion, but it relates to Dawkins' beliefs. Certainly, he is not a Calvinist, but he does not believe in free will. What? Here is a conversation from that same interview mentioned above (35 seconds in).
Interviewer: "Do you believe that we have free will?"
Dawkins: "I hate that question. Free will is an illusion. But it's a very, very powerful illusion. We all feel as though we've got free will."
Interviewer: "So, you believe that the question I'm asking you now and the answer you're giving me now is predetermined."
Dawkins: "I'm afraid I do, and I find that very hard to stomach."
Of course, the Bible teaches that we have free will. God gave Adam and Eve a choice whether to obey or disobey. All human beings have had that same choice ever since. But Dawkins says it's an illusion—and everything that happens is predetermined—even the fact that your congenial editor read his book and is writing a response to it.
If that is so, then why does he complain about the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades? Why is he so hostile towards religion? Wasn't it all pre-determined?
In fact, why did he feel compelled to write a book against the concept of God, if his audience was predetermined to be theists? In other words, why does he fill his book full of arguments (many of which are bad ones) in an effort to convince people God does not exist? Who is he trying to persuade to believe his position—those who are predetermined to be theists or those predetermined to be atheists?
If everything is predetermined, persuasion is useless. He has the same dilemma that Calvinists do. If all people are predestined to be saved or lost (and there is nothing they can do to change their eternal fate), then why on earth would any of their adherents be evangelistic? Others will be saved or lost regardless of what you tell them—or don't tell them.
Dawkins hates saying that free will is false, but he believes (apparently) that some will be criminals and commit heinous crimes because they can't help it. Is that the reason for his opposition to the death penalty? Unfortunately for him, some of us were predestined (according to his theory) to believe in free will and hold people accountable for their actions.
How ironic that Dawkins has devoted a great portion of his life in trying to convince people who are predetermined to believe otherwise that God does not exist! His beliefs contradict his life's work and his teaching. One can only imagine the great disappointment and sorrow he will face one day to discover that, as it pertains to God—and free will, he was wrong on both counts.
Martyrdom
Once again, Dawkins finds fault with martyrdom—especially as Muslims perceive it—sacrificing themselves to kill others. Although he does not say it, Christians have no qualms concerning it: Islam is a false religion! Such is easily provable since they do not regard Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). He also stated that "if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins" (John 8:24).
"But Christians have been martyrs, too," someone might protest, which is true. They have given themselves to die rather than deny Jesus, but they did not take up arms against Rome, and in modern times they have not flown airplanes into towers or attached bombs to themselves to blow themselves and others up, either.
Still, Dawkins finds fault with Christian parents because they don't have to make a case for what they believe; they just call it "faith" (346). Either Dawkins has not heard of the field of Apologetics, or he just ignores it. The whole purpose of it is to provide evidence for people to believe, but he foolishly says: "Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification" (347).
But according to him, this must all be predetermined; so why does he find fault with it? However, true Christians would respond by saying that faith does need to be justified, and in the case of Christianity, the evidence is far more than substantial. Are there some who just believe without adequate evidence? Sure, but no one is defending that viewpoint. Instead, we defend the truth.
Children and Irony
Chapter nine begins with an account of a Jewish child, Edgardo Mortara, who was taken from his Jewish parents in 1858 and raised Catholic (349-50). The author alleges that this was not an uncommon practice and that it was justified on this basis—that what was done was "absolutely right morally, and right for the welfare of the child." (352). Further, the Mortaras could have had their son back "if only they had accepted the priests' entreaties and agreed to be baptized themselves" (353), which they refused to do.
One might think that Dawkins would admire the Jewish couple's stand for their beliefs, knowing what it cost them, but, no. Instead, he chides them as being presumptuous because so many religious people, like them, say they "know, without evidence, that the faith of their birth is the one true faith, all others being aberrations or downright false" (353). Dawkins is the presumptuous one. He thinks that everyone who is not an evolutionist is presumptuous. Phooey! The Mortara's had far more reasons for being Jewish than Dawkins has scientific evidence for being an evolutionist.
How about the Old Testament, which was written from 1500 to 400 B.C.? That's a long time before Darwin came along. The Mortara's followed an ancient and valid book they know to be true. Unfortunately, they do not recognize that the prophecies of the book have been fulfilled in Christ and His church. Furthermore, the seizure of their son will probably do nothing to invalidate their beliefs. In fact, If Roman Catholicism were true, it would not have had to steal children. They could make their case to adults and let them make up their own minds at that point. Catholicism, however, by and large, does not reason with people about their religion, they are the prime example of authoritarianism; their answer is usually, "Because we said so."
After mischaracterizing all believers in religion as having no basis for belief and tying that to the kidnapping of children to force them into a different pattern of belief, the reader may well ask, "Where is all of this heading?" After a section on physical and mental abuse (354-66), the reader finds the author citing Nicholas Humphrey, who argues "in favor of censorship for the special case of children" (366). Some of his statements include:
Parents, correspondingly, have no God-given licence [sic] to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose…."
So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon (366-67).
So, parents have no right to teach their children that the Bible is the inspired Word of God or that the planets rule their lives. Can they teach them that they have no free will? Can they teach them that faith is never based on evidence? Can they teach them that all religion is bad? Can they teach them that they are descended from animals and that when they die, their life ends? Is it all right to teach them that there will never be a time of accountability—a Day of Judgment? This is the irony of Dawkins' position. He laments that children are raised Jewish or Catholic; such should not be allowed, but it's all right to teach them humanism and atheism. It is doubtful that few parents will turn over the education of their children to Dawkins and Humphrey.
Most of us would like to see better parents. The state can step in for the physical protection of the child. But the state has no right to intervene when it philosophically or religiously disagrees with what parents are doing. Would Christians prefer that children not be raised Jewish? Yes. Why? It is a possibility that they will become prejudiced against Christianity. But Christians have no right to force their religious beliefs on others. Neither does Dawkins! Neither does the state!
Who has rights to children? One would think that the ones responsible for them are the ones who brought them into the world. Therefore, they do not belong to the state—except in some Communist countries. They do not belong to philosophers, atheists, humanists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, et al. Children belong to their parents unless they prove themselves unfit, but a philosophical difference with atheists does not disqualify them. In true Orwellian style, Dawkins calls this section of the chapter, "In Defence [sic] of Children," when it should be titled, "In Control of Children."
His assumptions about Christianity are really too much. He thinks those who follow the New Testament do not want their children to learn science (367). It may surprise him to know that many Christians hold scientific degrees. They believe in science—just not evolution. He acts as if only evolutionists teach their children how to think. He thanks his own parents "for taking the view that children should be taught not so much what to think as how to think" (367). Believe it or not, Christian parents do both. They know that teaching critical thinking puts children at risk—to choose something other than what their parents believe—but it is necessary so that youths can be fully persuaded of the truth.
As previously mentioned, God appealed to Israel to reason with Him (Isa. 1:18), and Paul wrote to the brethren to test all things (1 Thess. 5:21). In passage after passage, persuasion is used to convince readers of the truth. God believes in free will even if Dawkins does not. Has anyone noticed how convenient it is to say that everything is predetermined? If it were so, then how could anyone ever be held accountable for his actions?