Final Thoughts on Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

I’ve been reading Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion, and offering my thoughts on chapter three, where he looks at the arguments for God’s existence. Check out the earlier posts if you want to see what I’ve covered so far. Almost there now. Here are the last few “arguments” in the chapter.

The Argument from Admired Religious Scientists: e.g. "Newton was religious, so who are you to say different to him?" Really? Who is using this argument?

Pascal's Wager: "You're better off to choose to believe that God exists, because if you're wrong it won't matter anyway. If you choose not to believe in God and you're wrong, you might end up in hell." Dawkins has some good points to say about this one (which I'm sorry to say I've used before). Choosing God along the lines of this argument (because I'd be better off) is a selfish reason to choose God, and not very honest. Also, there are quite a lot of supposed "gods" out there. Which one are we supposed to choose in order to be safe? I remember a sketch by Rowan Atkinson that referred to this. "Oh I'm sorry Christians. The Jews were right." Not to mention the fact that many atheists have chosen not to believe because they see that religion has had a very bad (even evil) influence in the world's history.

The Bayesian Arguments, using probability, don't seem to work very well in my mind, so we may as well go with Dawkins on that one.

And then he concludes the chapter with The Argument from Improbability, which he says works in his favour. "A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right." This sounds to me like "God can't have designed the universe because then someone would have to have designed God." Why does God have to be designed? God is God.

I think the bigger question is, "Why is that such a conclusive argument for Dawkins?" He comes back to it a lot in these chapters. I wonder if the argument behind this one is in reality more like this: "God can't exist because it's irrational to think that God exists."

The next chapter deals with improbability a bit more, but I'll leave that for another post.

So where does all that leave us? Obviously I haven’t been convinced, although it has been a very helpful book to read. It’s great to see things from the other side of the discussion for a change, and I can see how it all works for Richard Dawkins. He’s an intelligent guy, and I respect his thinking. He's got some important things to say about religion, and Christians would do well to listen a bit more.

Summing up...

My conclusion from all of it is this:You can't prove or disprove the existence of God using science, philosophy or logic. My advice is to stop trying. It's the wrong field altogether, although it makes for some interesting, important discussions.

Dawkins proposes that belief in God is the same as if someone postulates that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter. And this highlights the problem. If you're an atheist, it is the same. God and an orbiting teapot may as well be the same thing. But if you're not an atheist, obviously it's vastly different.

For myself, I'm open to the scientific possibility that God exists. For Dawkins this is irrational. I think the fact that he is closed to that possibility is irrational and unscientific. And that's basically where it all ends up. For me it's God, but for him it's a teapot.

And for that reason, we can't really have a reasonable discussion on these lines.

The Bone House - Review

"The Bone House" is the second in Stephen Lawhead's Bright Futures series. It carries on the story of a group of people who've discovered how to travel around in time - and skip between alternative universes - using the "ley lines" hidden in our own world. And Lawhead does it better than anyone else, weaving a tale impossibly wide and deep, stretching the reader's imagination in such a way as not to leave you thinking "that's ridiculous," but rather, "Could that happen? What if the world was like that?"

I've not found an author who comes close to Lawhead in his capacity to open up worlds of incredible beauty and colour that somehow still feel familiar, and characters like ourselves to stumble around and discover them. This series in particular I'm finding interesting due to his skill and knowledge in the area of quantum physics, and the way he opens up new ways to think about these fascinating areas. In such areas, we still do not know all the answers, and scientists have to think outside the box to find possible explanations. As Lawhead asks, why shouldn't a novelist enter the conversation?

I'd recommend this series to anyone.

Think you know your Bible?

I just read a very interesting alternative interpretation of The Parable of the Talents that Jesus tells in Luke 19. Completely different to the way I've always heard it taught.

As the story goes, a nobleman leaves the country to go and be crowned king. (Herod's son Archelaus did this following Herod's death, as the listeners would have known.) Before he goes, the guy divides 10 minas (worth about 3 months wages each) among his servants to invest while he's gone.
When he returns, the first servant has made 10 times the amount given - and receives 10 cities to govern as a reward. The second servant has made 5 times more than he first received, and gets 5 cities as a reward.
But the third servant has made nothing and gives back the original amount. "You wicked servant!" says the king, and takes this amount and gives it to the guy who has 10 cities.

The traditional interpretation is that this parable is about how we are to use what we've been given wisely, because one day Jesus will return and call us to account.

But watch this.

Lloyd Pietersen explains a different way to look at it, and this is very interesting. He points out that whenever Jesus talks about money, it is usually about GIVING IT AWAY, not investing and gaining more. Especially in Luke's gospel, where this is from. Blessed are the poor, Jesus says in Luke 6:20. Zaccheus' story, which is just before this one, ends with Zaccheus giving half his fortune away, and repaying anyone he's cheated four times the amount. One can assume that old Zac ends up with very little at the end. And Jesus says "Salvation has come to this house." The poor widow also gives her last pennies. The rich young ruler, also just a little before this story, is told by Jesus to give everything he has to the poor and come follow. Discipleship, in Luke's gospel, means giving up everything to follow Jesus.

In this context, it would be strange for Jesus to follow with a parable promoting accumulation. Pietersen suggests that Jesus is telling this parable to draw attention to the injustice built into the society, where the rich get richer and those with nothing have everything taken away. Sound familiar?

The third servant, which might be representative of a follower of Jesus, refuses to play by these rules (a common theme for Jesus) and is rejected. Not a particularly encouraging end to the parable. But that's just how it is. Though it's difficult, and you might get chewed up and spit out, Jesus still says generosity - not selfish wealth accumulation - is the only way to "the kingdom of heaven."

That interpretation definitely seems to line up better with Jesus' other sayings and actions. Doesn't work well for those churches that have used the parable to promote prosperity though!

Nice to still be surprised by Bible things I thought I knew. I hope that never stops.

Unicorn

Thanks Reachout.com for this one!

Thoughts on Dawkins' "The God Delusion" 3

Carrying on my imaginary discussion with the well-known atheist Richard Dawkins (in which I get to say everything I like and he nods his head, scratches his beard and says “Hmm, I see that you are right, young Ben.”), we come to The Argument from Beauty. (Check the earlier posts if you want to see where we’ve been so far.)

Dawkins describes this one as: "God must exist because otherwise how would you account for the beauty of Michelangelo's art, Mozart's symphonies, Shakespeare's works?" Obviously it’s ridiculous if you put it in those terms. But again he's set the field in his favour by describing this argument only in terms of human artists.

I think the argument from beauty isn't so bad when you consider the beauty in the natural world. Sunsets didn't have to be beautiful, or flowers, or mountain ranges, or rainbows. The world could have been shades of brown. I don't think it's a knock-em-dead argument, and I can think of rebuttals to it even as I’m writing. But the argument from beauty is certainly not as crazy as Dawkins paints it.

He then generously gives a few pages to considering The Argument from Personal Experience, which is another one that isn't going to be particularly strong with a nonreligious person, though it might be the strongest of them all for the believer. The fact is, it's too difficult to prove, and most likely the listener wasn't there.

The Argument from Scripture is next: e.g. "Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, so therefore he's either 'Lord, Liar or Lunatic.'" I think the popular More than a Carpenter book from memory uses this logic. Dawkins points out that there's a fourth possibility, that Jesus might have been honestly mistaken. Fair point.

He then he goes on to point out some apparent contradictions and discrepancies in Scripture itself, which show his lack of knowledge in First Century and Jewish culture. I can see how this might be particularly persuasive to people who don’t know their Bible stuff though. He writes, "Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world." Well that's just not true.

And further, "All [the gospels] were copied and recopied, through many different 'Chinese Whispers generations'..." That's a bit of a deceptive comment. It’s true that the New Testament writings were copied and recopied (as is every great work), but archaeology has over time uncovered earlier and earlier (and more and more) documents of the New Testament writings. So the fact is, our translations are getting more and more accurate, not less. And the sheer quantity of copies we have from the first centuries shows the amazing level of accuracy in the copying technique, which is quite phenomenal.

None of this is a secret. You can easily see the points where there are differences in the documents. Just pick up a Bible and check out the footnotes. There aren’t many at all, considering.

And that’s where I’ll sign off for this one.

Thoughts on Dawkins' "The God Delusion" 2

In the last post, we ended up having a discussion about first causes, while Richard Dawkins was off on a tangent. (This is in chapter three of his book, where he rebuts the “Arguments for God’s Existence.” I'm looking at Dawkins' responses to the arguments, and then giving a few thoughts.)

Following his little diversion Dawkins goes back to the argument about what kickstarted the universe and says it's irrational to call the first cause "God" because invoking the “God” explanation is "at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading."

Let's see that again, in simpler terms: "It is irrational to call the first cause 'God' because calling it God is irrational." Does that about sum it up? This takes me back to Year 12 Logic and Philosophy class. There is more discussion about this in the next chapter, where he explains why it’s irrational. But we’ll get to that later.

Moving on, he points out that Thomas Aquinas’ next argument for God (The Argument from Degree) is illogical, and I agree.

The Argument from Design is next to face up. Simply stated, "things look like they've been designed, so they probably are." This is an argument that’s used fairly frequently by Christians. Nevertheless, how do you think this next sentence might sound to the thousands of people who aren't up-to-date with the whole discussion? "The argument from design is the only one still in regular use today..."

Clever. He's effectively told the uninitiated that this is the only argument religious people have, and, lucky for him, it's also the one where Dawkins' is in his own element, one that he is going to systematically destroy throughout the rest of his book. He's set the field (in his own field), and now he'll go to town (sorry for the mixed metaphors).

But I don't think that really is the right field for this whole discussion. Many of us Christians have already left that field and gone to town (again, sorry).

I think his response (natural selection over millions of years) is absolutely valid. I have no problems with natural selection. It makes sense, I don't think it contradicts God, and the archaeological record supports it. If I was having this conversation with Dawkins, that would be the end of that discussion. And I'm a passionate "religious" person.

And there are many many more Christians like me - notably among academics and intellectuals, scientists, doctors, archaeologists, etc. We're not debating that one.

But he is partly right, in that there are many Christians who think the Design Argument is a good one. I'd like to have a word with them.

And that’s the last of Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for God’s existence. We’ll carry on in the next post with the Argument from Beauty, after skipping quickly past the Ontological Argument, which I think is a little ridiculous myself.

Let me know your thoughts!

Pastor Irene's Manifesto

Here's another part I loved from Eugene Peterson's The Pastor. I post these kinds of things so I can get back to them easily!

Peterson was facilitating a class with a group of soon-to-be-starting pastors. After a few days together, he asked one young lady who'd been quiet what she was thinking. This was her response, which Peterson called Pastor Irene's Manifesto. I want to make it mine too.

"When I get a congregation, I want to be a patient pastor. I want to have eyes to see and ears to hear what God is doing and saying in their lives. I don't want to judge them in terms of what I think they should be doing. I want to be a witness to what God is doing in their lives, not a schoolmistress handing out grades for how well they are doing something for God.

"I think I see something unique about being a pastor that I had never noticed: the pastor is the one person in the community who is free to take men and women seriously just as they are, appreciate them just as they are, give them the dignity that derives from being the 'image of God,' a God-created being who has eternal worth without having to prove usefulness or be good for anything. I know that I will be doing a lot of other things too, but I might be the only person who is free to do this.

"I don't want to be so impatient with the mess that I am not around to see the miracle being formed. I don't want to conceive of my life as pastor so functionally that the mystery gets squeezed out of both me and the congregation."

Thoughts on Dawkins' "The God Delusion" 1

A friend has given me Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion to have a read of. I'm finding it very interesting actually. It’s great to be able to see things from his perspective for a bit. I've only ever read Dawkins' stuff as quoted (and misquoted) by Christians in apologetic books – most of which I wasn’t too impressed with anyway. I have to say I respect the guy a lot more now.

The aim of the book is to prove that belief in God is unnecessary and deluded. He goes about it in a few different ways, one of which is to offer rebuttals of the arguments for the existence of God. Some of his rebuttals are right on the money. That is, some of the arguments Christians have used to “prove” God’s existence really are not brilliant arguments (I’m sorry to say that some of them I’ve used before, thinking they were awesome).

However I do want to go through them in these next few posts, because I see some holes in Dawkins’ thinking. Most of these are from Chapter Three in the book, “Arguments for God’s existence.” I’ll briefly summarize the Christian argument and then his response, and give my own thoughts. Let me know if I’m missing anything. Read the chapter yourself if you can, to make sure I’m not misrepresenting Richard Dawkins.

Thomas Aquinas' 5 "Proofs"

The Unmoved Mover, The Uncaused Cause, The Cosmological Argument. Dawkins puts the first three together, which I think makes sense. Basically it's the argument of first causes: something must have kicked it all off. Dawkins’ response is (in my non-academic paraphrase), "Well, who caused God then?" and then he diverts the discussion into a conversation about the incongruities with the terms omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience etc.

My response to that is: God by definition is not characterized or limited by the way the universe works, so why does God need a first cause? It seems to me that Dawkins has first defined God as needing a first cause, and then gone on to ask, "Well, what caused him then?" I've noticed this happening a bit in his book. He defines God within the laws of this universe (e.g. science and physics) and then denounces the result.

Having said that, I do understand how my response looks to an atheist. Unhelpful at best. Frustrating and immature probably. It looks like I’ve pushed the discussion beyond the realms of what we can test and see - the physical, material, natural universe - which in many ways shuts down the conversation if you're talking to an atheist. Or at least removes the conversation from their field of expertise.

And that’s exactly what I’ve done. My view is that you can’t prove OR disprove God using science. There are incredibly intelligent people on both sides of the discussion. Neither side is stupid. It’s the wrong field altogether when we’re talking about God.

To me the First Cause argument makes sense, as it did to Aquinas, because I’m open to the possibility of a God. But to an atheist who is by definition not open to this possibility, it’s a ridiculous argument.

Dawkins goes on later in the book to offer alternative explanations to the First Cause problem. E.g. There might be billions of other universes, and this just happens to be the one where everything works – which I think is entirely valid, but obviously untestable (like God?). Or, the universe might be continually expanding and contracting (the term used by physicists is “bouncing”), producing many big bang singularities in a long chain of universes – and this universe just happened to work perfectly. Probability-wise, this also makes sense, although I think it’s a little more difficult physics-wise.

At first glance, with both of these it might seem too good to be true that we just happen to be in the one-in-a-billion universe that worked. But if you think about it that makes sense too. Obviously this would be the one that works, because otherwise we wouldn’t be here. If that still doesn’t make sense I’m not explaining it well enough. Keep thinking and you’ll get it!

So there are viable alternatives. It really just comes down to belief again. I’m open to the possibility of God, so it makes more sense for me to say God designed it all perfectly and kicked it off. Dawkins is not, so that perspective makes no sense at all to him. It makes more sense to Dawkins to believe that it was something other than God.

On another important note: the fact that there are other possibilities doesn’t disprove God. It just means we’ve thought of other solutions, which humans are notorious for being able to do. That’s intelligence. It’s not intelligent to think: “I’ve proven God is unnecessary, so therefore God doesn’t exist.” You have to go further than that, which Dawkins attempts to do in later chapters.

But that’s more than enough for now. Let me know what you think if you’ve read this far!

"We always marry the wrong person"

"Destructive to marriage is the self-fulfillment ethic that assumes marriage and the family are primarily institutions of personal fulfillment, necessary for us to become "whole" and happy. The assumption is that there is someone just right for us to marry and that if we look closely enough we will find the right person. This moral assumption overlooks a crucial aspect to marriage. It fails to appreciate the fact that we always marry the wrong person.

"We never know whom we marry; we just think we do. Or even if we first marry the right person, just give it a while and he or she will change. For marriage, being [the enormous thing it is] means we are not the same person after we have entered it. The primary challenge of marriage is learning how to love and care for the stranger to whom you find yourself married."

- Stanley Hauerwas

Dead Letter Chorus - Run, Wild

Love this song, by Sydney band "Dead Letter Chorus."