A Review of the God Delusion (Part 3)
In chapter three, Dawkins finally gets around to examining the arguments that have been made for the existence of God; however, he often selects weak arguments to tear down while ignoring stronger arguments altogether. He briefly notes five arguments from Thomas Aquinas, who died in 1274. Then he considers the ontological argument of Anselm, who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109. Have there been no new arguments in the last 900 years? Yes, but those are largely ignored, as will be shown later.
Today, people would reword some of those arguments from the 13th century. Dawkins describes the cosmological argument in the following way.
There must have been a time when no physical thing existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God (101).
Dawkins talks about regress and suggests that God cannot be immune to it, after which he says that the ideas of omniscience and omnipotence clash with each other. In response to this assertion, it should be pointed out that God is infinite in all His attributes. Affirming God's justice may appear on the surface to disagree with His love. God punishing sin might seem to be the opposite of His mercy, but they balance each other perfectly. The fact that God knows what He will ultimately do does not infringe on the exercising of His power.
For example, Jonah preached that Nineveh would be destroyed in forty days. The nation repented from the least to the greatest; so God forgave them rather than punishing them. Did God know that ahead of time? Of course—just as He knew Pharaoh would not repent on numerous occasions. Does that prove God is not omnipotent? No. He still possessed the same amount of power, which He eventually proved to Pharaoh. God responds to man the way man responds to God.
"But that's the point," Dawkins would say. "If God knew in advance He would not destroy Nineveh (because He surely knew that they would repent), then He does not have the power to change that predetermined decision." But why would He? Knowing in advance that the Ninevites would repent and He would pardon them is consistent with God's character. He cannot force Himself to contradict His character and be something He is not. One may as well resort to the old question: "Can God create a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift?" This is nothing more than a logical contradiction.
Let's return, however, to the proposition listed above. We would not assume that there was a time that nothing ever existed. We would begin by observing that we currently observe the existence of matter and intelligence. Are both eternal, one of them, or neither?
Most people would agree that intelligence does not come from lifeless matter, but that intelligence could create matter. "What about intelligent matter?" We have no evidence that the elements contained on this Earth have ever or currently possess intelligence, which leaves us the other two choices. Matter does not create intelligence, which leaves us only intelligence. That intelligence fits the description of the God Who reveals Himself in the Scriptures. Dawkins fails to deal with this issue. Glibly saying that God's attributes contradict each other is erroneous and is not a logical argument.
Design
Of the first five arguments Dawkins has reviewed, he admits that the Argument from Design is the only one still being used (103). This one is really quite simple and is expressed in Hebrews 3:4: "For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God." Suppose someone were to try to sell you several acres of undeveloped land. As you explore the property, you come to a clearing where there is a house. There is a well nearby to supply water; there are lights and a small refrigerator inside, powered by a generator outside. You see a fire pit with wood stacked neatly beside it. Furthermore, there are bedrooms, along with furniture in every room. As you leave, you say to yourself, "Isn't nature wonderful to have created all that?" Buzz! You know the property was lied about and that a human being (or two) has been there to design and build the cabin.
After insisting that Darwin blew this argument out of the water, Dawkins promises to examine it later (103). The ontological argument has never been convincing and probably is no longer used. But Dawkins comments on it extensively (103-110). Afterward, he comments on two more arguments we do not use: the Argument from Beauty (110-12) and the Argument from Personal Experience (112-27). This point surfaced in The Warren-Flew Debate. In his next-to-last speech, Flew railed against the validity of personal experience as a proof of God's existence. Warren responded thus:
Dr. Flew spent a great deal of time talking about religious experience. Did you hear me say anything about religious experience? Did I make any argument thus: someone has had a religious experience and, therefore, God exists? I said nothing at all about that! Dr. Flew, I fight that view as well as you do (235).
Some people may make that argument; one even wrote a song with that theme: "You ask me how I know He lives; He lives within my heart." But this approach to apologetics is totally subjective and erroneous. A person who did not have this "experience" cannot be required to accept it as valid. As Flew did in his debate with Warren, so does Dawkins waste his time on refuting arguments that few, if any, believe or would make.
The Warren-Flew Debate
Speaking of the debate between Dr. Thomas B. Warren and Dr. Antony G.N. Flew, it is more than amazing that Dawkins focuses our attention on 800-year old arguments (which he admits are not used any more) while ignoring what Brother Warren presented as recently as 1976. Is it possible that he never heard of that debate, concerning which one can still listen to or read in the book that was published, transcribed from the tapes (which includes all the charts that were used)?
We know that Dawkins is aware of Flew, since he mentioned his "overpublicized tergiversation" in a footnote (106). [Don't feel dull if you don't know what tergiversation means; nobody else does, either. Primarily, it means he is an apostate from atheism; Flew became convinced (by the design that exists in DNA, if memory serves), that there is a designer, after all.] At any rate, Dawkins knows about Flew and his conversion to theism. So, how is it possible that he did not know of his previous debate with Warren and deal with some of the materials in there? Hmm.
"The Argument from Scripture"
Theists observe that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Therefore, He was either right or wrong, in which case he was mistaken, a liar, or insane. The problem with the last possibility is that insane people do not present such sublime teachings. The problem with all three explanations in the "wrong" category is that one would have to explain how Jesus was able to do the miracles He did if He were mistaken about His identity, or a liar, or insane.
The response that Dawkins makes to this argument is that "there is no good historical evidence that he thought he was divine" (117), which is laughable. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are historians; they each wrote an account of Jesus' life. Matthew and John were personal disciples of Jesus and were with Him during the entirety of His public ministry, as well as being witnesses of His resurrection and ascension into heaven.
Matthew records Peter saying that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus acknowledged that this statement was true and that Peter got it from the Father (v. 17). Matthew also records the high priest adjuring Jesus to tell them if He were the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answered, "It is as you said" (Matt. 26:63-64). Mark also records that confession (14:61-62), as does Luke (22:70).
Jesus goes so far as to reveal that He is God, the eternal one in John 8:58. Jesus healed a man born blind and later asked him if he believed in the Son of God? When the man asked who He was, Jesus replied, "You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you" (John 9:37). Jesus acknowledged that He had told the people that He was the Son of God (John 10:36). The Jews understood Jesus to say that He made Himself the Son of God (John 19:7). That's why they killed Him!
Another page could be given showing all the people who confessed Jesus to be the Son of God, including both God and demons. So, there is plenty of historical evidence that Jesus believed Himself to be the Son of God. So, what does Dawkins do? He attacks the historian as being unreliable. He'll say more about that in a few moments. But he presents some other thoughts first.
The historians wrote "long after the death of Jesus" (118). Yes, it was probably about 30 years later (double that for John), but it is irrelevant. Those who have actually read the Bible—instead of just attacking it—would know what Jesus promised in John 14:25-26 and John 16:12-13. He told them that the Holy Spirit would remind them of Jesus' teachings, guide them into all truth, and show them things to come. None of Jesus' biographers had to rely on their own memory or what someone else told them. They would be inspired by the Holy Spirit concerning what they should write.
The assertion is also made that Paul mentions "almost none of the alleged facts of Jesus' life" (118). Paul wrote letters to individuals and churches about Christian doctrine. It was not his intention to write a fifth gospel, but even so, he mentions a few things. He affirms that Jesus was in the form of God and equal to the Father, but He took on the form of a servant (Phil. 2:5-8). His comments are reminiscent of John 1:1-3, 14: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (the Word was God). Furthermore, Paul spends an entire chapter on the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15). Dawkins is just quibbling and sniping in these matters; they have no substance.
The next criticism is that the Scriptures were copied by "fallible scribes," who "had their own religious agendas." When he states that the Scriptures were copied by fallible men, is he implying that the originals were inspired? If they were, then he has tacitly admitted that God exists. If he does not mean that, then what does it matter about the copyists (since the originals would themselves be flawed)?
Yes, there are textual variations, but we have 6,000 manuscripts (many of which are partial or even fragments). But between those and early translations of the Bible into other languages, we have plenty of material to determine what is legitimate and what is not. But even if we were wrong about a few of them, it would change no Christian doctrine to which we adhere.
Casting aspersions on the Scriptures is not the same thing as making a logical argument against them. Brother Warren, in his debate with Flew, offered a pertinent quote. The subject of the quote was not Richard Dawkins, but it certainly fits. Warren quoted Max Black, Professor of Logic at Cornell University, as quoting Josiah Stamp, that
400 pages of crowded fact and argument may deceive the very elect, but when reduced to a three line syllogism will lay bare the bones of the argument and expose the fallacious reasoning involved in it.