A Review of the God Delusion (Part 2)

After Richard Dawkins spued forth his litany of complaints against God to open the second chapter of The God Delusion, he thinks it will help to give Thomas Jefferson's opinion, which was that the God of Moses was "a being of terrific character—cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust" (51). Of course, being notified of someone's assessment is not all that helpful—unless we know the reason for it being given. This writer has read and studied the God of Moses more than fifty times, and he has no idea concerning to what Jefferson and Dawkins refer.

In the next few pages, Dawkins complains about churches being tax free (53). The reason they initially achieved this status was that they gave back to the community more than what they would have paid in taxes; so it was to everyone's benefit to give them a break. Dawkins does not seem to be aware of this or any other reason why churches are exempt from various taxes.

For some reason, he decides to object to the doctrine of the Trinity, which Jefferson claimed that "no man ever had a distinct idea of…" (55) and laments how Arius was treated (who denied the doctrine) (54). Why is he concerned about theological battles regarding a God whom he does not think exists? Oh, that's right. He thinks that the three personalities that comprise the Godhead make the Bible polytheistic.

Is there any polytheistic religion where three personalities comprise one Godhead, who is eternal and in complete harmony? The Greek gods and goddesses, as well as the Romans, were anything but united. Remember why it took Ulysses ten years to get home? Hinduism has three gods, but these are hardly comparable to Judeo-Christianity. The question is asked, if Vishnu (one of the three) had any children.

Wikipedia answers: "He has 4 sons as Rishi Ved Vyasa." So, he is incarnate as someone else and has children? They also say: "In Hindu mythology, Vishnu and Lakshmi are not typically depicted as having children." Then there's a third answer to the question: "Who is Lord Vishnu's son?" and the answer is "Quora." And some people think the Trinity is hard to understand!

Brahma, another of the three, is the Creator, but Wikipedia says: "The Lord cursed Brahma that no one would ever pray to him." Who was so powerful that he could curse the Creator? If it's one of the other three, there does not appear to be any harmony among them.

Shiva is the third god, and he is the destroyer. There is a goddess who is said to be his equivalent in some traditions; details vary according to the version under consideration. The point is that polytheism is totally different from the Trinity and vastly more complicated. Dawkins' criticism does not offer any of these comparisons. There is much he does not consider.

Monotheism

One wonders if Dawkins ever had the nickname, Brook, since he seems to spend a great deal of time babbling. Again, he tosses out insults as if someone actually cared to hear his opinions. He describes Judaism as "originally a tribal cult of a single fiercely unpleasant God, morbidly obsessed with sexual restrictions, with the smell of charred flesh, with his own superiority over other gods…" (58). Perhaps, the best response to make to such childish rants is, "Says who?" It sounds as if what he really objects to is God's holiness, which is what often seems to be at the heart of atheism.

In the very same paragraph, he has the nerve to say, "Christianity, too, was spread by the sword…." He inadvertently is correct. For 200 years Rome persecuted Christians, and the church spread because people saw that Christians were willing to die for what they knew to be true. But, of course, Dawkins refers to those who later tried to advance Christianity by their sword. The only problem is that those who took this approach had no authority from Jesus to do so. They actually violated Christian principles when they took up weapons to advance the kingdom.

It saddens the author that "poor Tom Paine" was treated so badly—even called names like Judas (59)—just because he wrote Age of Reason, where he mocked the Scriptures up one side and down the other. (Spiritual Perspectives answered those criticisms in a multi-part series, beginning in September 25, 2011.) Benjamin Franklin tried to persuade Paine not to publish the assault on the Scriptures. After all, the United States had defeated the most powerful nation on earth, and many people credited God with the victory. To then turn around and attack His Holy Book caused people to think badly of Paine, although he played a significant part in the success of the patriots (having written the well-received Common Sense). But what does Paine's treatment have to do with Dawkins' arguments?

He then trudges on to Barry Goldwater who said he would fight those who tried "to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism" (61). He made those comments 17 years after being defeated by Lyndon Johnson for President. (Incidentally, he received only 38% of the popular vote and only won six states.) Dawkins did not supply the context, but Goldwater had been criticized by the Moral Majority for backing homosexual rights.

Rather than focusing on evidence to support his charges against the Bible, Dawkins meanders over to the Treaty with Tripoli signed in 1797, in which it is stated that our government "is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" (61). Once again, he provides no context. This was an assurance that America was not a theocracy and that we could honor Muslim countries.

Dawkins failed to mention a related significant event. According to the Internet:

In the People v. Ruggles (1811), the Court declared that "the people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity," and that "the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity."

He persists in quoting from Jefferson (his "patron saint"?) as though he were infallible. (Would that make him the pope of the Revolution?)

Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear (64).

Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shown on man (64).

Once again, no context can be discovered regarding these quotations. As to the first one, did Jefferson never read Isaiah 1:18, where God tells His people, "Come now, and let us reason together"? God has never been opposed to logic or reason. As to the second quote, Christianity has been perverted by those who claim to be adherents, but what is perverted about the system as God gave it?

Carl Sagan

Much more is provided in the second chapter that only tangentially relates to the existence of God, but there is one quote from Carl Sagan that we should all be able to agree with. He was asked what he thought about life existing elsewhere in the universe, but he refused to answer. When asked, however, what his "gut feeling" was on the matter, he countered: "But I try not to think with my gut. Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in" (69). Seldom do Christians find themselves agreeing with Carl Sagan, but in this instance he is correct. Evidence surpasses hunches.

The China Teapot

Bertrand Russell gave an illustration to demonstrate that it is impossible to disprove God.

If I were to suggest that between Earth and Mars there is a China teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be seen by our most powerful telescopes (75).

He goes on to say that, since no one can disprove the teapot exists, it must be accepted as true. He says that if he said that, people would regard him as "talking nonsense." If he thinks that the teapot is comparable to the existence of God, he is talking nonsense. Russell may as well have claimed the China teapot was invisible.

On the same basis people claim to believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster, which was mentioned first in a satirical letter written in 2005 by Bobby Henderson "to protest the Kansas State Board of Education decision to permit teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in state school science classes" (Internet). Apparently, a book has even been written with the title of the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (76).

Is it true that Russell's China teapot and Henderson's Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot be disproved? One could write up a list of equally absurd assertions all day long. One of the rings around a distant planet is actually a Timex watch. A far distant planet has Mickey Mouse ears. Charlie Brown believed in The Great Pumpkin. These are all fatuous. One way to disprove that something exists is to examine the evidence for it. However, in the case of all these imaginative speculations, no evidence for them can be found.

The Hubble telescope was not launched until 1990. It provides more information than we knew before. At least ten spacecrafts have had a soft landing on Mars. Guess what? There is no China teapot between here and there. One would need to argue that the teapot is either infinitesimal or invisible, in which case, how would we have ever come to the conclusion that it was there in the first place?

Now who wants to argue there is no evidence for God? Just about every culture has a history of believing in a Supreme Being (one or more). How many have recorded faith in a China teapot or a flying spaghetti Monster? The reason for this universal believe in Deity is simple: He created Adam and Eve and knew them personally. God also spoke to Noah. After the Flood, the eight souls who were left knew God.

After the Tower of Babel, God scattered the people across the face of the Earth. Almost every culture has a flood story in its background. Nobody has a Teapot tale. Men changed the true God, Who had created them, into various Idols, which they then worshiped (Rom. 1:21-25). Nobody ever worshipped a flying spaghetti Monster.

God is eternal—both by logic and by revelation. The Teapot only became a theory in the 20th century and the "Monster" in 2005. They are neither eternal nor ancient. There were no prophecies of them given to ancient people which came to pass. They have no foundation, but the Scriptures do.

Dawkins Relies on Speculation

One notices that Richard Dawkins relies more on speculation than evidence. His writings in chapter two include such clauses as, "I suspect that…" (80); "I can only think that…" (81); and "I imagine…" (84). He closes chapter two by describing a prayer experiment that did not help patients, mentioning a letter written by Pope John Paul II endorsing Darwinism, and offering comments about life on other planets. Chapter three finally examines arguments for the existence of God.