Words'nTone

Reading through The God Delusion I hear arguments retold I have heard many times over the 30 years of my Christian life.  In fact I heard some of them before my conversion to Christ in 1978.  They were the ones I used to argue for my own form of atheism.  But, as C S Lewis once stated in his The Pilgrim’s Regress, an allegory of his own conversion to Christ, “Reason came riding on a horse and rescued me.” Now I can fully admit, not everything was simple reason or logic.  But that opened the door for faith to find a place to land in my heart.  Dawkins is attempting to kick the rider off the horse and shake up the land so my footing becomes shaky.  He calls me “imbecilic,” “stupid,” “foolish,” “a believer in fairytales.” Yet, as I read Dawkin’s book, although I could tell it would be attractive to skeptics and utilized by American atheists, and by many more as an excuse for continued disbelief, he relies on calling names and belittling believers, and he shows his arrogance by crafting out a God (really a straw-god) that few people actually believe in to make his point.  So the book, in the end, is not to convince believers to abandon their faith, but to sell his brand of atheism to a market of starving atheists who need a foundation (albeit from Dawkin still a shaky one) to sustain their disbelief in God, especially a disbelief in the God of the Bible.

I have been paying attention to atheist blogs and sites for some time now, and after reading (even some of) Dawkin’s book, I realized where they are getting their talking points from.  As a reasonable person, I do read with interest.  I am still quiet amazed at Dawkin’s lack of knowledge of Christian sources, texts, and arguments, though.  His own bibliography in the book shows his lack of interacting with Christian scholarship, even at the popular level.  His references are either of skeptics who state the same thing he wants to say, or straw-men (quotes with no reference cited so we can check it out.) I am so overwhelmed by his hatred for Christianity and his belittlement of Christians that I can’t even appreciate the good and reasonable questions Dawkins raises.  I continue, page after page, to be left with these thoughts:

What is a scientific defined basis for morality?

What is a scientific definition of ‘good’?

How does science produce a foundation for a moral, good, and righteous society?

What kind of objective guide or standard does science give us to be good or moral?

In fact, these terms (good, moral, righteous) lose their definition and meaning as I realize, through Dawkins, there is no objective standard to give meaning or weight to these ideas and words.  Good has to mean, by Dawkins’ own advocacy of evolution (including his selfish-gene theory) whatever passes on the most genes wins—how do these genes know what is good anyway?  On the one hand Dawkins tells us we are the product of long term evolutionary progress and our gene pool has determined—conditioned—our responses to life; meanwhile he tells us we are to be good for just being good.  But our genes take over and tell us what has to survive to pass on.  He expects caring and selflessness even though are genes as selfish.  As Dawkins is amazed that seeming intelligent people buy into religious thinking, I am amazed, dumbfounded that decent, thinking people find his own arguments sound.  On ever page, I recall the Psalmist who said, “A fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no god.’”

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.