Reading "The God Delusion"--Part One

Way back, about a month or two ago, I had done a few posts about atheism. Intrigued by the new wave of atheistic media that has swelled into recent popularity, I put myself on the list for Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, at my local library. There was quite a number of people ahead of me, so I put it on the back burner of my mind and promptly forgot about it.

It arrived yesterday and I have been engrossed in it since this morning, picking it up here and there whenever I have free time. So far, I have yet to run through the streets singing REM's Losing My Religion. (Boy am I dating myself with that reference!) I'm almost through chapter 3--Arguments For God's Existence. I am not devastatingly impressed. However, I still have more chapters to read; maybe Dawkins will put aside his little bitternesses and surprise me with some new thought that I haven't previously heard.

My biggest annoyance, is with his constant reliance on the phrase,"I suspect." Although, sometimes he swaps it out for,"One feels," or "I don't think." Over and over he will use these phrases to assert that many leaders, thinkers and scientists were almost certainly as adamantly atheistic as himself. He reinterprets their own words in the light of this assumption, assuring us that if they had really spoken what they felt, they would have been more adamant and less vague in regard to religion, science, and the interaction of the two. Conveniently, most of those he refers to are dead and cannot speak for themselves. What bad timing for them!

I am not saying that Dawkins portrays devout Christians as atheists, but people with more vague and philosophical leanings, or scientists who were less idealistically opposed to religion than himself are subject to his "scientific" revisionist mind-reading.

Regarding the Founding Fathers of the United States, he writes:

"Certainly their writings on religion in their own time leave me in no doubt
that most of them would have been atheists in ours." (page 39) [emphasis mine]

hmmm....no doubt? Dawkins, say it ain't so! How can you have no doubt about something that is unprovable? Isn't that contrary to your whole thought system, being certain of things that have no provable basis?

In regards, to T.H. Huxley, who coined the term agnostic and declared that agnostics have no creed, not even a negative one, Dawkins writes:

"But Huxley, in his concentration upon the absolute impossibility of proving or
disproving God, seems to have been ignoring the shading of probability.
The fact that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of something
does not put existence and non-existence on an even footing. I don't
think Huxley would disagree, and I suspect that when he appeared
to do so he was bending over backwards to concede a point, in the interests of
securing another one."( pages 49-50) [emphasis mine]

In recounting an episode during which two astronomers turn over a deep question--which Dawkins had put to them--to a chaplain, he writes:

"I suspect that neither the Cambridge nor the Oxford astronomer really believed that theologians have any expertise that enables them
to answer questions that are too deep for science. I suspect that
both astronomers were bending over backwards to be polite...."(pages 56-57)

Concerning Stephen Gould's statements and writings, he says:

"I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much
of what he wrote in Rocks of Ages. As I say, we have all been
guilty of bending over backwards to an unworthy but powerful opponent, and I
can only think that this is what Gould was doing."(page 57) [emphasis
mine]

On and on it goes. It's tedious and unnecessary. It's as if he is building up an army of thinkers to give his own thoughts and views more clout. Don't bore me with theories about what might have been in a different time or universe. Tell me what you think, and why, without trying to assemble a list of allies. As I said, I find it annoying.

A corresponding, though less obvious, theme permeates the book so far--that Christians are motivated by either fear, ignorance, or the desire to control others for power or money. While being able to mind-read the motivations of dead thinkers and scientists is an amazing power to have, it is not nearly as impressive as being able to mind-read what all Christians must think! I have yet to come across one sentence that implies that people might be religious because they are altruistic in their outlook on God, life, and others. Has he never come in contact with a sincere, caring, intelligent believer? He leaves the impression that everyone he has met who carries the label, Christian, is the worst sort of person. Perhaps, that can be chalked up to his own bias? Only he knows.

When discussing religious experience as a basis of belief in God, Dawkins explains how our brains are designed to makes sense of things that have no sense--referring mainly to visions and voices that people claim to have seen or heard. He assures us that our brains can be untrustworthy. I contend that he seems not to distrust his brain at all when he ventures to suppose what others really thought and currently think.

Discussing the famous "Lunatic, Liar or Lord" argument from C.S. Lewis, Dawkins insists that the three options are "ludicrously inadequate."

"A fourth possibility, almost too obvious to need mentioning, is that Jesus was honestly mistaken." (page 92)

Very interesting reasoning in that it completely contradicts his whole premise and the very title of his book! Jesus calls himself the Son of God, but is honestly mistaken? Wait a minute, didn't Dawkins earlier write in the Preface:

The dictionary supplied with Microsoft Word defines a delusion as 'a
persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence,
especially as a symptom of a psychiatric disorder'. (page5)

And on page 89, didn't he quote Sam Harris' work, The End of Faith, when discussing personal experiences?:

" 'We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational
justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them
'religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called 'mad', 'psychotic' or
'delusional'.....' "

Considering that before Jesus made the claim that he was the Son of God no one else believed it, and it wasn't a commonly held belief, doesn't that fit Dawkins' and Harris' definition of mad? Of course it does, but it doesn't further Dawkins argument at this point in the book.

Well, I still have to finish the last few pages of Chapter 3 and then the rest of the book. Perhaps, I am misjudging the groundwork that Dawkins is laying. I will give him the benefit of the doubt until I reach the last page.

Atheism and Proof of God...Part 3

Last night, I woke up around 3:30 am and couldn't get back to sleep. I goofed around on the computer for a few minutes and then laid down on the couch, turning on PBS. Ahhh PBS. What would I do without you? Your documentaries always have the calm, soothing monotone, of a gentle, male voice. I have gotten my best naps accompanied by various nature shows and scientific explorations. While awake, they are very fascinating; if drowsy, they are a one-way ticket to drool-inducing sleep.

Maybe the timing was coincidence, but there before my eyes was, A Brief History Of Disbelief, a show I had caught the last five minutes of just a couple of days ago. Considering all that I had already been pondering this week, it was like a nudge to my mind. The film is an exploration of the evolution of atheistic thought and development narrated by Jonathan Miller. It's fascinating.

I couldn't possibly post about all of the thoughts I had concerning Jonathan Miller's commentary--there were just too many.

Here's a brief rundown of things that I want to address in more thought-out posts:

• Is atheism the exclusive domain of "intellectually superior" white men? The most important thinkers quoted in the series were exclusively well-off, white, European men. Not much for the diversity of thought--this is only a minor thought that I had regarding the development of atheism.
• The assumed facts that are a starting point for atheism. There was a very interesting quote by Richard Dawkins, regarding natural selection and genetic mutations that really sent me over the edge, not for its outrageousness, but for its sheer illogicity from a supposed rational thinker.
• The place of intelligence, consciousness, and purpose in atheistic thinking. Despite all the "scientific" spin on atheism, this is really the heart of what most people must confront before embracing this philosophy.
• The role of evil and suffering in the world. Of course, volumes could be written on this subject alone. However, Miller made a claim that disbelief is so embraced today because of the relative comfort that science has given us. We are more in control of our lives than before, and therefore do not need any gods to alleviate our suffering.
• The focus of atheism aimed against Christianity as opposed to other belief systems. Atheism's venom is almost always aimed solely at Christianity.

There's a lot more swirling in my head, but it will take more time and research than I usually put into a blog post. So, I think that I will post sporadically on this subject as I cobble together the main point I'd like to make in a more refined way.

Nightline and Proof of God...Part 2

While thinking more about the debate between "The Rational Response Squad" and the dynamic duo--Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort--I had a few more thoughts.

I am not sure if this is a word for word quote, but Kelly of the RRS at some point said,"I would rather burn in hell than serve a megomaniacal God." This statement was made in the context of one of the most common atheistic arguments against God and religion: Great atrocities and genocide have been committed in the name of God. Atheists feel that since horrendous things have happened at the hands of religious leaders and movements, that religion must therefore be false and hateful.

Well, I definitely am not going to deny that terrible things have occurred throughout history at the hands of religious people. Yes. It has happened.

However, once again let's use the atheists' own arguments and logic to examine their beliefs. If genocide is a point of exclusion for belief, then we should run screaming in horror from the atheist point of view.

Stalin: communistic atheist in USSR
death toll during his reign: at least 20 million--though some say that number is actually low

Pol Pot: communistic atheist in Cambodia
death toll during his reign: about 2 million

Hitler: crazy, whacked-out "suspected atheist"--Suspected is in quotes, because though Hitler occasionally used the Church and spoke in "religious" themes, the general consensus is that it was all part of his manipulation and propaganda to get the German population to accomplish his will. Much of his inspiration came from Nietzsche, an avowed atheist.

death toll during his reign: at least 6 million Jews, 5-6 million others

What is even worse about these facts is that all of these people were murdered by atheistic regimes in less than 50 years.

So, let's not kid ourselves about the implications of belief systems. The truth is that power-hungry people will use any excuse to accomplish their goals. They might cloak their motivations in religion or atheism, but either way, it doesn't prove that there is no God. It only proves that great evil can dwell in the human heart, a given premise in Judeo-Christian thought.

Nightline and Proof of God

Despite the fact that I should have already been in bed, I was still awake last night at 11:30 watching Nightline.

Part of the program was a very truncated presentation of a debate between "The Rational Response Squad," a self-appointed group of atheists that have come up with The Blasphemy Challenge--a website that encourages people to deny the existence of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit--and Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, christian evangelists-- actor and author respectively.

The debate took at least 90 minutes, but I think ABC only showed about 5 minutes of it.

Trying to prove that God exists to an atheist is really an exercise in futility. By the time a person boldly declares themselves an atheist, they usually have their minds made up; otherwise, they would simply call themselves agnostic or say that they don't "think" that there is a God.

But anyway....

Ray Comfort's main point, featured on the show, was that creation itself is an indicator that there is a God. He held up a painting, stating that the painting itself is proof that there was a painter that created it. The painting could not exist without the painter. At this point, Brian Sapient tried to discredit this point by saying that if creation warrants a Creator, then who created God? Who is the creator of the eternal being?

What bugs me most about atheists' thinking is that it is so often illogical and hypocritical in its application. For instance, asking who created God and of course not being able to get an answer that makes any sense to the human mind, an atheist will very smugly think that he has struck a fatal blow to religious belief. ("Haha! You can't tell me where God came from! That must mean He isn't real and you are just an irrational idiot!") However, people of faith already know that they can't understand the paradox of God's eternal existence and nature, so this question is not a real challenge to their faith.

What smug atheists often fail to do is to use their own logic on their beliefs. If you believe there is no God, and that matter is the only guiding force in the Universe, you must still reconcile those beliefs with the Beginning Of All Things. The Big Bang, physics, and evolution are fine ways to try and observationally look at the material world and create a framework for understanding, but they too must try and explain the Beginning. The question that atheists can't explain, any more than Christians, is where it all came from. If we rewind everything back to The Big Bang--a time in which every atom that exists was compressed and contained in a tiny space no bigger than a period--you still have to ask.......where did matter come from? If it wasn't created, what was there before The Big Bang? It is the atheist version of "Who created God?"

They can't explain it any more than we can.

This inability to explain where matter came from also trickles down into the theory of evolution. Evolution is based on the assumption of life starting at a bacterial, micro-organism level, and over billions of years, producing very complicated organisms. Yet evolution still cannot explain how inert matter and atoms were imbued with life. How does a chemical, primordial soup transform into a living form, focused on "surviving." Survive what? If chemicals suddenly sprung to life, how could they know that there would be "death?" How does a one-celled organism fear no longer living when only moments before it was an inanimate molecule?

Bah!

An atheist cannot answer any of these questions. Their belief system is full of holes and requires as much faith as any Christian's. The difference between the two is that atheists are loathe to admit the inconsistencies in their thinking. They cling tightly to their versions of truth, science, and rationality, but seem to lose all rationality trying to explain the First Cause of everything. They don't understand the why and how of the universe any more than a simple believer.

Science is their God. The only problem is that Science is not perfect and the emperor has no clothes.

**afterthought**

Isn't it interesting that the focus of The Rational Response Squad is focused solely on Christianity? Their blasphemy challenge has nothing to do with Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

Also, why do atheists always seem to be so angry? Every time I encounter an online discussion or see something on TV, atheists always come off as extremely angry, outraged people. Maybe I'll post about it later.