Thoughts On the "God Delusion" Debate

The Trump Card of Faith... That Everyone Uses

Richard Dawkins makes it a point elsewhere (not in the debate here itself) to say that all religious people eventually use what he calls the "trump card of faith." He seems to either have a severe misunderstanding of what faith is, or he himself is completely moronic. But insults aside, the reality here must be made clear before entering into the battle. 

"But faith is the substance of things that be to be hoped, and an argument of things not appearing. [Forsooth faith is the substance of things to be hoped, an argument, or certainty, of things not appearing.] And in this faith old men have gotten witnessing." - Hebrews 11:1-2 (WYC)

"Atheism" believes in an event, or series of events, that have already taken place that brought about life. They believe that no being ever caused these things to happen, and/or believe that there is no reason to believe that there was a causer. Dawkins is 99.6% sure that there is no god, and admits that he is not certain. But he bears faith, and a great deal, in events he has not seen, and in his own perception of evidence all around him. 

But Scripture makes clear the fact that there is only one true Faith. That is, only one thing "hoped for" that is truly coming to pass. The "things not seen" (NASB) are true, while every other faith is uselessly bound in falsehood and hopelessness. The "men of old" are mentioned in Hebrews 10, and are men such as Abraham and Moses, who had faith in God, believing what He told them to be true. This is how they gained the approval of God. 

In the end of this video, Dawkins denounces the death of Christ as "petty" and "local," thinking it to be utterly useless. He in no sense whatsoever understands the context of the Scripture concerning this matter, however, and considers these things to be "foolishness," which is to be expected. But the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, and yet salvation to those of us who believe (1 Cor. 1:18). This Faith which Dawkins attacks is, specifically, faith in Christ. Though he claims it is "faith" in general, he specifically goes after the work of Christ in the Bible, considering it to be especially foolish and useless in comparison to the rest of religion. But this Faith is what saves us, and that alone. 

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen,the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, 'Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.'" - 1 Corinthians 1:20-31

Before Watching

I think this debate gives light to a few key points that Christians must understand when it comes to the debate of atheism verses Biblical Christianity. These points I would like to discuss in detail, as they have been on my mind lately, especially having seen this debate last night. I personally believe that atheism is not the biggest threat to Christianity, thought it can certainly be considered a large threat. But at the same time, I think the approach of many believers in countering these men has been flawed to some degree, and shows a rather glaring reality that few seem to grasp. 

So here are a few points that I'd like to clarify to those wondering about the debate of atheism: 

1. They are not the biggest threat. 

I think this point should be rather self-evident if one has any understanding of Scripture. Not theology specifically, but an understanding of the actual context of the Bible itself. For example, we do not see Christ ever going after "atheists" during His ministry. Who were those He primarily rebuked and corrected? The religious, "righteous and holy" people of the day- the Pharisees and Scribes. When He speaks of wolves (Mat. 7:15), He is speaking of false teachers. Though He tells us that we are being sent into the midst of wolves (10:16), this is most often referring to the religious. Or dare I say, it is always. Allow me to explain further: Atheism is, at its core, another religion. It has a "god," and that is obvious when you get down to it. Everybody, to some extent, has a god. Whether or not it is an all-powerful god or not is not the point here. Richard Dawkins has a god, which could be anything from science to himself (his perception, understanding, etc.).

But the religion of atheism is not the biggest threat to the Truth because its only goal is to disprove the Truth (the Scripture), not change it. It has no desire to change anything about Christianity, it simply wants to remove it altogether. Therefore, it isn't going to try and slip in little bits of false doctrine here and there, it simply wants to use what it defines as "proof" to disprove the reality of God. 

At the same time, atheism does not even study itself. As Christians, we are called to understand the Word of God. We must study it to understand it, and put in a great deal of time to learn it (our entire lives ultimately). Meanwhile, the entire goal of atheism seems only to be proving that there is no God. They claim that they strive to understand science, and they do, but they never truly get down the details of morality and law in general. They never actually take a great deal of time to understand what they believe, and spend most of their time trying to shoot down what others believe. 

At the same time, it must be said that the greatest of crimes are most often committed under the name of a false god, and even under the name of the God. This is a reason why false religions (excluding atheism) are a bigger threat. Because they are not consistent within their laws, or their laws are evil in the first place. Israel sinned, not in a denial of religion, but in the denial of the I Am specifically, going after other gods. This is what condemned them, and yet this is what brought them to commit the most evil deeds. This is a very good reason to see how other "gods" are a bigger threat than those who try to deny God altogether. 

2. Atheists are not as smart as they seem. 

Though they are certainly smart within the field of biology, mathematics and the like, they fall short in basic understanding to an alarming extent. For example, they fail to see that they too have faith. Dawkins, as is seen in this debate, cringes at the idea that he has faith. And yet, as I wish Lennox would've expounded upon more here, it is obvious he has faith. He has faith in science, in what he determines as "proof," and most of all, he has faith in his own perception and interpretation of the evidence he has at hand. They have a very great deal of faith, as I will expound upon later in this post, to the point that they think they can deny the Faith in claiming it is the only "faith" there is. 

They seem to believe that all religions, to some extent or another, are the same. Though Dawkins clarifies more than once that he has no issue with religion itself, it is obvious that he thinks that religion should itself be removed from the earth in an attempt to save it from war and hatred. 

The fact of the matter is most clearly the reality that atheists never take the time to dig down into their own religion. Because that isn't truly their goal. What Christians must understand is that these people have no desire to understand the Truth, they simply want to get rid of God altogether. If you notice at the end of this debate, and as is said by Dawkins himself many times, he specifically goes after the resurrection of Christ. He calls it "petty" and "local," thinking it utterly useless. At first, our response is a blood-boiling hatred of such stupidity. But we must go back to the fact that they must deny the God, not just any. Dawkins, like many atheists, attacks Christianity the most, and more specifically, he attacks the deity and saving work of Christ Jesus. He does not ever seem to attack so specifically points of other religions, which should be a clear indicator that he is simply following the path that Paul speaks of in Romans. 

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures." (1:18-23) 

"Unrighteousness" is not merely immorality or murder, but many other things. This includes the attempt to disprove God, which is obviously not a righteous pursuit. Therefore, we see that Dawkins is still suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness. Because the Bible makes clear that he knows there is a god, because God made it evident to him through creation. In fact, Dawkins himself admits that he isn't 100% certain there is no god at all. 

2. Atheism is never truly a logical answer. 

Though Dawkins has a great deal of answers when it comes to science, and the questions concerning religion, from the world's perspective, does he really have the answers? Not really. Though it satisfies their desire to have no true authority over their actions over which they feel guilty, it still is not a practical answer to life's basic questions. For example, "Why am I here?" as Lennox brings up. A question a child will eventually have, and a question Dawkins cannot answer. Because, based upon what he has said, there is no true answer except "You're just here." The very basic questions a child might have cannot only be confusing, but can make basic questions very difficult to live. When children see hunters killing animals, what might their response be? Dawkins says in the beginning of this debate that we are "cousins" of animals and other life on this earth. And so we are killing off our own family, to some degree or another, when we kill animals. A child, or any person, can respond a couple of ways to this: They become animal-rights activists and say that we cannot kill any animal. Though if enough thought is given even on that account, we dare not eat anything, as it seems everything we eat was at some point the same as we were. Or they can see it as a "moral law" in life. If we can kill animals, why not other people? It can thus lead to violence and mass murder, because there is no true law against killing, if in fact we are free to eat meat, or any other form of life (including plant life). Either way, the child is left with the fact that there is no reason not to do what they want. And this is one of many areas atheism cannot counter logically or factually. There is simply no other way around it, unless you become inconsistent in your arguments and throw out other ideas. 

3. It will eventually fall away. 

This is not to say that false religion will fall away. On the contrary, opposition to God will only grow as the End approaches. But at the same time, a religion which denies the existence of any god cannot possibly stand that long, considering the fact that it goes against human nature, and eventually realizes that it has a god after all. 

In other words, people will either eventually realize that atheism actually has a god after all, or they will throw the idea away because it is human nature to desire some sort of god. In the End, people will seek one to gather them together and unite the world, to some degree or another, and will follow the antichrist, also known as "the beast" in Scripture. One way or another, people will seek after other gods. It has happened, and always will happen, because God has made the reality of a creator evident within them. They simply go to any god, excluding the God. 

John Lennox and Richard Dawkins debate over Dawkins' latest book (at the time), "The God Delusion" 

-

2007

Comment with your thoughts!