The God Delusion (Part 16)
The author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, spends chapter 8 explaining why he is so hostile against religion, since it is just harmless nonsense. He acknowledges the hostility but then claims he will not be bombing or beheading anyone because of a theological disagreement (318). If he were to criticize the Muslim religion for engaging in these actions, that would be fine because we share the same view against their various forms of barbarism. But he always seems to lump Christianity in with various false religions, which cannot fairly or justly be done.
The reason is that the things he complains about in other religions are not taught in Christianity. “Oh,” protests some, “Christians have fought in the Crusades, and then there’s the Spanish Inquisition, etc.” No one has ever denied that people who claim to be Christians have practiced evil things; what we have asserted is that none of those things were authorized in the New Testament. Dawkins and others keep supplying examples of bad behavior on the part of so-called “Christians.” What they fail to provide are the passages that authorized Christians to behave in such a manner.
In other words, where are the verses that encourage Christians to take up literal, physical arms and march into battle as Christians in order to fight against other religions? Where are the verses that enable Christians to force those of other nations to “convert” to Christianity? What book in the New Testament grants anyone the right to put to death a fellow human being for “heresy”? There are none. Dawkins seems to lump New Testament Christians with those of other religions who do such things—though he surely knows better. And when he cites “Christian” abuses, he certainly knows that those things occur contrary to the New Testament—not because of its teachings.
“The Subversion of Science”
This section is laughable. He continually harps on the idea that Christians reject evidence because one or two people said so, but those people do not speak for all Christians. We not only believe in evidence; the Bible teaches us to “test all things” (1 Thess. 5:21). Dawkins proudly claims, “I have studied the evidence” (319). That is not true. He has studied some evidence. He has studied evolution, which remains a theory despite his claims to the contrary. He has not studied the Bible—except to oppose it.
How does he explain Micah 5:2, which prophesies where Jesus would be born over 500 years in advance? There are more than 50 prophecies of Jesus which mention His early childhood, the manner of person He would be, and His death, including the fact that none of His bones would be broken and that His clothes would be won through gambling. Dawkins is more impressed with Darwin than with fulfilled prophecies.
“We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it” (Dawkins claims (320). Really? You claim that dinosaurs died out over 60 million years before man existed, but various drawings of dinosaurs have been made by human beings. How is that explained? The idea of uniformitarianism is contradicted by facts; how does Dawkins explain that? Entire books have been written challenging evolution with facts. How is it that Dawkins has missed all of those?
He says, apparently with a straight face, that “fundamentalist religion” “subverts science and saps the intellect” (321). New Testament Christianity does not subvert true science; we live in full harmony with it. Evolution, however, is not true science. Dawkins brings back a previously-used example of someone who admitted that the Bible was wrong, but he would hold on to it, regardless. Well, no, that’s not honest—but he does not represent all Christians, many of whom are scientists who do not agree that evolution has been proven—and, therefore, are not dishonest.
Back into the mix are Muslims once again and their intolerance for anyone who disagrees with them. Added to them are fanatics claiming to be Christians who are also intolerant (326). For some odd reason, the intolerant always belong to religion. It’s interesting that Dawkins can’t find any intolerance among evolutionists. Is he unaware of the fact that, if an individual with a Ph.D. in some field in science applies for a job teaching, he will be turned down if He believes in Creation rather than evolution. If someone doing research finds evidence opposing evolution, his grant will evaporate quicker than an ice cube in Death Valley in the summer time. Dawkins, who vigorously attacks creationists and Christianity (and chapter 8 defends his hostility) is scarcely the person to lecture the rest of us about intolerance.
Homosexuality
Once again, Dawkins resorts to quoting from some who are fanatical—those who he refers to as the “American Taliban” (327). One of those is Gary Potter, President of Catholics for Christian Political Action, who said:
When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights from homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil (328).
The most obvious flaw in that paragraph is that there is no Christian majority in this nation. Has Potter never read Matthew 7:13-14? It may be that he has been reading too much of Margaret Atwood. Regardless of what some people might want, Christianity does not authorize its adherents to run the civil government.
Human life and Abortion
Like many others, Dawkins takes the position that it is inconsistent to be pro-life for infants but in favor of the death penalty for criminals. One wonders why it is so difficult to see that taking the life of an innocent baby is different than putting to death a guilty murderer. If both were innocent or both were guilty, it would be easy to understand the charge of inconsistency, but one is innocent and one is guilty.
A child in the womb has not committed any sin. If Dawkins thinks he has, let him explain what it is. We have already shown that the Bible does not teach the Calvinistic doctrine of “original sin.” On the other hand, why is he so reluctant to put to death a murderer? He claims the prolife people are “stalwart defenders of human life, as long as it is embryonic life…” (329) and wonders why Christians don’t oppose the death penalty out of respect for human life. The answer is simple. The murderer has forfeited his right to respect because he exhibited a lack of respect towards others.
It is exactly for that purpose that God instituted the death penalty after the Flood: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man” (Gen. 9:6). No one has the right to kill a fellow human being—unworthy of death—who is in the image of God. Perhaps Dawkins, as an atheist, rejects man being in the image of God, and therefore it is no big deal that someone killed his neighbor, but God says that out of respect for the life that was taken, the murderer’s life is subject to forfeit. There can be no comparison between the exercise of capital punishment upon the guilty and termination of life for the innocent. If Dawkins says he believes in some punishment for the guilty, it is less than what is deserved.
Incidentally, he complains that more than 1/3 of executions are in Texas. How can he object to the moral Zeitgeist that exists there? Is Texas’ moral Zeitgeist right while other states are wrong? When was the nation’s moral Zeitgeist right—when it outlawed the death penalty or when it reinstated it? This is the problem the atheist has. Without moral absolutes—without Divine authority—he cannot say which position is correct. It devolves to a person’s opinion.
Dawkins quotes extensively from another radical person he calls part of the “American Taliban” (330), as if anyone agrees with this guy. It’s interesting that he fails to quote Brother Warren who debated prominent atheists or refer to his well laid-out arguments, but he can dig up what radicals have said and quote them all day.
He tries to reassure himself that babies do not feel any pain; so, it’s all right to terminate their lives (331-32). Even if he could prove his hypothesis, it would not detract from the fact that they are alive. But perhaps he ought to watch “The Silent Scream,” narrated by Bernard Nathanson, who founded the National Abortion Rights Action League and performed thousands of abortions before realizing he was terminating human life.
It must have been two whole pages since he mentioned a radical; so, on page 333 he starts in again by citing the murder of an abortion doctor in Pensacola, Florida. Apparently, he thinks by citing those who do wrong, it will somehow prove his case is right, but it doesn’t work that way.
The Beethoven Fallacy
Many readers have probably seen the information given concerning an embryo, asking if a child should be aborted if the father has syphilis and the mother had tuberculosis. Other children from the same parents had birth defects. Many non-Christians would say it looks as though it is best to terminate the pregnancy; they are then told they would have murdered Beethoven (337). One key problem is that the story is not true. (It probably originated with a lying atheist. Well, would a Christian lie about it?) It is reminiscent of the tale about the geniuses at NASA who found the missing day in Joshua 10, which never happened.
However, Dawkins takes exception with the entire concept of aborting human life being a problem. Following is his “logic.” Quoting someone named Medawar, he argues “that we potentially deprive a human soul of the gift of existence every time we fail to seize any opportunity for sexual intercourse” (339). How is it that these people cannot see that there is a difference between denial and destruction? In one case, a child does not exist, and in the other, he does.
Chastity will prevent a number of children. So will condoms, birth control pills, various drugs, and procedures. So does death. In some locales, if a pregnant mother is killed, the murderer is charged with double homicide. Why would that be, unless the child in the womb is regarded as a human life that was killed?
Societies have gone both directions at various times regarding abortion (confused about their Zeitgeist, no doubt). It has been legal and then made illegal, only to be legalized again. Long before the indecisiveness of modern man, God gave His thoughts on the subject, although He was not particularly addressing this subject.
When Mary became pregnant, she traveled to visit Elizabeth, who was pregnant with John the Baptizer. Upon greeting her, “the babe leaped in her womb” (Luke 1:41 and 44). Later, after John and Jesus had both been born, Jesus is referred to by the same Greek word in Luke 2:12 and 16. In other words, the babe in the womb or out of the womb is called a baby—not fetus in one case and child in the other.
Isaac’s wife was told: “Two nations are in your womb. Two peoples shall be separated from your body” (Gen. 25:23). Moses was not writing a treatise on abortion any more than Luke was. Yet in both cases, it is obvious that those living within the womb are separate individuals from their mothers, and they deserve to be born. What a child becomes is up to him. Just as Dawkins had a right to live, so do other “babes.”