May
15, 2008
OPEN LETTER to RICHARD DAWKINS
“The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins (Bantam Books, 2006)
review by Randall F. More, P. Eng.
The God of the Old Testament (p. 51)
You write that, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant in all
fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a
vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist,
infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical,
sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
What is particularly intriguing about your
story is that you seem to have no personal reason for bitterness or hatred
toward God; there is nothing that you blame Him for in your own life and yet,
all your hatred spews out towards God almost seemingly as a result of the
despicable actions of people and their decisions to whom you assign no blame
but instead all the blame goes toward God. This seems to demonstrate a trivial
understanding of God. If individuals, especially Christians, are involved in
repugnant and despicable acts, now or at any time in history, then blame those
perpetrators, not God nor the billions of other Christ-honouring Christians. Those
who are personally responsible should rightfully be held accountable.
It is difficult to comprehend how you are
able to spew so much hatred toward Someone who apparently doesn't even exist. You
can freely choose to deny the existence of God but that doesn’t mean that such
a belief represents truth.
Your comments and characterization of the God
of the Old Testament are extraordinary. The basis of your personal sentiments
is not readily understood but what one can conclude is that you have never
personally been introduced to the God who I know, through His Son. He is worth
knowing. The Old Testament expounds many truths and one of its attributes is
that it is a document of relevant history, acknowledging all the blemishes of
people throughout history. It is the blemishes of man which should cause us to
understand that we have a greater need outside ourselves.
Almost all the characters in the Old
Testament are individuals with enormous flaws, failings, blemishes, and sin:
Adam, Cain, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Moses, Samson, Saul, David, Solomon, Jonah and
many others. All are flawed and blemished but these men, just like you and I,
and possibly even worse, are all part of real human history. God mentions these
men, not because they are heroes but because through them we can more fully
understand our own frailties, brokenness, and sin and that He loves us in spite
of our sin and failings.
You seem to have a wealth of knowledge about
the Bible and you acknowledge many characters of the Old Testament as though
they are real historical characters (which they are) but you can't be bothered
to acknowledge the most important characters of all, God and His Son. Such an
approach just doesn’t make much sense.
Two of the most important attributes of God
are that He is a God of infinite love and of perfect justice. To a holy and
righteous God, in a sin filled world, there cannot be one without the other.
Love in the absence of justice is not genuine love. It is analogous to an
earthly father. The dad who loves his young son gives him the freedom to
venture onto the front lawn but he also warns him not to go onto the street and
watches him, but when the son disobeys, the good and loving father disciplines him
because he loves him so much that he understands the importance of teaching him
a life-saving and life-remembering lesson. Our heavenly Father is the same. He
provides the love and the freedom but we are also wisely and appropriately
disciplined with a hand of earthly justice when we violate or abuse His
provisions for us. The really good news, however, is that even when we deserve
something more severe, He often extends His grace and mercy.
God gave us two phenomenal gifts. The first
one is the amazing gift of free will but knowing our desire for doing evil with
this marvellous free gift, He fortunately also gave us the gift of His Son.
Because of our sin nature, it is always this gift of free will which gets us
into trouble. For those who choose to receive it, He also gave us the second
gift so that we could be clothed in His righteousness and be in fellowship with
Him by simple, redeeming faith.
The Trinity (p. 55)
You write that, “no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity.” That is
correct but just because finite man with a finite brain and finite capabilities
cannot comprehend the Trinity does not mean that the Trinity does not exist.
The Trinity is one of the awesome mysteries of God which no one can or will
ever fully understand. For one who does not understand any part of the
supernatural at all, you personally may have a particularly difficult time in
understanding the Trinity. The Trinity is, indeed, a mystery for all.
Denying Everything Supernatural (p. 57)
You are forthright in saying that you are “attacking God, all gods, anything and
everything supernatural.” You can do that but what does it accomplish?
You can attack the supernatural as though it does not exist but that does not mean
your denial constitutes truth. In fact, by doing so you deny yourself a very
wonderful aspect of your own nature and that is the fact that you were created
by the supernatural and that you have a soul and a spirit, unlike any of the
animals from which you believe you have descended. You can attack the God of
the Bible with all other gods but to do so suggests a real lack of
understanding of the God of the Bible.
Distinguished Scientists (p. 127)
You write that “the most distinguished scientists are the least religious of all.
What is remarkable is the polar opposition between the religiosity of the
American public at large and the atheism of the intellectual elite.”
There is certainly no surprise with this
statistic. Fortunately, faith, truth, and belief are not determined by popular
opinion. In fact, the Bible cautions us against believing that we can have all
the answers apart from Him. Non-believing scientists may be considered by many to
be distinguished, but certainly not by God. So many of us think that, in our
own eyes, we are so wise but the apostle, Paul, cautions us not to overestimate
our own wisdom:
Has not God made
foolish the wisdom of the world (I Corinthians 1:20)?
Natural Selection (p. 141)
You write that “Natural selection not only explains the whole of life, it also
raises our consciousness to the power of science to explain how organized
complexity can emerge from simple beginnings without any deliberate guidance.”
Natural selection explains no such thing and
it is therefore not surprising that you don’t provide even one example whereby
organized complexity resulted without any deliberate and intentional guidance.
Your statement is not one of fact but of assumption and conjecture.
Irreducible Complexity (p. 148)
You mock the notion of irreducible complexity
although at the same time you acknowledge that even Darwin found it absurd to
think that the eye could be formed by natural selection. You mock it only because
you make a personal decision not to believe it, but again, even though you say
that “such intermediates abound in
practice,” you provide not one example. It is incredible that your editors
would not have required you to offer at least one example of that which you
blatantly state as fact, but which is readily disputed by so many others.
Intelligent Design (p. 159)
Contrary to your assertion, NO “intelligent design
theorist” would say that “if you don’t
understand how something works, never mind; just give up and say God did it.”
This is preposterous. In your academic field, you should attempt to get to know
in a genuine way some intelligent design theorists so that you may know how
they really process information.
God has given each of us amazing capabilities
to learn and to understand innumerable truths but most of us will acknowledge
that there are indeed many things that we do not know or fully understand and
cannot know through our own intellect. In fact, there are many things that
mankind may not or will not ever know.
Contrary to your understanding, a wise person
of any persuasion will at least give credit where warranted and that may mean
acknowledging the supernatural, which means acknowledging God, however
repulsive that is to you. I know the reality of God and the supernatural in my own
life whereas you make a personal decision to deny it even in the face of
evidence to the contrary. That is your prerogative but in doing so you rob
yourself of the benefit of a very important and wonderful part of your very being.
The God Hypothesis (pp. 137, 189)
The very good news for you is that the
chapter titled, “Why There Almost
Certainly Is No God,” at the very least, infers that there may be a
God. At the extreme then, that would make you an agnostic, not an atheist. Of
course, even though you may choose not to acknowledge it, no one of any real
intellectual persuasion can be a genuine atheist as no one can actually prove
that there is no God.
You profess to be an atheist but the very
good news (for you) is that you are almost invariably, without even realizing
it, a genuine seeker of the truth and of God, even though your outward actions
reflect such a dogmatic denial of the truth. The fact that you offer “The God Hypothesis” and remark
that “God almost certainly does not
exist” might be somewhat encouraging, even to yourself, as hypotheses
have the possibility of becoming facts.
As much as you proclaim otherwise, ultimately
there are no atheists. When a major earthquake, tsunami, or other disaster
comes and the ground beneath us begins to shake, each one of us, including you,
will cry out to God or to Jesus. There is rarely, if ever, a cry out by anyone
to Buddha, Mohammed, or Allah. Why is that? That is because inherently each one
of us has a God-given knowledge, admittedly or otherwise, that there is real life-giving
and life-saving power in the God of the Universe. That truth is inherent in
each one of us; we didn't evolve that way; that's just the way God made us.
Fortunately, for some of us, it doesn't take an earthquake to convince us of
that truth. The amazing truth about God is that He extends grace and mercy to
each one of us, even when we reject Him so vehemently, and the good news is
that He is patient, very patient. He is patient because He desires that each
one of us come to Him... by simple faith.
Your atheism, or more accurately your hatred
of God, is probably as staunch and entrenched as I have ever seen. One is
compelled to inquire as to why you expend so much of your life, effort, and
energy for the purpose of convincing others that there is no God? You surely must
realize that many of those who you hope to convince are just as sure and
convinced in their own belief and views as you are in yours. At least for them,
they have a real and genuine hope. Your atheistic view holds no hope... it is
one of hopelessness.
Ten Million Years (p. 167)
You write that, “We can safely predict that, if we wait another ten million years, a
whole new set of species will be as well adapted to their ways of life as
today’s species are to theirs.”
Of course you can safely predict this because
you won’t be around to admit the error or to accept blame for the consequences
of encouraging such an erroneous belief.
Embarrassed Christians (p. 187)
You write that, “many educated Christians today are too loyal to deny the virgin
birth and the resurrection. But it embarrasses them because their rational
minds know it is absurd...”
Again, this is preposterous. Any genuine
Bible-believing, born again, Spirit filled Christian suffers no such
embarrassment.
Unfortunately, in those cases where you may
have dialogued with such Christians, it is more likely that your own dogmatic,
opinionated, and mocking approach causes some Christians to be reticent about
sharing their true beliefs with you. The Bible cautions us accordingly:
Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do
not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet,
and turn and tear you to pieces (Matthew 7:6).
God knows that we are wasting our time when
we share His truths with those who are clearly not receptive to such things at
the time. He does not want His Word trampled on. One, such as yourself, may continue to mock
God but you do so at your own peril as ultimately God will not be mocked. The apostle
Paul makes that quite clear:
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked;
for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap (Galatians 6:7).
Joy of Sex (p. 197)
You write that, “the Darwinian still wants to know why people are vulnerable to the
charms of religion... we still need the Darwinian explanation of why it works.
In the case of sexual lust, the answer is easy: our brains are set up to enjoy
sex because sex, in the natural state, makes babies.”
The Darwinian wants to know this because he
has such a difficult time accepting the answer that we enjoy sex precisely
because God made us… to enjoy sex… male and female… plain and simple… and it is
true that sex creates babies but that is not why we enjoy it. That is most
blatantly a bogus evolutionary notion. In fact, another of the amazing aspects
of nature which evolution cannot explain is the origin of the sexes in the
first instance.
Child Brains (p. 205)
You write that, “natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe
whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them.”
Natural selection has absolutely nothing to
do with building children’s brains to believe whatever their parents tell them.
You say this as though it is fact but really only because it is consistent with
your entire philosophy. God made each of our brains to be very receptive to the
teaching of parents because He gave the primary responsibility to parents to
raise up godly children and to train up the child in the way that he should go.
Morals, Religion, & Goodness (pp. 241, 245, 257, 258, 264, 265, 280, 283, 289)
You write that, “many religious people find it hard to imagine how, without religion,
one can be good, or would even want to be good.”
Firstly, goodness is a relative term as it
seldom refers to moral excellence, but most Christians already know that any
goodness that any of us have is a result of a God-given conscience that He
gives to each one of us, including atheists. That is how we were created. Of
course, evolution has no hope of ever explaining the derivation of inherent
human morality. At the other extreme, evil prevails when our consciences become
seared to such an extent that we no longer properly respond to them.
You write that, “our sense of right and wrong can be derived from our Darwinian past.”
No it can’t. That is a gross assumption and conjecture without any basis. You
are forced to make that assumption due to your own prejudicial Darwinian
approach. Sure, you can believe that a sense of right and wrong is derived by a
Darwinian past but it is because you are forced to believe that. You can come
to no other conclusion when you preclude God from consideration. Your belief,
however, doesn’t necessarily represent truth.
As you suggest, “we do not need God in order to be good – or evil” but what
we already have is a God-given conscience that affects our conduct, our
behaviour, and our morality. “Our
morals, whether we are religious or not, come from another source; and that
other source, whatever it is, is available to all of us, regardless of religion
or lack of it.” This is all true and it is agreed that morals don’t
come from religion as they are “available
to all of us, regardless of religion or lack of it.” The source, which
you are not too sure about, is the God-given conscience with which each human
being is bestowed. Having been given a conscience then, one does not need God
to do good things, but one most certainly needs God if one desires to be
clothed in His righteousness which is the awesome and wonderful privilege that
is available to each one of us.
You say that, "moral intuitions are often not well thought out but that we feel
them strongly anyway, because of our evolutionary heritage." In
fact, moral intuitions are very well thought out as they are the result of our
God-given heritage and part of our God-given conscience. The moral code is His
idea, not man’s idea, and it certainly didn’t arise through some evolutionary
process.
You write, “Apologists cannot get away with claiming that religion provides them
with some sort of inside track to defining what is good and what is bad – a
privileged source unavailable to atheists.” The good news for atheists is
that the source is, in fact, ingrained in each one of us, including atheists.
The moral code has been written by God on the heart of every person.
It is worthy of note that evolution provides
not one scintilla of understanding with respect to the origin of man’s
conscience or his inherent moral nature. This unique and special quality in
mankind is God ordained. Man is born with His morality inherent in his being.
It is man’s choice to walk away from such knowledge. God planted a conscience and
morality within the heart of every person:
...they show the work
of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness... (Romans
2:15).
Atheists can deny this but that does not
nullify the truth of it. You write that, “My
purpose has been to demonstrate that we (and that includes most religious
people) as a matter of fact don’t get our morals from scripture.” One
can continue to deny it but, in fact, our moral code is inherent in our very
being and was inscribed in stone, written in Scripture, and more importantly
written on the heart of each person.
You say that, "If morality is merely a matter of choice, Hitler could claim to be
moral by his own eugenically inspired standards." Yes, that is
exactly what happened. With the underpinnings of his own version of Catholicism
and under the influence of Ernst Haeckel, the staunch evolutionary atheist, and
a contemporary of Darwin, Hitler was driven by the evolutionary Darwinian
notion of superiority of his race and survival of the fittest as his
justification to obliterate those he believed to be inferior and unworthy. That
was his personal perverted morality... a bankrupt personal morality.
Nazism, apartheid, the holocaust, slavery,
racism, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and other societal perversions are
ultimately rooted in evolutionary philosophy... a philosophy which has no
understanding of the God of the Bible and certainly no understanding of
ultimate accountability to a loving God... but also a God of ultimate justice.
Some of these actions are, sadly, sometimes even advanced in the name of
Christianity but, one thing of which you can be sure, that is not genuine
Christianity.
You say that, "Fortunately, however, morals do not have to be absolute."
Morals are obviously not absolute for you. Anyone can choose to establish his
own morality, which many do, but that does not make it right, except to you. It
is agreed, however, that atheists have no moral absolutes. Of course, with
evolution and without acknowledging God, that is at least an intellectually
consistent position but that does not make it right or make it truth. One can
fly in the face of truth but it doesn't get one anywhere. It may be
intellectually consistent but it's intellectually wrong. In fact, God has
established some absolute morals. God also understood that no one could ever
live up to His holy and righteous standard because each one of us also has a
sin nature. Fortunately, because He is not only a God of righteousness but a
God of infinite and perfect justice and a God of infinite love, He sent His Son
to pay the penalty for your sin and mine.
From your writing, one can tell that you will
not really understand much of what I write, but genuine Christianity, unlike
“religion,” is not ultimately about morals and rule-keeping; it is about having
a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe through His Son. For
the genuine Bible-believing, Christ-honouring, born again believer, any
adherence to any morals ultimately has to do with desiring to live a life which
honours Christ, not one lived out of fear or for rule-keeping sake, but out of
a genuine love for Him. Virtually all of your references have to do with
“religion” to which I mostly agree. I am, however, speaking about life giving
faith – not religion. The difference is very important and profound. Somehow through
your life experiences and your education you have been given a highly contorted
and grossly distorted view of genuine Christianity.
Animals and Altruism (p. 247)
You write that "animals tend to care for, defend, share resources with, warn of
danger, or otherwise show altruism towards close kin because of the statistical
likelihood that kin will share copies of the same genes."
Yes, this animal behaviour is accurate but only
because God sovereignly placed those necessary instincts and genes within each
species.
Symbiotic Relationships (p. 248)
Sure, you can say that, "bees need nectar and the flower needs
pollinating" implying that evolution is responsible for this
wonderful symbiotic relationship. This, in fact, is much more likely
attributable to God-given and God-ordained instincts. To date, evolution has
had no success in explaining symbiotic relationships.
Why Be Good (p. 259)
You issue the challenge, “Do you really mean to tell me the only
reason you try to be good is to gain God’s approval and reward, or to avoid his
disapproval and punishment? That’s not morality, that’s just... looking over
your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky.”
This is true for every non-Christian religion
in the world and even for some so-called Christian denominations but this is
NOT the good news of Jesus Christ. Your assertion applies to religion and
religiosity, but not to genuine Bible-believing faith. Your view represents a
misunderstanding of the precepts of Christianity and the gospel. Any desire for
a Christ-honouring believer to do good things results from a genuine love for
Him and because he has the power of His Spirit which dwells within the life of every
believer. Any other understanding is faulty.
You seem to have the right idea about
“religion” in many areas but for some reason you do not demonstrate a real
understanding or grasp of real faith. Genuine faith has virtually nothing to do
with religion. A genuine Christ-honouring person doesn't do good out of fear of
punishment from God for doing otherwise; his desire and motivation for doing
good is out of a genuine love for God and a genuine love for others. That is
what a personal relationship with the living God is all about. It is not unlike
the love and motivation that a husband has for his wife which, if genuine, is
lived out and demonstrated through his actions, conduct, and care, love, and
regard for her. (In fact, love is another one of the concepts that evolution
has no hope of ever explaining.) Sure, most of your comments are correct with
respect to religion but they have very little to do with real life giving
faith.
You say that if “you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not
under divine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is
necessary for us to be good.” God is not necessary for us to be good
except in the sense that it is His God-given conscience that He has bestowed
upon mankind that leads us to goodness, even for those who do not know Him,
including atheists. Sure, there are many instances in which religion "systematically exploits personal guilt"
but that is not genuine faith and it certainly does not represent genuine
Christianity.
Most people would agree with you; goodness
has little or nothing to do with religion. However, any goodness in man, in
fact, occurs only as a result of a God-given moral directive and conscience. It
has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with Him. This is one of
the many things that distinguishes man from animal in that man is infused with a
conscience in that he is made in God's image, having moral characteristics. Unfortunately,
man also has a human attribute known as a sin nature.
Immorality, Religiosity, and Christian Nations (pp. 262, 263)
You say that, “Such research evidence as there is certainly doesn’t support the
common view that religiosity is positively correlated with morality.”
Your comment reflects the fact that you are either
intentionally or inadvertently mixing up and confusing religiosity with Bible-believing
and Bible-honouring faith.
Similarly, you refer to a study which, “reached the devastating conclusion that
‘higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates
of homicide, juvenile and early mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy
and abortion in the prosperous democracies.’”
You also write that crime rates are higher in
Christian countries than in non-Christian countries but the deduction and the inference
is wrong.
Because of the enormous freedoms offered to
all people in Christian countries, they include and attract many non-Christian
citizens. Crime generally results from the abuse of such personal freedoms and
liberties, usually by those who have no genuine faith. In atheistic, communist,
and dictator run countries, freedoms are denied or rigorously, forcefully, and
abusively constrained by the government. In Muslim countries, freedoms are
constrained by the ayatollahs and by Islamic dogma with the threat of death for
some violations of their own moral code. Christian nations, on the other hand,
provide freedom for all individuals to choose all aspects of life and very
often that includes the personal freedom to abuse such privileges. Prosperous
and faith based democracies offer freedoms for all people and that includes the
freedom to be involved in wrongful acts.
What can more likely rightfully be deduced
from the study is that “prosperous
democracies” referred to in the study are a direct result of faith
based beliefs and initiatives acting within those nations.
You are so readily able to dismiss and
devalue the incredible richness of all that genuine Christian faith has
provided, preserved, promoted, encouraged, and advanced for much of the world
including literature, education, health, arts, sciences, charity, justice,
women’s rights, sanctity of marriage, honouring authority, protection of
children and the unborn, and abolition of slavery. These gains, privileges, and
rights do not occur in atheistic countries or in the countries of other
religions where genuine Christianity does not prevail. You are seemingly unable
to concede that many of the liberties which you personally enjoy came as a
result of the positive and powerful influence of Christianity.
If you are still not sure of the profound
impact of the ruthless and disgraceful atheistic and godless influences on the
world over the very recent past, you only need to re-examine the despicable
regimes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Papa Doc Chevalier, Idi
Amin, Nicolai Ceausescu, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, or Fidel Castro Ruz, amongst
others.
Much of your writing revolves around the
countless ills, abuses, and atrocities associated with religion and for that
there is little disagreement but you should not equate any religion or the
fallenness of man with genuine life giving and God-honouring faith. The two
should NEVER be equated as they are not related. (I would really encourage you
to write about the wrongs and ills of religion, but leave God out of it - He
has never wanted any part of it and He doesn’t deserve the bad name that you,
others, and religion give Him.)
Scripture and Canonization (p. 268)
You write that, "much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird,
as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed
documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and ‘improved’ by hundreds of
anonymous authors, editors and copyists,... spanning nine centuries... may
explain some of the sheer strangeness of the Bible.”
You are suggesting that the Bible cannot be
the Word of God. When a manufacturer makes a new car, new lawnmower, or new
piece of equipment, it produces a manual to ensure its proper operation. God would
only be a very little God if He couldn't even produce His own Manual for the
pinnacle of His Creation, mankind. You can be quite sure that God sovereignly
superintended all the writing of the Bible, His Manual for mankind,
accomplished through His human authors.
The Bible may appear to you to be cobbled
together but that is primarily because you may not understand the canonization of
Scripture. You can be quite sure that the consolidation of 66 unique books
authored by many individuals over a period of a thousand years might “appear”
to be chaotically assembled but in its finality, it is a book written by authors
whose writings were superintended by God for His purposes.
Contrary to what you have done throughout
your book, the Bible, if properly understood, should never be compared to any
other writings of any religion. No religion apart from Christianity purports to
have a book written by God.
Through God’s Word we have supernatural
revelation about many aspects of God’s plan and about eternity and yet you
purposely choose to deny it. That is certainly your prerogative but it robs you
of truth and very little is accomplished with such a perspective.
His Commandments & Other Gods (pp. 276, 282, 299)
You sarcastically write that, “If we took the Ten Commandments
seriously, we would rank the worship of the wrong gods, and the making of
graven images, as first and second among sins” and you imply how easy
it would be to abide by such directives. You mockingly write that you think
that it would be far easier to not be tempted by foreign gods compared to
coveting another’s wife when you say that the “irresistible temptation to whore with foreign gods is something we
moderns find harder to empathize with." You are quite mistaken. How
little you really understand God’s Word and who He is and what He desires of us.
Possibly even look at yourself for a moment, and you are not unlike most of us.
You have all your own gods and earthly idols: your education, your career, your
books, your family, your health, your earthly wisdom, your wealth, and whatever
other "gods" that have distracted you from knowing the one true God
and from acknowledging that all that you have and all that you are is
ultimately from Him. These are your idols. We are no better today than 6,000
years ago, likely worse. Fortunately, He is a very patient and loving God and
He desires that each one of us come to know Him, regardless of the gods that
impair our vision in our search.
Another of your advocated personal and humanly
devised commandments is, “always
respect the right of others to disagree with you” and yet,
paradoxically, you then denigrate those who have a differing view than
yourself. Apparently, it all has to be seen your way. You use your book to mock
faith and those who choose to demonstrate it in their own lives but you have
difficulty upholding even your own simple commandments.
Although you trivialize it, He demands that
we first honour Him with our lives. We can, if we choose, be so arrogant as to
ignore the Commandments that God has given each one of us and instead make up
our own as you have done. That was essentially the sin of Adam and Eve, and
each one of us today, whereby we believe that we can each make up our own
rules. That is the essence of sin; going our own way; choosing to do our own
thing. What you don’t realize is that even your own personally chosen morals
and values are a result of your God-given conscience and a God ordained
built-in moral code and certainly not a result of some convoluted evolutionary
process. Man is a sinner; monkeys and amoebae are not. Monkeys and amoebae have
no consciences. That is just the way God intentionally created them. He chose
not to create them in His image. They're just animals.
Even the most hateful, vile criminal has had,
at one time, a God-given conscience but through time and by continuing to
ignore it, his conscience becomes seared
to the extent that it no longer has any power in his life as his life revolves
around his own God-rejecting sinful way of thinking.
The Ten Commandments were not primarily
written as a standard for rule-keeping; they were written as a benchmark or
guidepost to show that each one of us falls short of the mark; how far short
does not matter; it is only that we all fall short of God's holiness and
righteousness. God recognized at the outset that we could not adhere to His
standards in our own strength; that's the primary reason that He gave us His
Son. NO ONE can uphold the Ten Commandments. As a matter of fact, it gets even
tougher in the New Covenant when Jesus comes. The Old Testament says not to
steal; Jesus comes to say that we shouldn't even covet what belongs to someone
else. Jesus says that it is not enough not to commit adultery - that should be
a “no brainer” - but that we shouldn't even lust after someone. The good news,
however, is that He came so that we could each live our lives in His strength
through the indwelling power of His Holy Spirit. This is Christianity and this is
what makes Christianity different than any and every other religion in the
world. Genuine Christianity is not really a religion at all; it is a living
faith; it is not about keeping and maintaining rules; it is not about fear of
punishment and judgment; genuine Christianity is about allowing Him to live in
our lives through the strength and power of His Holy Spirit. It is about living
a life for Him motivated by our love for Him because He first loved us. Your
book dwells so much on religion but any genuine Bible-believing follower of
Christ would agree with most of your comments related to the horrendous ills of
religion. That is not genuine Christianity and never has been.
The countless stories in His Word of fallen
and sinful human beings are not shared for the purpose of being primary
examples of how to live; their lives are shared so that we can understand each
of our own human struggles and frailties and to realize how far we are away from
God’s holy and righteous standard. You seem to miss much of the point about
what God wants to do and accomplish in each of our lives.
Indoctrinating Children (p. 300)
Even when you desire to personally make up
your own commandments including, “Do
not indoctrinate your children…,” it is very difficult to believe,
based on everything that you have written, that you have not already
indoctrinated your own children with your own godless beliefs.
You mock faith, especially that in the life
of a child, but even a young boy only properly grows to manhood with a sense of
value, self-worth, and maturity if he has first and foremost demonstrated
genuine faith and trust in his earthly father and mother, and a reliance on
what his parents have provided in terms of emotional, physical, and
intellectual support through his young and formative years, beginning at birth.
A healthy young son learns to trust his father and that trust begins with a
blind faith. To mock faith of any sort is to demonstrate a lack of understanding
of its power and the value and importance of it in each of our lives, including
your own, and that of your children.
New Testament Injustice (p. 285)
You write that, “New Testament theology adds a new injustice, topped off by a new
sadomasochism whose viciousness even the Old Testament barely exceeds.”
With regard to the crucifixion of Christ,
most would agree with its abhorrence... and yes, sadly and unfortunately many misunderstandings
can be traced back to religion. The Cross of history may be analogous to the
electric chair of today, which is equally abhorrent, but we should respectfully
remember the Cross as a reminder that the most undeserving Person in all of
history took it upon Himself to accept the just consequences of your sin and mine,
for a holy and righteous God, through the most abhorrent treatment known to
mankind. As much as you seem not to like it, and as much as you may not fully
understand His plan; that is what is required of a holy and righteous God. God
Himself, through the death of His Son, the perfect and sinless sacrifice, paid
the just penalty for our sin, yours and mine, for you and I, instead of you and
I. (Frankly, and with no offense to you, in the eyes of a holy and righteous
God, you and I are not even worthy of paying the penalty for our own sin. That
is just a measure of how holy and righteous He really is.) You may not like any
part of His story or His plan or His provision and you may not even believe
that there is anything wrong with sin, but regardless, that does not mean that it
is not truth and fact; it just means that you make a personal choice not to
believe it.
Sin, Sin, Sin (p. 285)
You write that, “the Christian focus is overwhelmingly on sin sin sin sin sin sin
sin. What a nasty little preoccupation to have dominating your life.”
Such a remark is a reflection of a
misunderstanding of genuine born again Christianity. It may reflect what you
have come to understand about Christianity, and although unfortunate, it is somewhat
understandable, but it has no semblance to the truth of Christianity. It is little
wonder that you so harshly denounce everything related to Christianity. Sin is
NOT the preoccupation of a Christian who has foremost been freed from the power
of sin and has allowed Christ to dwell in his life as a believer.
As you mention, early and contemporary
theologians (and Christians) dwell on sin but that does not make it right and
that does not mean that such emphasis should be our model or example. That is
just more religiosity which even God hates and came to rescue us from through
His Son. We are far better to understand that this is not where God chooses for
us to dwell and you would also be much better off to dwell on what Christ has
to offer and not dwell on the pathetic lives and commentaries of fallen man.
You will miss every important aspect of what He has to offer if you only dwell
on earthly human examples, and bad ones at that. There is much about which you
write regarding religion and religiosity which many Bible-believing Christians
would agree but it is important to understand the difference.
None of us may think of ourselves as sinners,
but sin is just part of our human nature and it is all encompassing, not just
that of murder, stealing, rape, or adultery but impatience, unkindness, lust,
selfishness, intolerance, pride, greed, arrogance, and others are all sin as
well. Sin means that we have missed the mark and it doesn’t matter by how much
we miss the mark; it only matters that we have missed the mark.
You are offended by a God who seems to blame
Adam for your sin. Without knowing you personally, I do know that, just like
myself, you have some qualities that are less than positive attributes that you
have inherited from your father (and mother) and these are known as sin, including
impatience, intolerance, unkindness, arrogance, lust, pride, jealousy,
selfishness (from the “selfish gene,” of course), and others. That is our sin
nature. (As a matter of fact, just like myself, you were selfish from the
moment you were born evidenced by the fact that you cried the first moment when
you didn't get what you wanted.) Your sin nature, just like your athletic
nature was inherited from your mom and dad, and originally from Adam and Eve.
Yes, we do not need to blame our parents or even Adam for our negative and
sinful qualities but, whether you believe it or not, ultimately our inclination
and nature to sin was inherited from Adam... not from an amoeba and not from a
monkey. Monkeys and amoebae are NOT sinners. You and I are. Amoebae, monkeys,
and elephants have instincts but they do not have sin natures. We can work in
our own strength to minimize our negative qualities and that will most
certainly be fruitful in our lives, but we will never fully rid ourselves of
some aspects of those inherent qualities. That is just part of our human nature.
That is not a blame game; that is just a statement of fact. None of us is
immune from our sin nature and in the absence of a God-given moral code, you
may not even consider them as sin or wrong.
It just goes to remind us that we are all
descendents of Adam and as such we have inherited his sin nature and have been born
spiritually separated from God in need of reconciliation with Him which He
provides through the awesome love of His Son.
Christian Doctrine (p. 287)
You write that, “I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as
vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent.”
You seem to want to pretend that you should
be the one who has a plan for mankind. God has His own plan. He is God and His plan
is the only one which really matters, not your plan nor mine. Although you
don’t agree with His plan or maybe don’t even fully understand His plan, you
may possibly begin to understand the horrific pain and suffering which His Son
endured for you.
The very sad part is that most often the
“intellectual” just cannot bring himself to understand what Christ has done on
his behalf. The apostle, Paul, put it all in the right perspective:
Because the
foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than
men (I Corinthians 1:25).
Martin Luther King & Ghandi (p. 307)
“Although
Martin Luther King was a Christian, he derived his philosophy of non-violent
civil disobedience directly from Gandhi, who was not.”
This may all be correct but ultimately Gandhi
was living out the precepts of Jesus. Gandhi knew who Jesus was and what He
taught and how He lived out His own life. Many atheists live out many of the
commands and values of Jesus without acknowledging it. Gandhi had the right
philosophy of non-violence but he failed to acknowledge Christ as Lord and
Saviour. The Christian life is far more than living the precepts of Jesus; it
involves allowing Christ to reign in our lives through His Holy Spirit.
Common Humanity and Nazis (p. 307)
You say that there is, "the increased understanding that each of
us shares a common humanity with members of other races and with the other sex
– both deeply unbiblical ideas that come from science, especially evolution.
One reason black people and women and, in Nazi Germany, Jews and gypies have
been treated badly is that they were not perceived as fully human."
What Bible are you reading? Firstly, the
Bible acknowledges only one race, the human race. God makes it quite clear that
we are all of ONE blood of different nations and tribes but not different
races. Racism itself is rooted in the godless philosophy of evolution.
Secondly, God made it clear in Genesis that
we are made in His image as BOTH male and female and our full humanity is only
attained together. In actuality, evolution CANNOT even explain the fact that
there are two sexes.
Thirdly, the atrocities of Hitler and Nazi
Germany were perpetrated almost exclusively due to Hitler’s belief in
evolutionary dogma and racism instigated largely by Ernest Haeckel.
Stalin, Hitler, and Darwin (pp. 309, 310, 311)
In reference to Stalin, it is naive to say
that, "there is no evidence that
his atheism motivated his brutality." You can be sure that, just
as with each person, Stalin’s motivation, about most things, was a function of his
worldview and his atheism, both of which are rooted in evolution and godlessness.
You find it comically audacious of someone’s
notion that, "Hitler was a bad
man, Christianity teaches goodness, therefore Hitler can't have been a
Christian!" You can say this mockingly but the most comical and
ironic part is the fact that this is true. Hitler lived a life of self
justified religiosity that had absolutely nothing to do with genuine
Christianity and he most certainly never led a Christ centred life. Genuine
faith is NEVER demonstrated in words only; it is always evidenced through the
life led.
There is little doubt that both Stalin and
Hitler were both a composite of their religious backgrounds with Hitler being a
professing Catholic. Unfortunately, your premise misses the mark completely.
Few people would dispute the gross, repugnant, and abusive ills of religion now
and through the ages but that is what you should direct your disdain towards,
not to God. Most of us are quite sure that God is equally appalled. Genuine
Bible-believing faith, evidenced through the life of a Christian, has and wants
nothing to do with religion or religiosity. Religion is a man-made concoction which
carries with it all the fallenness of man but very little of it has anything to
do with life giving faith. Jesus made this quite clear to the Pharisees and the
apostle, Paul, made it equally clear in reference to his own early life as a
Jew. Do not be mistaken, however, Adolf Hitler was driven to exterminate the
Jews, blacks, invalids, and others who he deemed as misfits as a result of
evolutionary doctrine and the “survival of the fittest” philosophy, believing
that he was part of a superior race. His evolutionary notions were fuelled by
Ernest Haeckel who was a contemporary of Darwin and an atheist and an
evolutionist.
You write that, “Martin Luther was a virulent anti-Semite.” Luther’s views in
this area, just as for some others who claim a Christian faith, are
indefensible. It is a reminder that we should not be dissuaded by the erroneous
views of others.
Books & Evidence (pp. 319, 320)
You write that, “Books about evolution... are believed because they present
overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence... When a science book
is wrong, somebody eventually discovers the mistake and it is corrected in
subsequent books. This conspicuously doesn’t happen with holy books.” You
also write that, “We believe in
evolution because the evidence supports it.” These statements are erroneous
on a few accounts.
Firstly, it was known for a great number of
years that the evolutionary concept of embryonic capitulation was a bogus
concept and yet this and other untruths were repeated and perpetrated for a
very long time. Secondly, evolution statements are NEVER buttressed. There is NO
evidence which supports evolution unequivocally. I challenge you to provide ONE,
just ONE. In your entire book you volunteer many notions, perspectives,
hypotheses, and conjectures regarding evolution but not one single piece of supporting
conclusive scientific evidence. Thirdly, the holy book, the Bible, is declared
to be God’s breathed and inspired Word. To date, there are no known mistakes. It
is acknowledged by those who know God’s Word that it will never need rewriting.
Even facts of history and geography that once were believed to have been in
error have been proven to be accurate. All the writing was superintended by
God. Portions of the Bible may seem quite irrelevant to an onlooker but that
doesn’t mean that it is in error. It is important to know that the Ceremonial
and Civil Laws were written for the period of the Old Testament but the Moral
Code was written for all time.
One is unwise to believe in evolution just
because one doesn't take the time to properly investigate Creation, or even
worse, to believe in evolution just because one chooses to deny God primarily because
he doesn't like the God of the Bible. Truth is what matters, not just conjecturing
the truth.
Scientific Enterprise (pp. 321, 323)
You write that, “As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it
actively debauches the scientific enterprise.” How unfortunate! The God
of the Bible is the God of all science. You make a mistake when you blatantly
reject such truths. Surely you are also aware that most major scientific
discoveries in world history were made by Bible-believing Christians, ones who
honoured God in their lives and their work and He honoured them in return.
You also write, “Fundamentalist religion is hell-bent on ruining the scientific
education of countless thousands of innocent, well-meaning, eager young minds.”
This is not the case. Bible-believing Christians desire an open forum with
respect to scientific education. They worry about atheists indoctrinating the
same young minds with biased interpretations of science and godless beliefs.
Evolution is a Fact (p. 339)
You write that, “...evolution is a fact.” As a scientist you would know that,
from a scientific perspective, neither evolution nor Creation can ever legitimately
be considered as scientific facts.
Further, in more than 400 pages, you frequently
refer to evolution as though it is a fact and yet you do not provide one piece
of evidence that supports such a notion and certainly not one to the
unequivocal exclusion of Creation.
One
of the great deceptions perpetrated on the unsuspecting public is the notion
that evolution is a scientific fact. The essence of the scientific method is
twofold, namely; direct or experimental observation and repeatability. Neither
evolution nor Creation can ever be observed experimentally nor repeated and
therefore neither can ever qualify as proven scientific facts. As a biologist
and a scientist, you should know that it is disingenuous to state otherwise. (As
an evolutionist, you should be encouraged to write about the Evolution
Hypothesis.)
Evolutionists do not like the Creation model
because it imposes a Creator which is to the atheist’s disdain. The disdain has
nothing to do with science. Evolution constitutes a direct assault on the
authority of Scripture and represents the essence of apostasy. Denial of God’s
sovereignty in Creation is fundamental in the rejection of His authority in
every aspect of life. David, the psalmist reminds us of the root problem:
The fool has said in
his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1).
Evolution and the atheistic worldview are
rooted in paganism which is predicated upon the belief that matter is eternal
and that everything has risen from it. Atheism arbitrarily denies and denounces
the supernatural and therefore the atheist robs himself of a very real and
important part of life.
With
regard to ongoing political and educational debates, we should not be “steam-rolled”
by politicians and educators who insist upon teaching evolution in our nation’s
classrooms to the exclusion of Creation under the false notion that evolution
is a scientific fact. It is NOT. Any person or institution that is genuinely
interested in scholarly excellence should ensure that both hypotheses are
taught together and taught either in philosophy, religion, or science classes but
not considered as scientific facts.
There
is no evidence that you are genuinely seeking the truth regarding issues of
religion, faith, or science as you are already well entrenched in your view.
Faith, Virtue, and Islam (p. 346)
You write that, “Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that
unquestioned faith is a virtue.” You offer blatant universal statements
which you must surely know bear little resemblance to the real world. Within
Christianity, genuine faith is indeed a virtue, but it is not to be without
thoughtful and disciplined living. The primary difference between yourself and Christians
is that you cannot bring yourself to recognize the supernatural. You will,
therefore, by default, hold all the biases which are so evident in your
writing. You are no less guilty of deliberately implanting your own prejudicial
ideas into the vulnerable minds of your innocent children and other lives which
you impact.
Yes, it is correct that faith is a virtue and
it is something that we should teach our children but most certainly not
unquestioned faith, as you suggest. God gave us minds and intellect to
understand who He is and the plan that He has for each one of us. God loves a
seeking and questioning heart. It is really without reason or merit to mock
those who profess a faith.
Jihads, Crusades, and Islam (p. 347)
You write that, “Faith is an evil... Teaching children that unquestioned faith is a
virtue primes them... to grow up into potentially lethal weapons for future
jihads or crusades.”
No one can remember the last Anglican jihad
and the last crusade was nearly a thousand years ago. Throughout your book, in
virtually every passage, you have grouped all religions together as though they
have some relevant commonality. This serves no meaningful purpose. In fact, you
should be aware that Islam has more in common with atheism than it does with Christianity.
The only
commonality that either atheism or Islam have with Christianity is that they
co-exist on the same planet.
Lots of people do lots of egregious things in
the name of religion. Your book points out many of them but in most or all
cases they have nothing to do with genuine Bible-believing faith. They
represent an abuse and distortion of Christian faith. Most people, and God, are
just as appalled as yourself.
True Faith, Dangerous Faith, & Aberrations (pp. 348, 353)
You write that, “Faith can be very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the
vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.” Atheism, in
fact, is equally dangerous.
If
individuals, especially Christians, as you mention, are involved in repugnant
and despicable acts, now or at any time in history, then you can rightfully blame
those perpetrators, but not God and not billions of other Christ-honouring
believers. Criticizing those who have a real and evident faith accomplishes
nothing and leads to a distortion and misunderstanding of the real God of the
Bible.
Much of your book is about your disdain for religion
but I think that in your life, for whatever reason, you have missed the most
relevant issue. Most of your comments about religion are correct. In fact,
countless Christians share your views about the ills and atrocities attributed
to religion. There are, however, two significant errors with respect to your
assessment. Firstly, Christianity cannot legitimately be compared to Judaism,
Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other religion in the world. Genuine
Christianity is really not a religion; it is a personal relationship with the
living God, through His Son. No other faith in the world is based on having a
personal relationship with the Creator.
No Bible-believing, Christ-honouring believer
would speak with anything but disgust about the atrocities that have been
perpetrated through thousands of years of history in the name of Christianity. We
can all be quite sure that God Himself is appalled by many events that have
been conducted in His name. Jesus spoke decisively against religion: to the
moneychangers in the temple, to those who wanted to stone the adulteress, to
the Pharisees who thought that religion and rule-keeping were all that
mattered, to the Jews who wouldn’t assist as the Good Samaritan did, to
Nicodemus who didn’t understand about being born again. The apostle, Paul,
finally came to understand that his own religiosity of being the Hebrew of all
Hebrews would accomplish nothing, and is certainly not what God desired for
him. The good news is that He came to redeem each one of these individuals, and
you and I. You do a disservice to yourself and to genuine Christianity when you
deliberately choose to ignore what Christianity truly represents. It is NOT a
religion; it is a personal faith in and a relationship with the risen Saviour.
You also write that there is a “presumptuousness whereby religious people
know, without evidence, that the faith of their birth is the one true faith,
all others being aberrations or downright false.”
As you imply, many parents may think that they
know that the faith of their birth is true, just as atheist parents believe about
atheism. This indeed becomes a perpetuating problem. Just because there are a
multitude of religions in the world doesn’t mean that they conform to God’s
desire for each one of us. God cautions us against any phony religious or belief
system and commands us to raise our children in His way only:
“These
words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach
them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house
and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up...” (Deuteronomy
6:6-7).
You can choose to ignore God’s admonition in
raising your children His way but it will ultimately only be to their own harm
and detriment. Regardless of any belief or faith of any parents, it is the
responsibility of parents to raise children according to God’s Word and if
parents have a different heritage, then that could, indeed, be a big problem
but it doesn’t absolve anyone of the responsibility to seek or to know the
truth. You can shirk your God-given responsibility in your own home but it will
ultimately be at great cost, whether you deny it or not.
Baptism & Religious Abuses (p. 354)
You write that “the idea that baptizing an unknowing, uncomprehending child can
change him from one religion to another at a stroke seems absurd.”
I have no idea from where you derive your
notions about genuine Christianity but some of them are in error. Baptism, in
accordance with the Word of God, is intended to be an act of obedience for a
new believer who has made a personal profession of faith. Although there are
differing views, baptism does not affect a person's salvation and it is not
something that a parent or anyone else can rightfully do or decide for another
person, including for one’s own children. Baptism is essentially an outward
sign of an inner life Spirit filled change. It would seem that a number of the things
which you have been taught are not strictly in accordance with God’s Word and although
they may be prevalent in some religious communities, they seem to be a
misapplication of some biblical truths.
It is unfortunate that you have such a
hodgepodge of information about Christianity, and about which very little is
accurate. You speak derisively about very real abuses associated with rituals
and practices, including baptism, but again, your understanding is not correct.
As Erwin Lutzer writes in his book, Seven
Reasons Why You Can Trust The Bible, “the history of the church has been a bittersweet
story, combining deeds of heroism with deeds of shame. But we are not ashamed
of Jesus Christ, who is the center and core of Christianity...”
Faith & Intellectual Arrogance (pp. 365, 367, 395)
You mention highly educated professors who
have given up their faith and become atheists and with that you say, "Just think what the ordeal must be like
for less intellectually robust people, less equipped by education and
rhetorical skill than they are." Ironically, intellectual
robustness is, itself, often the root problem. Many of us think we're too smart
to come with simple child-like faith to a love and understanding of the God of
the Universe.
You write that, “It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the majority of atheists
I know disguise their atheism behind a pious facade.” This wouldn’t
surprise anyone. God’s
Word cautions us against our own pride in believing that we can know the
answers apart from Him:
Professing to be
wise, they became fools (Romans 1:22).
Our human pride and arrogance often cause us
to think that we know more than God. This is the essence of sin, just as it was
for Adam and Eve. We are cautioned that such a problem and perspective is usually
a far bigger problem among so-called “intellectuals.”
The notion of your colleague, Nicholas
Humphrey, that, "we should no
more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the
literal truth of the Bible... than we should allow parents to knock their
children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon" is absurd beyond
measure. Wouldn't that just be great whereby all the children of the world
would instead be indoctrinated with Mr. Humphrey's warped and oppressive
thinking instead of being nurtured by one's own parents? It is rather absurd
for any so-called free thinking "intellectual" to want to ensure that
only his own contorted beliefs and his notion of "the truth" are
imposed on the world's children. Just think, after birth, parents would no
longer be needed as most of them wouldn't act the way Mr. Humphrey would want
them to act. It all sounds a little bit like Russia, China, North Korea, Nazi
Germany, or even worse.
You write, “I thank my own parents for taking the view that children should be
taught not so much what to think as how to think.” Without knowing what
really went on in your own home, it would appear that your own recollections
have been impaired in that everything else that you write actually mocks anything
that anyone else thinks if different than your own. You claim that children can
“grow up and decide that the Bible is literally true” when they are “exposed to
all the scientific evidence” and yet you want to deny everyone the opportunity
for people to investigate all the available evidence. What kind of privilege
and freedom is it in your own home for your child who may want to believe that
the Bible may be literally true when you've also told him or her that the Bible
is not literally true and that such a notion is plain rubbish? You most
certainly haven't allowed your children to examine the scientific evidence
which offers an alternative to evolution when you speak with such disdain, disgust,
and mockery of someone else's perspective. There is no part of your approach which
encourages genuine freedom of thought and you are only fooling yourself and
your own children in the process.
You mock every religion in the world but then
on the other hand you say that one should be able to speak with a sense of
superiority in regard to one’s own religion. Which way is it? You pretend to
promote independent thought but then you mock those who believe something
different than yourself.
Geological History & Reputable Theologians (pp. 377, 378)
You say that, "The implication that the scriptures provide a literal account of
geological history would make any reputable theologian wince.”
Surely you must know that there are many
reputable theologians who do not wince at a literal interpretation of the geological
history in Scripture. We can all thank God that the truth of Scripture (and
science) is not based on popular opinion. You should know that no aspect of
geological history recorded in Scripture has ever been disproved by science.
Contrary to your assertion, no one desires
"to subvert evidence-based
science education and replace it with biblical scripture." You
have missed the point. There are many scientists undertaking genuine scientific
research who come to different conclusions than yourself with regard to the
evidence. To mock them accomplishes nothing and is certainly not consistent
with either scholarly study or a genuine search for truth or your assertion that
you respect others. How do you personally work with colleagues who have
differing views than your own when you speak so derisively about their beliefs
and interpretations? Such an approach only leads to stagnation in any
scientific study or search for truth.
Ecumenical Christmas Image (p. 379)
You refer to a seasonal and ecumenical image that
was used by a newspaper, the Independent,
that included the Three Wise Men of the nativity scene being played by a Sikh,
a Muslim, and a Christian as being grotesque because children, through the
drama scene, were being encouraged to adopt the theological opinions of their
parents. Of course, we have a God-given responsibility to raise children with
godly values, not to absolve ourselves of the responsibility to impart such values
and principles into their lives. You can mock it but for you to think that you
should impart your own godless and atheistic values to your own children is
just as prejudicial and certainly more damaging. It serves no purpose for you
to denigrate the life path that others choose for themselves or for their
children. The enlightenment that you pretend to want to advocate for your
children is not really enlightenment but neglect. You want to have no
responsibility for imparting values in their lives (or possibly unless they're
godless values).
Children & Belief (p. 381)
You write that, “Small children are too young to decide their views on the origins of
the cosmos, of life, and of morals. The very sound of the phrase ‘Christian
child’ or ‘Muslim child’ should grate like fingernails on a blackboard.”
Firstly, if you understood genuine
Christianity you would know that a profession of faith can only really be made
by the person involved, not a parent. Until a child makes his or her own
personal profession of faith, he or she is not a Christian. Christianity is not
attained through osmosis or by heritage or by parental decision. Contrary to
your implication, children do not become believers through any action or belief
of their parents. The child makes the decision. Notwithstanding all of this, what
is truly astounding, however, is that you are implying that it is quite
acceptable to have an atheist child, but not one of faith.
In your world, it would appear that one can
be a parent, as long as one doesn’t have an opinion, but if one does, one can't
express it to one’s own child, unless of course it is consistent with what Professor
Dawkins thinks. It all sounds a little like communist China under Chairman Mao,
or possibly worse.
Dying, Hope, and Belief (p. 399)
You ask, “Why don’t religious people talk like that (like the abbot) when in
the presence of the dying? Could it be that they don’t really believe all that
stuff they pretend to believe?”
You are quite correct, Bible-believing
Christians should demonstrate a wonderful expectation of the glory of life
after physical death, and many rightfully do that. Some don't, however, and
that is because it is still part of the unknown, and some don't because they
still have regard for their family and friends who will remain here on Earth.
Christians, like non-Christians, have mortal bodies and sometimes they live
with short-sightedness, with only physical mortality in view. The apostle, Paul,
expressed his preference to go to heaven but realized and accepted that there
was still much more to do on Earth for Christ when he wrote:
“For
to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21).
Historical Con Tricks (p. 401)
You refer to the “greatest con tricks in history” when saying that, “The doctrine of purgatory offers a
preposterous revelation of the way the theological mind works... and the Church
used to sell indulgences.”
Your comments regarding purgatory,
indulgences, (and prayers for the dead) are correct but these are not biblical
concepts. The Bible should be our standard in all areas of faith and doctrine. Again,
you are confusing religion with genuine Bible-believing faith and it is
important to know the difference. The distinction is critical. It serves no
useful purpose to mix or confuse the two. Much credibility is lost when you group
all religions together as though they have a commonality in important areas which
really does not exist.
Summary Comments
Although some of my rebuttal comments may
sound harsh, please be assured that no disrespect is intended. Professor Dawkins,
you may not believe that there is a God or if there is, He is not One who you
would like to know. I can only say that you do not yet know the God of the Bible,
the true living God. There was a lengthy period in my life when I didn't know
Him either. I came to know Him in a very real and personal way 32 years ago, as
a 28 year old, but the more I journey with Him, the more I get to know Him.
There is much about Him that will always be a mystery. That, too, is part of
who He is but it is also partly because our finite, little brains will never be
able to comprehend the full power, glory, and majesty of His Being.
God is a loving God but unfortunately you
have apparently not experienced His love in your own life. Another of His most
amazing attributes is that of righteousness. Many of us may think that we're very
good or even fairly good but He tells us that in comparison “...all our righteous
deeds are like a filthy garment...” (Isaiah 64:6).
His absolute holiness is the reason that we need His righteousness which we can
have through His Son. He has also told us through His Word that the penalty for
our sin is death (because He is also a God of ultimate and perfect justice). He
is righteous and because of that, justice must be served, but the very good
news, however, is that because He LOVES us so much, He has chosen to pay the
penalty for our sin in full through the death of His own Son who gave His life
on the Cross... a perfect sinless
sacrifice... the only One worthy. (We couldn't even pay the penalty if we
wanted to.)
In reading between the lines of your life
story, one of the sad and unfortunate things is that in all your years and in
all your life travels, you have apparently never experienced the love of Christ
as evidenced through the life of another person.
You share heart wrenching stories about
people giving up on their faith but because of your prejudice towards atheism,
what you don't see are the millions of lives who, throughout history, have been
transformed by the power of Christ and His Spirit. You personally choose to
live a life of denial of the supernatural but by doing so you miss a very real
part of life. We are not just physical beings; we are spiritual beings. Your
background and experience has unfortunately kept you from seeing truly changed
lives and it is those lives which are the ultimate proof of a living God
dwelling in the lives of believers through His Spirit.
We can come to know God through His Word; we
can come to know Him through His Son; we can come to know Him through His Holy
Spirit; we can come to see Him in His Universe, but even if we still don't find
Him, we can come to know and see Him through the lives of others who have been
transformed by His power. When you surround yourself with atheists or God
haters, it is still possible to find Jesus but He would prefer not to “crash
the party;” He would rather be invited, but amongst atheists only, you will
never see firsthand the love that He lives out in His children. That is what
and who you really should see and experience. That is the real miracle of what
He has to offer each one of us. If you genuinely care about finding and knowing
the truth, then you should seek it with earnest and genuineness. Whether
one chooses to acknowledge it or not, every person on Earth actually has a
desire to know the God of the Universe. What I personally know from firsthand
experience is that He will graciously honour any heart which
genuinely seeks after Him:
‘You
will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. I
will be found by you,’ declares the LORD (Jeremiah
29:13).
That is a promise. My hope for you is that
you would choose to go on the most exciting journey of your life and find the
only true living God, through His Son. I can assure you that you will be
greatly rewarded... for all eternity.
