A Review of the God Delusion (Part 19)

A Consoling Boast

In Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, he tries to cheer himself and his fellow atheists up by pretending that death is no big deal. He seems to admit that the Christian's hope of immortality probably does provide comfort to them, but he notes that, however encouraged people might be by eternal life, that does not make the doctrine true (394). Christians can agree with this point. Just because the promise of 72 virgins is held out to a martyr/terrorist does not make it true, either.

But Dawkins goes way beyond the truth of this observation. He tries to convince his readers that atheists are not depressed about life or death. He says he "knows of no evidence that atheists have any general tendency towards unhappy, angst-ridden despond" (395). This is a strange view. Without God, we have no idea of why we are here (just a random accident of the universe). We have no clue as to what we should do while we are here. And we have no hope of going anywhere when we die. Does anyone see any reason to be optimistic about life, with these tenets?

Concerning death and contemplating his own non-existence, Dawkins appears to agree with Mark Twain, who said, "I do not fear death. I had been dead billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it" (396). This statement makes no sense. No one can die unless he has first lived. He was, therefore, not dead for billions of years; he merely did not exist for thousands of years. When an individual does not exist, he cannot be inconvenienced. What Twain is saying is that he did not exist before birth, and he will not exist after he dies; so, why worry about it? He should worry because only the first part is true. He does still exist even though he died in 1910; probably, he is not so cavalier about that statement any more.

Allegedly, Thomas Jefferson, as he approached the end of his life, said that he was without either hope or fear (397). Such an attitude does not make one intelligent. Bertrand Russell, said in "What I Believe," published in 1925: "I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego shall survive" (392). It does not matter what a person believes; what will occur is precisely what we read in Luke 16:19-26, which is the truth of the matter. Russell claimed that the prospect of annihilation did not make him shiver. Just because a person lacks the sense to be troubled by the prospect of the Day of Judgment does not make him intelligent.

Dabney Phillips, in his book, Restoration Principles and Personalities, reports an interesting conversation that took place between Alexander Campbell and the atheist, Robert Owen. Prior to their debate (April 13-21, 1829), Owen visited Cambell at his home: their conversation bears on what Jefferson is reported to have said.

One evening while the two were strolling over the farm, they came to the family cemetery. Owen paused and said, "There is one advantage I have over the Christian—I am not afraid to die, and if some few items of my business were settled, I would be perfectly willing to die at any moment."

Campbell replied, "You say you have no fear of death, but do you have any hope in death?" After a brief silence, Owen answered, "No." Campbell pointed to an ox standing nearby in the shade, whisking off flies, and said, "You are on the level with that brute. He has fed till he is satisfied, and there he stands in the shade, and has neither fear nor hope in death." Mr. Owen blushed in confusion and did not reply (76-77).

Although hopeless, that is what evolution teaches, isn't it—that we came from animals and are an animal? Why not be as any animal on a farm or in a zoo? Dawkins seems to be trying his best to be without fear of death and without hope as well? He seems insistent on having the same philosophy as an ox.

Liberal, Missouri

What would a town be like without God? We do not need to wonder. George H. Walser made it possible for us to know. According to an article from Reason and Revelation (Nov. 1, 2004), Walser founded the town in 1880. Like Dawkins, he didn't want his children being taught the Christian religion.

"His idea was to build up a town that should exclusively be the home of Infidels…a town that should have neither God, Hell, Church, nor Saloon."

According to Clark Braden, the experiment did not work very well. It is true that Braden was a preacher, which might color his view somewhat, but he was also an experienced debater, having participated in more than 130 of them. He was fearless and challenged the infidel, Robert G. Ingersoll, to a debate. He replied, "I am not such a fool as to debate. He would wear me out." One wonders if Dawkins would have accepted.

Braden's assessment of Liberal was printed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885—which was 4½ years after the establishment of the town. His comments on Liberal were not appreciated; in fact, he was arrested for criminal libel and tried 16 days later. The prosecution gave their evidence; no defense was given, but the jury brought back a verdict of, "'No cause for action." The next day, however, a civil suit was filed by a hotel operator in Liberal, claiming that his hotel had been injured by Clark's comments. When the prosecution learned the defense was "prepared to prove that Liberal was a den of infamy, and that its hotels were little more than houses of prostitution," the owner of the hotel withdrew his suit. Everything that Braden had written concerning Liberal had been completely factual. So, what did he write?

He wrote, that, while there were no taverns, few of the inhabitants abstained from alcohol. Three locations made it available, and many citizens were drunk in public. Swearing was common—even among youths. Half of the women practiced the habit, also. Couples were living together outside of marriage; many lived in adultery. Obscene literature was available. Loose women attended public dances. Feticide (abortion) was commonly practiced.

According to Braden, "[s]uch are the facts concerning this infidel paradise…. Every one who has visited Liberal, and knows the facts, knows that such is the case." The fact that Braden could not be found guilty shows the sorry state of the town. Walser eventually let taverns enter the town in 1877 and churches in 1879, according to one sort. A genuine atheistic paradise failed to be what its designer envisioned.

Robert Owen was mentioned earlier as an atheist who debated Alexander Campbell. Owen had his own experimental community. The following description comes from Wikipedia and is sketchy in its details:

In 1824, he [Owen, gws] moved to America and put most of his fortune in an experimental socialistic community at New Harmony, Indiana, as a preliminary for his utopian society. It lasted about two years.

Why do these attempts fail? What motivation do people have to be kind or honest or truthful? Can people behave in such ways without God? Yes, but unfortunately, they usually don't. Apart from God, there is no ultimate accountability. Some will choose to live as the Schlitz beer commercial used to say: "You only go around once in life, so grab all the gusto you can."

In fact, grab everything you can. Do as Solomon did: take all the education you can get, as well as all the women, all the money, all the entertainment. Live it up. The rich farmer was convinced that this was the way to live; he convinced himself that he had years of pleasure ahead and should "eat, drink, and be merry" (Luke 12:19). To paraphrase Dr. Phil: "How'd that work out for him?"

The point is that if life is all there is, then the message on old bumper stickers is right: "He who dies with the most toys wins." In prosperous countries, one can afford to be an atheist, but what about those on one of the lower castes in India or someone sold as a slave from Africa? How many have endured life without hope, without any prospect for improvement, or without any material possessions, to speak of? What about those who live in chronic pain? What about those innocent souls who are murdered? There is no ultimate justice in the atheist world, which is randomly chaotic.

Euthanasia

Since 95% of people "believe they will survive their own death" (398), Dawkins wants to know why people are opposed to euthanasia. He thinks people ought to rejoice to move on to the next world. Most Christians do, but they do not commit suicide or desire to be euthanized in order to get there. Paul wrote: "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (Phil. 1:21). Christians do not support euthanasia because they are reluctant to enter a better world; they oppose it because it takes the decision of life and death away from God and puts it into the hands of imperfect man.

Even secular sources recognize this principle (most of the time). In the anti-war song, "Sweet Cherry Wine," sung by Tommy James and the Shondells, they sing: "No, we ain't going to fight, only God has the right To decide who's to live and die." It's a different subject but a sound principle. In Star Trek IV, Dr. McCoy's hidden pain was making the decision to take his dying father off life support—especially since a cure was discovered six months later. Decisions regarding life and death are best left in the hands of God.

Final Thoughts

An odd sentence appears on page 403: "Maybe our prayers for the dead really are pointless." Amen! (if such a word is not offensive to Dawkins. There is absolutely no point in praying for the dead because nothing can change at that point whether they are saved or lost. The Bible does not teach purgatory, reincarnation, premillennialism, or baptism for dead relatives. There is no second chance. "…Behold, now is the day of salvation" (2 Cor. 6:2)—not the day after one's death.

Dawkins concludes: "The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it" (404). Revisit the previous comments about those in India and Africa; many lack the ability to make life wonderful.

Jean-Paul Sartre and Fyodor Dostoevsky both wrote words to the effect, "If God does not exist, then anything is permitted." Dawkins denies this point, but any reasonable person comes to this conclusion. There can be no right or wrong—no morally objective evil—without God to declare it to mankind. Even youths can understand this fact. Elliott Miller recalls what it was like transferring from a "Christian" school to a secular school at age of 13. He writes in A Crash Course on the New Age Movement:

The week before I started eighth grade I convinced my parents to let me return to public school, and in my science class that year I was first exposed to the theory of evolution. Like a "domino effect," the following conclusions fell upon my mind in their turn: No Adam and Eve. No infallible Bible. No God. No hell. Freedom!!" (212).

With atheism, there is no right (and therefore no compulsion to do right), no purpose in life, no hope, and no reward. But, hey! If anyone finds this philosophy appealing, go for it. All who do so, however, shall be disappointed both here and hereafter.