The GOD Delusion (Part 1 of 11)

This is my examination and thoughts of Richard Dawkins’ book: The GOD Delusion.¹ 

Chapter 1 - A Deeply Religious Non-Believer

This chapter is split up into two parts: Deserved Respect and Undeserved Respect. The first section describes the ‘metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists’, and the second describes a supernatural god.

Deserved Respect

Dawkins begins by relating the experiences of two boys gazing at the magnificence of the world in wonder: one himself, the other an Anglican priest. He then wonders why such an experience would lead one child to the priesthood and the other to atheism, saying it ‘is not an easy question to answer’. Yet despite this uncertainty, he concludes that had the priest read the closing paragraph to The Origin of Species in his childhood, he certainly would have chosen atheism as well. Dawkins includes this paragraph from Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, 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.

After reading this I had three basic thoughts. One, perhaps Christians have failed to communicate how big our God is! Or worse, perhaps Christians don’t recognize themselves how big God is! I find the latter far more likely. Second, is the universe bigger than described in the Bible? I think not! Genesis 22:15-17 suggests that the number of stars and the number of grains of sand on the shore to be similar. Job 22:12 describes the stars as ‘distant’ and ‘high’ (NASB). But more than just describing a number or distance, the Bible gives poetic, elegant, magnificent descriptions of things in nature. Which brings me to my third thought, that though things in nature may be found to be magnificent, we are to look on the glory of God with far more awe! If the creation is so inspiring, how much more the creator!

Psalm 19:1-6 (ESV)

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.t
Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat.

Deuteronomy 4:19 (NASB)

And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.

The main point of this section seems to be explaining the Naturalistic use of the word ‘God’, making distinctions between theism, deism, and pantheism, and explaining Einstein’s view of ‘God’ and responses to it. I think there is a couple of sentences in this section that should certainly be noted. Dawkins writes that a philosophical naturalist believes there are “no miracles - except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.”²

I think this is important to notice that the naturalist sees ‘miracles’ only as natural phenomena not yet explained. I have found that many atheists demand ‘evidence’ for God: specifically, empirical evidence. The naturalist has already dismissed the ‘evidence’ he demands. Perhaps those atheists apt to reference Anthony Flew ought to consider whether their position is falsifiable!³ It is just as Abraham said, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.” (NASB; see Luke 16:19-31)

Undeserved Respect

This section starts with Dawkins telling us that he will be referring to supernatural gods in general when using the word ‘God’. Most of this section is spent bemoaning the respect religions have in society.

In one paragraph, Dawkins declares that the First Amendment does not protect ‘hate speech’. This is an interesting topic; how is ‘hate speech’ to be defined? Should the U.S. to hold us accountable for hatred? This seems to be a very vague suggestion at best. This paragraph also suggests that the freedom of religion is used as a trump card. I wonder what his solution to this problem would be? Surely we would not let the British define the limits of our faith and practice…

Conclusion

This chapter is mainly there to distinguish between the naturalistic and deist ‘god’ and the supernatural ‘god’ and to set the stage for the rest of the book.

1. Richard Dawkins, The GOD Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006). [↩]
2. Ibid., at 14. [↩]
3. Anthony Flew wrote a paper, Theology and Falsification, in which he argues that if there are no criteria for denying an assertion, it isn’t asserting anything. [↩]

Multiple Interpretations: A Problem?

In an ethics class I am in, the author of the book lays out many reasons within the first chapter as to why he believes religion cannot be the basis of a rational system of ethics. Among many of the ridiculous reasons given is the idea that religious people disagree and there is no criterion with which to determine the correct view. Specifically, he mentions that there are many differing interpretations of the Bible; the supposed problem is that we have no basis of deciding between them and cannot know which interpretation is correct. I have heard this and similar claims many times from a wide variety of people. When I hear it in person it typically follows a statement I have made based on the biblical text and is expressed in the form of, “Well, that’s your interpretation.” So, does the existence of multiple interpretations negate the possibility of biblical authority and provide grounds for its dismissal? Does the existence of multiple interpretations of a given passage prove those interpretations meaningless? Is there criterion by which an interpretation can be adjudicated?

It is my contention that this dismissal of the Bible stems not from a way to discern between interpretations, but from a presupposition that the Bible is not the word of God. If one starts with the idea that the Bible is not the word of God and that it is both fallible and false, then one may easily dismiss all interpretations of such a text as equally invalid - all the while thinking that disputes over interpretations are not decidable and frighteningly absurd.

On the other hand, if the Bible is presupposed to be the inspired Word of God, can the conflicts between interpretations be revolved? Assuming the Bible is the Word of God, let’s examine what it says about itself:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV)

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Romans 15:4 (ESV)

For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Given that the Bible is profitable for reproof and correction, there must be things it is not saying. That is, there must be teachings and interpretations that are false and ergo correctable (see also 2 Peter 3:13-18). We can also see that Scripture was purposed for our teaching and instruction.

Isaiah 55:10-11 (ESV)

For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

Job 42:1-2 (ESV)

Then Job answered the LORD and said: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.”

If God’s words and purposes will be accomplished, then the Bible must be able to teach, instruct, correct, etc. the man of God (see also Isaiah 46:9-10). This necessitates that there is a criteria by which the Bible can be correctly interpreted.

2 Timothy 2:15 (ESV)

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

This implies that the Christian can and ought to interpret the Bible correctly, further implying that there is a means to do so. While I have not yet said anything about what the criteria is, I believe I have demonstrated that if one supposes the Bible to be the Word of God, then criteria exist for doing so.

So, if one does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God, then biblical interpretation and disputes over interpretation are rather worthless, but it is not because of a lack of criterion, rather a lack of truth and authority. On the other hand, if the Bible is the Word of God, then criteria must exist. Concerning the similar objection that “that’s just your interpretation”: if both x and y interpretations exist of a given passage, the existence of interpretation y does not invalidate interpretation x. The mere existence of differing interpretations does not make them all invalid.

I am going to suggest that because the Word of God was given by use of language that it has canonical context, a context within a specific book and genre, a context within each argument, and a construction within each sentence that contributes to meaning. Since it was given to specific people at specific times, I also suggest it has a historical context. It is then my contention that the grammatical-historical hermeneutic is the criteria for deriving interpretations from the text and deciding between them.

Biblical Thoughts on Christian Spirituality

Recently I read Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. I would not recommend this book to anyone. The subtitle is “Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality.” It is mostly a narrative that bases its arguments on experience. As far as I can remember, it does not quote the Bible or reference it directly, it merely alludes to it a couple of times. I could hardly recommend a book on spirituality that barely mentions the Bible, let alone a book that is not based on the Bible.

“Actually,” I told him reluctantly, “I have always agreed with the idea that we have a sin nature. I don’t think it looks exactly like the fundamentalists say it does, ’cause I know so many people who do great things, but I do buy the idea that we are flawed, that there is something in us that is broken. I think it is easier to do bad things than good things. And there is something in that basic fact, some little clue to the meaning of the universe.” ^{[1: p 17]}

Miller doesn’t say exactly what he means by fundamentalists, but I don’t think it is far fetched to infer that he is saying that he doesn’t quite agree with total depravity. It seems he believes that sin nature is a flaw and a propensity toward evil. People can do good things (even great things), but it isn’t easy. What does the Bible say about man and his nature?

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it? ^*

Psalm 14:1-3 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good. The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one. ^*

Luke 18:19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.” ^*

No one does good, not even one! That’s is quite a bit different from what Miller describes.

A little later, in a chapter called “Magic,” Miller talks about “big haired preachers” and what they said about Christ.

I never liked it when the preachers said we had to follow Jesus. Sometimes they would make Him sound angry. But I liked the idea of Jesus becoming a man, so that we would be able to trust Him, and I like that He healed people and loved them and cared deeply about how people were feeling. ^{[1; 34]}

Jesus is angry. Is He loving? Of course, He demonstrated that on the cross. But that doesn’t mean He is never angry or that He is not angry with sin or sinners. John 3:36 says, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” ^* Or read about the Second Coming:

Revelation 19:11-16 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” ^*

Furthermore, why would we be more inclined to trust God as a man? We should trust Jesus, but not because He was made a man. And He did not become a man so that we would trust Him! He became a man to seek and save the lost - He became a man to be the perfect mediator between man and God - to save man from sin and Hell - to satisfy the wrath of God!

It also gives me little comfort to see Miller put quite a bit of stock in what he likes and doesn’t like, rather than what is true.

Starting on page 41, Miller speaks about Reed College saying, “I felt alive at Reed.” Also, “As odd as it sounds, having grown up in the church, I fell in love with the campus. The students were brilliant and engaged. I was fed there, stimulated, and impassioned. I felt connected to the raging current of thoughts and ideas.” Then, in the next paragraph, he says, “Many of the students hated the very idea of God, and yet they cared about people more than I did.” Wonderful.

Miller makes several snide remarks in this book. When talking about his writing career (on page 188), he makes this remark, “There’s not a lot of work in the Christian market if you won’t write self-righteous, conservative propaganda.” Really?! I used to work at Mardel (a Christian store, which does sell books); there are plenty of liberal books and many books that are fluff and so theologically vacuous that they can hardly be classified as liberal or conservative. And there is a plethora of conservative books that could hardly be called ’self-righteous.’ I find much of the ’self-righteousness’ in the liberal books, whereas the conservative books tend to recognize Christians have a righteousness that is not their own, but Christ’s.

In a chapter called “Money,” Miller writes about a friend named Curt who hates church, cusses, tells dirty jokes, and watches ‘South Park.’ Curt lectures Miller on tithing and Miller says, “I go over to Curt’s house to watch South Park, and I get a guilt trip from a fundamentalist.” So, Curt hates church, etc. but is a fundamentalist? What exactly is your definition of a fundamentalist, Mr. Miller? Is it simply someone disagree with? Is it anyone the slightest bit more theologically conservative than you?

I think the line that really caught my attention and really annoyed me was on page 115. “For me, the beginning of sharing my faith with people began by throwing out Christianity and embracing Christian spirituality, a nonpolitical mysterious system that can be experienced, but not explained.”

This idea that Christianity (or Christian spiritualism) cannot be explained is rampant throughout the book, as well as the emerging church. So, it did not surprise me to see this idea again in the beginning of the seventeenth chapter, “Worship.”

There are many ideas within Christian spirituality that contradict the facts of reality as I understand them. A statement like this offends some Christians because they believe if aspects of their faith do not obey the facts of reality, they are not true. But I think there are all sorts of things our hearts believe that don’t make any sense to our heads. Love, for instance; we believe in love. Beauty. Jesus as God. ^{[1: p 201]}

I stopped where I did because the paragraph that follows that is absolute nonsense. I would agree that parts of the Christian faith do not align with reality as perceived by Donald Miller. However, I would say that truth is defined as thet which corresponds to reality as perceived by God.

On the following page, Donald Miller relates trying to convince his friend that he is a mystic:

I asked him if he believed in the Trinity. He said he did. I asked him if he believed that the Trinity represented three separate persons who are also one. He said he did. I asked him if that would be considered a mystical idea. He just stood there thinking.
You cannot be a Christian without being a mystic. ^{[1: p 202]}

I think, more than anything, this shows that Mr. Miller does not understand the Trinity or mysticism. Now, I am not saying that anyone can fully understand the Trinity, or God. But there is an enormous difference between being a mystic and not have a complete knowledge of something. The Trinity is three Persons and one God; three persons in one nature, one essence. The Trinity is not three persons and one person.

Mysticism often refers to the idea that intuitive and immediate knowledge of ultimate reality (or in this case, God) is possible. That is, you can have knowledge of God that bypasses the intellect and cognitive abilities that is straight from God. If Miller means mysticism by this definition, then I would say the closest thing to this that Christianity teaches is the conscience, or rather, the innate knowledge of the Law. There is an experiential knowledge in Christianity, but it is no more mystical than the experiential knowledge I have of tasting a steak. All other knowledge of God is given to us through the Bible.

Now, I want to contrast Donald Miller’s atrocious ideas of truth and knowledge with what R.C. Sproul has to say about truth and knowledge. Here’s what Sproul has to say about the private interpretation of the Bible:

For the classic Protestant, though the individual believer has the right to the private interpretation of Scripture, it is clearly acknowledged that the individual is capable of misinterpreting the Bible. He has the ability to misinterpret Scripture, but never the right to do it. That is, with the right of private interpretation the responsibility of correct interpretation is also given. We never have the right to distort the teaching Scripture. ^{[2: p 43]}

And this is what Sproul says about truth:

As Christians, we must be intimately involved with and passionately concerned about the matter of truth. Because, we are told, Biblically, that God in His character (in His inmost being) is defined as a being who is altogether truthful.

We remember the banter between Pontius Pilate and Jesus during Jesus’ trial. Where Jesus spoke concerning the truth and Pilate suddenly wanted to become philosophical, and he said, “What is truth?” And at that very moment the Truth was standing right in front of him.^[3]

In John 14, Jesus calls Himself the “Way, and the Truth, and the Life.” He defined Himself as truth. The Christian ought to consider truth sacred. Contrast this with Satan. He is a deceiver; in the first time he is mentioned in the Bible, he is lying. John 8 says there is no truth in him.

R.C. Sproul continues:

Let me say something that may sound outrageous to you: Errors in doctrine are sinful. It is a sin to be wrong. It is a sin to be wrong about theology. It is a sin to hold a wrong view; it is an even greater sin to teach a wrong view.

Why do Christians differ in theology ad doctrine?

Because the Word of God is so obscure, so mottled, so mysterious that no virtuous person could ever really sort it out? Or is it because when we come to the Biblical text, we come with our prejudices, we come with our biases, we come slothfully, rather than diligently?

Is there anybody in this room that, since you got out of bed this morning, has loved the Lord your God with your whole mind? Is there anyone in this room who, for one full day, has given a perfect living sacrifice of your mind to a pursuit of the truth of God? ^[3]

This is radically different from Miller’s “nonpolitical mysterious system that can be experienced, but not explained.” Christianity not only can be explained, but should be. Scripture should be carefully examined. 2 Timothy 2:15-17a says, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene.” And if you back up a little bit, you’ll see 2 Timothy 2:2 “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” A little further and you’ll come to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” ^*

Luke 1:1-4 says, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.” So Luke wrote his gospel so that Theophilus would know the exact truth? It seems so.

Look through Proverbs and you will also see that knowledge and wisdom are attainable and that it comes through the fear of the Lord and through God’s Word. It must be sought after, but you can receive it. Christianity can be explained and is not some mysterious, mystical thing you must experience. Can you experience Christianity? Yes. Are there mysteries (things we do not comprehend in its entirety) in Christianity? Yes. But it isn’t mysticism. Go read the Bible.

^{* New American Standard Bible © The Lockman Foundation.
1 Miller, Donald. Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality. 2003. Thomas Nelson, Inc.
2 Sproul, R.C. Scripture Alone. 2005. P & R Publishing Company.
3 Sproul, R.C. Renewing Your Mind with R.C. Sproul: Telling the Truth. Podcast. Dec 25, 2007. Ligonier Ministries.}