Biblical Critique of Dr. Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion Chapter 1
Recently, the Lord has put it on my heart to revive my Christian apologetics blog, where I review different prominent atheist books. My passion has always been apologetics, as I desire to know what I believe and why I believe it. I also have a strong desire to share the Gospel with people who are going through life without the hope of the Gospel. In this new blog series, I shall be reviewing a book from the infamous atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins' book called The God Delusion. But first, who is Dr. Richard Dawkins? He is a popular biologist who graduated from Oxford University. He has written a slew of books besides this one I am reviewing. Two other books that he has written are River Out of Eden and The Selfish Gene. For the sake of this series, however, I will only focus on The God Delusion. Another point I need to make concerning this series is that as I address the points he makes in his book, I am only going to focus on what he says about the Christian God. I have no interest in defending any generic theism. As a presuppositionalist, I am only concerned with defending Christian theism. Romans 1:18-20 says,
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
What the Apostle Paul is telling us here is that God has revealed Himself to all people everywhere. Theologians have made the point that God has shown Himself through Creation, conscience, and Scripture. Since this is true, according to God's word, there really is no such thing as an atheist. One who claims to be an atheist is really just a rebellious sinner who hates God and loves his or her own sin. It is for this reason that Paul says that none of us has an excuse before the One whose lives are laid bare. Now that I have laid the introduction for this blog, I will now dive into my critique of Professor Dawkins' book.
Dr. Dawkins opens up Chapter 1 of his book by introducing the backstory of an Anglican teacher he had in school. He says the following,
The boy lay prone in the grass, his chin resting on his hands. He suddenly found himself overwhelmed by a heightened awareness of the tangled stems and roots, a forest in microcosm, a transfigured world of ants and beetles and even- though he wouldn't have known the details at the time--of soil bacteria by the billions, silently and invisibly storing up the economy of the micro-world. Suddenly, the micro-forest of the turf seemed to swell and become one with the universe, and with the rapt mind of the boy contemplating it. He interpreted the experience in religious terms, and it led him eventually to the priesthood. He was ordained an Anglican priest and became a chaplain at my school, a teacher of whom I was fond. It is thanks to decent liberal clergymen like him that nobody could ever claim that I had religion forced down my throat
First, I would like to note that it is a shame that this clergyman never "forced religion down his throat". I say this because, as a Christian who claims to love people, it is the height of hatred not tell people how they can escape God's wrath by trusting in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. This is a point that even the late atheist Christopher Hitchens acknowledged. As for what Dawkins says, his teacher realized as a child that the basic result of what Paul tells us in Romans 1:18-20. God's revelation of Himself is so clear that even a child can see Him. Contrary to popular belief, atheism is not the default setting of people born into this world. In fact, Christian theism is the default setting for people born. If atheism were the default setting, then man would have an excuse before God. As it is, man has no excuse whatsoever.
Richard Dawkins then makes this interesting query. He says the following,
Why the same emotion should have led my chaplain in one direction and me in the other is not an easy question to answer
Actually, the word of God has a very simple, yet unpopular, answer for why some people are led to believe, and others are led to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The answer to this question lies in the fact that some people were predestined to salvation, while others were predestined to damnation. Where does the Word of God say this? If we turn to John 15:16, we read the following from Jesus Himself,
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask in the Father's name, he may give it to you
As you can see from our Lord's mouth, He clearly says that none of us chose Him, but instead He chose each of us. What was the purpose of His choosing us? It was so that we can bear much fruit in His name to His glory. But, if this is not convincing enough for you, let's turn back to the Book of Romans. Romans 9:9-13 tells us the following,
For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls - she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
It is clear from this text that God elects different individuals to be one of His, whom He loves, or one of those whom He hates. This decision is made, pretty much, based on His grace and glory. It is not based on anything we say or do in this life. It is by grace because we do not deserve His mercy, and it is by His glory because everything He does is for His glory. Whether or not you belong to Him is ultimately to display His honor and greatness.
On page 12, Dawkins quotes Carl Sagan from his book titled Pale Blue Dot, who says,
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
What the Apostle Paul is telling us here is that God has revealed Himself to all people everywhere. Theologians have made the point that God has shown Himself through Creation, conscience, and Scripture. Since this is true, according to God's word, there really is no such thing as an atheist. One who claims to be an atheist is really just a rebellious sinner who hates God and loves his or her own sin. It is for this reason that Paul says that none of us has an excuse before the One whose lives are laid bare. Now that I have laid the introduction for this blog, I will now dive into my critique of Professor Dawkins' book.
Dr. Dawkins opens up Chapter 1 of his book by introducing the backstory of an Anglican teacher he had in school. He says the following,
The boy lay prone in the grass, his chin resting on his hands. He suddenly found himself overwhelmed by a heightened awareness of the tangled stems and roots, a forest in microcosm, a transfigured world of ants and beetles and even- though he wouldn't have known the details at the time--of soil bacteria by the billions, silently and invisibly storing up the economy of the micro-world. Suddenly, the micro-forest of the turf seemed to swell and become one with the universe, and with the rapt mind of the boy contemplating it. He interpreted the experience in religious terms, and it led him eventually to the priesthood. He was ordained an Anglican priest and became a chaplain at my school, a teacher of whom I was fond. It is thanks to decent liberal clergymen like him that nobody could ever claim that I had religion forced down my throat
First, I would like to note that it is a shame that this clergyman never "forced religion down his throat". I say this because, as a Christian who claims to love people, it is the height of hatred not tell people how they can escape God's wrath by trusting in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. This is a point that even the late atheist Christopher Hitchens acknowledged. As for what Dawkins says, his teacher realized as a child that the basic result of what Paul tells us in Romans 1:18-20. God's revelation of Himself is so clear that even a child can see Him. Contrary to popular belief, atheism is not the default setting of people born into this world. In fact, Christian theism is the default setting for people born. If atheism were the default setting, then man would have an excuse before God. As it is, man has no excuse whatsoever.
Richard Dawkins then makes this interesting query. He says the following,
Why the same emotion should have led my chaplain in one direction and me in the other is not an easy question to answer
Actually, the word of God has a very simple, yet unpopular, answer for why some people are led to believe, and others are led to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The answer to this question lies in the fact that some people were predestined to salvation, while others were predestined to damnation. Where does the Word of God say this? If we turn to John 15:16, we read the following from Jesus Himself,
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask in the Father's name, he may give it to you
As you can see from our Lord's mouth, He clearly says that none of us chose Him, but instead He chose each of us. What was the purpose of His choosing us? It was so that we can bear much fruit in His name to His glory. But, if this is not convincing enough for you, let's turn back to the Book of Romans. Romans 9:9-13 tells us the following,
For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls - she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
It is clear from this text that God elects different individuals to be one of His, whom He loves, or one of those whom He hates. This decision is made, pretty much, based on His grace and glory. It is not based on anything we say or do in this life. It is by grace because we do not deserve His mercy, and it is by His glory because everything He does is for His glory. Whether or not you belong to Him is ultimately to display His honor and greatness.
On page 12, Dawkins quotes Carl Sagan from his book titled Pale Blue Dot, who says,
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than I thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets have said, more grander, more subtle, more elegant?' Instead, they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths
This is a common misconception about Christianity. Sure, some radical fundamentalists seem to give us a bad reputation by being "anti-science". But I am not concerned with what some radical fundamentalists say about their Christian faith. What I am concerned about is what the Bible says. I assume if you are reading this blog, you are concerned with what the Bible says, too. When we turn to Isaiah 40:22, we read the following,
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in
Contrary to popular belief, Christians and Jews have always known that the earth is round, despite what the rest of the world believed. It was because of this very verse that they trusted to reveal that the earth is round. Also, the "Stretching out the heavens like a curtain" seems to refer to the expansion of the universe. Keep in mind that this was written centuries before modern science literally figured this out! If this is not enough for you, please turn to Psalm 33:6, where we read the following,
By the word of the Lord, the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host
As you can see from this text, God literally created the entire universe by His very word. That is how great our God is! He is so powerful that He can literally create such an incredible, highly complex, and designed universe ex nihilo (out of nothing). As you can see, the Bible encourages us to see the greatness of our creation because it points out to us how great our God truly is.
On page 16 of The God Delusion, Dawkins writes,
The notion that religion is a proper field in which one might claim expertise is one that should not go unquestioned. The clergyman presumably would not have deferred to the expertise of a claimed "fairyologist" on the exact shape and colour of fairy wings. Both he and the bishop thought that Einstein, being theologically untrained, had misunderstood the nature of God. On the contrary, Einstein understood very well what he was denying."
Honestly, I find this line of reasoning to be astounding. Dawkins is basically saying that we do not need to learn theology from experts in theology. Now, I do not think we need theologians help us understand the Bible. The study of theology helps us understand the depth and nuances of the proper knowledge of the Bible. If anyone says we do not need theology to love God, that is like saying, "I do not need to learn about my wife to love her". I am sure your wife would greatly appreciate it if you took the time to actually learn about her. In the same way, we are to learn about God to love Him properly. Also, this line of reasoning Dawkins is making would never fly in any other circumstance. Can you imagine telling the police officer who pulled you over that he cannot tell you anything because he does not know how the street you are driving on was created? That officer would still write you a ticket regardless. Also, I am sure even Dawkins would want us to listen to him when he speaks about biology (since he is a biologist, after all) instead of some random Joe Blow on the street.
On page 23, Dawkins says the following,
The Los Angeles Times (10 April 2006) reported that numerous Christian groups on campuses around the United States were suing their universities for enforcing anti-discrimination rules, including prohibitions against harassing or abusing homosexuals. As a typical example, in 2004, James Nixon, a twelve-year-old boy in Ohio, won the right in court to wear a T-shirt to school bearing the words "Homosexuality is sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!" The school told him not to wear the T-shirt--and the boy's parents sued the school. The parents might have had a conscionable case if they had based it on the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. But they didn't: indeed, they couldn't, because free speech is deemed not to include 'hate speech'. But hate only has to provide it is religious, and it no longer counts as hate. So, instead of freedom of speech, the Nixons' lawyers appealed to the constitutional right to freedom of religion. The victorious lawsuit was supported by the Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona, whose business it is to "press the legal battle for religious freedom"
First, what does the freedom of speech entail? According to AI Overview, the Freedom of Speech Clause is,
The fundamental human right to express opinions, ideas, and information without fear of government censorship, retaliation, or punishment
As you can see, the case of James Nixon is a freedom of speech issue. Dawkins is saying that freedom of speech does not cover "hate speech". However, there is absolutely no legal definition of so-called "hate speech".Since this is the case, the Nixons do have a case against the school for violating their freedom of speech. It is very disingenuous of Dawkins to suggest otherwise. Now, I do agree with Dawkins that the case is a classic example of a freedom of religion violation. However, I know he is using this case to say that so-called "hate speech" is protected under the guise of religion. This couldn't be further from reality. It is not hate when we tell homosexuals the truth about where their behaviors are leading them anymore than warning someone about to drive off a cliff. It would be unloving of us to not do anything.
I really appreciate you taking the time to read the first part of my blog series, where I critique Dr. Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. Please stay tuned for my critique of chapter 2, and feel free to let me know what you all think in the comments below. May the grace of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ richly bless you all!
-David Lee Chu Sarchet
Christian Apologist and Christian Mental Health Advocate
Check out Christ-Centered Mental Health Ministry
This is a common misconception about Christianity. Sure, some radical fundamentalists seem to give us a bad reputation by being "anti-science". But I am not concerned with what some radical fundamentalists say about their Christian faith. What I am concerned about is what the Bible says. I assume if you are reading this blog, you are concerned with what the Bible says, too. When we turn to Isaiah 40:22, we read the following,
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in
Contrary to popular belief, Christians and Jews have always known that the earth is round, despite what the rest of the world believed. It was because of this very verse that they trusted to reveal that the earth is round. Also, the "Stretching out the heavens like a curtain" seems to refer to the expansion of the universe. Keep in mind that this was written centuries before modern science literally figured this out! If this is not enough for you, please turn to Psalm 33:6, where we read the following,
By the word of the Lord, the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host
As you can see from this text, God literally created the entire universe by His very word. That is how great our God is! He is so powerful that He can literally create such an incredible, highly complex, and designed universe ex nihilo (out of nothing). As you can see, the Bible encourages us to see the greatness of our creation because it points out to us how great our God truly is.
On page 16 of The God Delusion, Dawkins writes,
The notion that religion is a proper field in which one might claim expertise is one that should not go unquestioned. The clergyman presumably would not have deferred to the expertise of a claimed "fairyologist" on the exact shape and colour of fairy wings. Both he and the bishop thought that Einstein, being theologically untrained, had misunderstood the nature of God. On the contrary, Einstein understood very well what he was denying."
Honestly, I find this line of reasoning to be astounding. Dawkins is basically saying that we do not need to learn theology from experts in theology. Now, I do not think we need theologians help us understand the Bible. The study of theology helps us understand the depth and nuances of the proper knowledge of the Bible. If anyone says we do not need theology to love God, that is like saying, "I do not need to learn about my wife to love her". I am sure your wife would greatly appreciate it if you took the time to actually learn about her. In the same way, we are to learn about God to love Him properly. Also, this line of reasoning Dawkins is making would never fly in any other circumstance. Can you imagine telling the police officer who pulled you over that he cannot tell you anything because he does not know how the street you are driving on was created? That officer would still write you a ticket regardless. Also, I am sure even Dawkins would want us to listen to him when he speaks about biology (since he is a biologist, after all) instead of some random Joe Blow on the street.
On page 23, Dawkins says the following,
The Los Angeles Times (10 April 2006) reported that numerous Christian groups on campuses around the United States were suing their universities for enforcing anti-discrimination rules, including prohibitions against harassing or abusing homosexuals. As a typical example, in 2004, James Nixon, a twelve-year-old boy in Ohio, won the right in court to wear a T-shirt to school bearing the words "Homosexuality is sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!" The school told him not to wear the T-shirt--and the boy's parents sued the school. The parents might have had a conscionable case if they had based it on the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. But they didn't: indeed, they couldn't, because free speech is deemed not to include 'hate speech'. But hate only has to provide it is religious, and it no longer counts as hate. So, instead of freedom of speech, the Nixons' lawyers appealed to the constitutional right to freedom of religion. The victorious lawsuit was supported by the Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona, whose business it is to "press the legal battle for religious freedom"
First, what does the freedom of speech entail? According to AI Overview, the Freedom of Speech Clause is,
The fundamental human right to express opinions, ideas, and information without fear of government censorship, retaliation, or punishment
As you can see, the case of James Nixon is a freedom of speech issue. Dawkins is saying that freedom of speech does not cover "hate speech". However, there is absolutely no legal definition of so-called "hate speech".Since this is the case, the Nixons do have a case against the school for violating their freedom of speech. It is very disingenuous of Dawkins to suggest otherwise. Now, I do agree with Dawkins that the case is a classic example of a freedom of religion violation. However, I know he is using this case to say that so-called "hate speech" is protected under the guise of religion. This couldn't be further from reality. It is not hate when we tell homosexuals the truth about where their behaviors are leading them anymore than warning someone about to drive off a cliff. It would be unloving of us to not do anything.
I really appreciate you taking the time to read the first part of my blog series, where I critique Dr. Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. Please stay tuned for my critique of chapter 2, and feel free to let me know what you all think in the comments below. May the grace of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ richly bless you all!
-David Lee Chu Sarchet
Christian Apologist and Christian Mental Health Advocate
Check out Christ-Centered Mental Health Ministry
Comments
Post a Comment