|
|
Dawkins and The God Delusion
Richard Dawkins is known for his anti-Godliness, as evidenced by the Book The God Delusion. Read whether Dawkins ’arguments make sense or not
Some years ago, the world-famous scientist Richard Dawkins wrote the work The God Delusion. It was a bestseller that caused widespread discussion and certainly turned many minds against the idea of God. This was also one of the goals of Dawkins's book, as he wrote in its preface: "If this book works as I intend, the religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." The following lines will discuss this best-known work of Dawkins, as well as his other literary production. The purpose is to deal with the most common objections against God that appear in these books but also in other parts of everyday life. It may be easy for many to agree with these views presented by Dawkins and they are easy to understand (I used to think the same when I was an atheist), but are these views and arguments justified? That's what we're going to investigate. We start with science and evolution.
Dawkins' closed universe. In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins repeatedly refers to the notion that there is no supernatural. He considers the existence of God to be impossible and contrasts the religious and scientific world view. In his opinion, matter is all that exists. Therefore, the universe is closed; just like a closed box that cannot be affected by supernatural things or God. It is not considered possible that miracles can happen or that God can influence the world. However, Dawkins himself admits that one cannot be 100% sure of God's existence. One of the titles of his work is: "Why can we be almost certain that there is no God?" It is difficult to prove an atheistic view as true. If someone says: "There is no God", it still does not prove that God does not exist. Or if someone says that miracles have never happened, that still doesn't prove that they couldn't have happened. Such thoughts are based only on preconceived notions and not on what can be certain. Whenever such claims are made, one should have unlimited information about everything. To claim: "I know that miracles could not have happened and that there is no God" is the same as if someone said that they know all the things in the world and the events of history. It would require him to have complete and exhaustive knowledge of all things, but no one can have that level of knowledge. Dawkins also partially admitted that one cannot be 100% sure that there is no God. Otherwise, he would not have written: "Why can we be almost certain that there is no God?" The following picture shows the limitation of our knowledge. It shows how it is impossible to conclude from limited knowledge that there is no God or that miracles have not happened. If a person knows only a few percent of all information, he cannot refute things that he himself has not observed. They may belong to the area that he himself does not know about. The picture also shows that atheism is based on a religious attitude because it takes a stand against God. It is based on the belief that there is no God. It is not a matter of sure knowledge and science, but of unbelief (cf. Hebr 11:6: But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.). If we are honest enough, we have to admit that everything in this area is a matter of faith or agnosticism. The first means trust in God, the latter a worldview in which a person is unaware of God's existence:
Who has the burden of proof? Richard Dawkins repeatedly appeals to science in his books. He claims that a naturalistic worldview without belief in God is scientific, but belief in God is not. He considers these two things to be opposites, e.g. claiming in one of his writings: "Faith, by which is meant belief without a basis in evidence, is the chief vice of all religions" (1) Richard Dawkins and naturalists like him blatantly violate this principle in one area, however: in questions about the origin of the universe and life. The reason for this is simple; none of us witnessed the birth of these things. There are only different theories about how they started, but scientifically it is impossible to prove their origin. We cannot go back to the past and look at things from there, so everyone is in the same position and in the same boat in this sense, both a believer in creation and a person who believes that everything was born by itself. Outside the boundaries of science are e.g. the following things:
• The beginning of the universe. It is currently assumed that the universe came into existence out of nothing and by itself. If this theory is true, why other things like cars, road signs, cliffs, etc. do not appear out of nowhere? Why would the universe, which is many times larger than them, have experienced an exception? Furthermore, no observation supports the view that self-appearance out of nowhere is possible. This is an obvious contradiction and a belief without foundation.
• The birth of galaxies is based on faith. Well-known scientists have admitted that their origin is a mystery:
I do not want to claim that we really understand the process that created the galaxies. The theory on the birth of the galaxies is one of the major unsolved problems in astrophysics and we still seem to be far from the actual solution even today. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The First Three Minutes, p. 88)
It is rather embarrassing that no one has explained how they (galaxies) came about... Most astronomers and cosmologists openly admit that there is no satisfactory theory of how galaxies are formed. In other words, a central feature of the universe is unexplained. (W.R. Corliss: A Catalog of Astronomical Anomalies, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos, p. 184, Sourcebook Project, 1987)
• The birth of the solar system is outside the boundaries of science. Scientists admit that all theories have serious flaws:
Even nowadays, when astrophysics has progressed enormously, many theories concerning the origin of the solar system are unsatisfactory. Scientists still disagree about the details. There is no commonly accepted theory in sight. (Jim Brooks, Näin alkoi elämä, p. 57 / Origins of Life)
All presented hypotheses about the origin of the solar system have serious inconsistencies. The conclusion, at the moment, seems to be that the solar system cannot exist. (H. Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical Constitution, 6th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)
• The birth of life is beyond the boundaries of science. Richard Dawkins admits the problem in his book The Greatest Show on Earth (pp. 382,385). He believes in natural selection and evolution, but he, like any naturalist, has no answer to this problem because he does not accept creation:
Clearly the first birth of life has been a rare event, but it has happened once and this is true regardless of whether one regards the original birth as a natural or supernatural event.... But before moving on from this subject matter, I must repeat my warning from my earlier works. We don't really need a plausible theory of the birth of life, and there is perhaps reason to be a little worried if too plausible a theory is invented.
So who has the burden of proof: the person who believes in God's existence and creation, or the person who believes that everything came into existence by itself? To this, naturalists and atheists usually say directly: "If God exists, prove it to us!". However, the matter can also be reversed; naturalists and atheists can be asked: "If God does not exist, how do you prove the birth of the universe and life by itself?" The burden of proof shifts to the naturalist and atheist, especially since such a person usually claims that their worldview is scientific. The following comment by atheist Bertrand Russell is related to the topic. It appears in Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, and shows that the proponent of the argument is obliged to present his belief as true. (Dawkins writes about it: "Russell's essential claim is that the burden of proof rests with believers, not those who do not believe."). In Dawkins' book, this point is applied to the belief in God, but it can equally be applied to the naturalistic belief that the universe and life arose by themselves. Naturalists should give an answer to e.g. the birth of life by itself and prove it to be true, because they demand the same from people who do not believe in it but in creation.
Many orthodox people speak as if it were the job of skeptics to prove common doctrines wrong, and not really the job of dogmatists to prove them right. This is naturally a mistake... (Bertrand Russell: Is there a God?”)
If naturalists were consistent, they would have to admit that their view is based entirely on faith, just as God's creation work is believed. Both are matters of faith that we cannot prove afterwards. The following creeds illustrate this topic well. The first creed is from the Bible book of Hebrews and is a theistic view. The latter creed describes the naturalistic view:
Theism: - (Hebr 11:3) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Naturalism and atheism: Through faith, we understand that the universe was born from nothing, that matter itself formed the heavenly bodies, and that life arose from itself.
Evolution in review. Richard Dawkins is an ardent supporter of evolution and Darwin. It comes up repeatedly in his writings. He considers Darwin's theory and natural selection to be a sufficient explanation for the existence of current forms of life. He believes in the concept that all animals and plants have come from one small primordial cell. He believes in this view, even though no one has been able to prove how the birth of a primitive cell by itself would have been possible. It remains unresolved.
What is meant by evolution? When starting to study the topic, the first necessary question is what is meant by evolution. This term may be used too vaguely. Sometimes it is used to describe a simple change in nature, but it may also be used to explain the emergence of complex new structures such as wings, the sense of hearing and the sense of sight. In practice, evolutionists use the word evolution for two completely different things, which are:
Adaptations are the first area to which the name evolution may be applied. It includes things like bacterial resistance, variations in bird beak size, insect resistance to insecticides, changes in fish growth rate caused by overfishing, dark and light colors of the peppered moths. All of these are examples of how the population responds to changes in the environment, but they do not involve the emergence of new species, because bacteria remain bacteria, peppered moths remain peppered moths, and other species remain the same. There are numerous good examples from this area in the evolutionary literature. They are in Darwin's book On the Origin of Species, as in other books in the field.
The single-cell-to-human theory is another understanding given to evolution. It is precisely this area where single-celled organisms are assumed to have evolved into fish, reptiles, birds, mammals, and humans that causes controversy. In contrast, adaptations, which were the first explanation given for evolution, are generally not disputed. Everyone admits that. It is interesting that when evolutionists want to prove the one-cell-to-human theory to be true, they use examples from the first group, i.e. the area of adaptations. What is causing this? Surely the best explanation is that they have no evidence of true species changes, only adaptation. More than a hundred years of experiments with bacteria and banana flies and centuries of breeding have also shown that there are certain limits that cannot be crossed. Species do not change, but for example bacteria and banana flies remain bacteria and banana flies. Therefore, we should distinguish between changes and adaptations that have occurred within species from the notion that all current species are derived from a single stem cell. They are two different things, of which only one has convincing evidence. The following comments are related to the topic:
I have been assured that there are evolutionists, who have described, how the necessary changes could have happened. When I ask, what are the books, where these descriptions can be found, I either get no response or I get referred to books that don’t have these descriptions. Everyone seems to know about the descriptions existence, but I have not yet found anyone, who would know where to find them. (David Griffin, 2000, Religion And Scientific Naturalism, State University of New York Press)
When Richard Dawkins and evolutionists like him put their trust in Darwin, it is worth noting that Darwin was also unable to present any examples of species change in his book On the Origin of Species. He has good examples of adaptation, such as the variation in beak size of birds in the Galapagos Islands, but he lacked evidence of species change. Darwin himself had to admit the lack of evidence. In one of his letters he stated:
I am actually tired of telling people that I do not claim to have any direct evidence of a species having changed into another species and that I believe this view correct mainly because so many phenomena can be grouped and explained based on it. (3)
Where do species come from? When Dawkins and naturalists like him don't believe in creation, they have to explain why the thousands of current species exist. They admit that life has a beginning (limited lifetime of the Sun sets limits to life’s existence) but they assume that life arose by itself (although no practical observation supports this) and gradually evolved into the species we have today. Dawkins faithfully follows Darwin's footsteps in his thinking. He insists that development happened gradually, that is, over millions of years. He believes that time makes possible what otherwise seems impossible. Time allows a fish that lived in water to transform into a human who can talk, run, throw a spear, drive a car and travel in space. In naturalistic thinking, time has become a god capable of doing impossible and wonderful things. It has replaced the almighty God that the Bible tells about. The following paragraphs will further explore the idea of gradual evolution and why it should be criticized.
Complete species. One reason to be critical of gradual evolution is the observation that current species are complete and fully developed. In nature, half-developed wings, arms, legs or senses are not observed, but they are in a finished form. In the theory of evolution, it is required that all animals develop continuously, and therefore you should see half-finished organs everywhere, but it is not observed. Dawkins himself refers to the same thing in his book The God Delusion (p. 153). He states that every species and every organ inside a species that so far has been examined is good at what it does. Dawkins also sees strong signs of design, though he tries to explain it away as delusion. He tries to deny the obvious fact due to his naturalistic world view:
No gradual evolution in fossils. Another reason to be critical of gradual evolution is the observation that it has not been observed in fossils. Dawkins himself is not a paleontologist whose special field is fossils, but the observations of actual fossil researchers can be used as help here. For example, Stephen Jay Gould, perhaps the world's most famous fossil researcher, and his friend Niles Eldredge have denied that gradual development can be seen in fossils. Dawkins himself also refers to the same observation, but appeals to the incompleteness of the fossil record. He uses the same argument as Darwin in his time. However, if tens of millions of fossils have been excavated from the ground and there are no observable intermediate forms and gradual development, it certainly does not appear in those fossils that are still inside the ground either. In practice, these observations mean that the most important evidence for the occurrence of evolution in the past is missing. If no signs of gradual development can be seen in the fossils, the theory of evolution cannot be true. This is true even if millions of years of time were available. The evidence is more suitable for the fact that the species have been separate from the beginning, as required in the creation model:
Stephen Jay Gould: The extreme rareness of intermediate forms in fossil material continues to be the trade secret of palaeontologists. The evolution trees appearing in our textbooks include facts only at the heads and folding points of the branches. The rest is reasoning, no matter how reasonable it is, not evidence of fossils –- I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (...) (5)
Niles Eldredge: We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [a story about changes that promote gradual adapting], even though we know all the while that it does not. (6)
Cambrian explosion. Two points were brought up above that are against the primordial cell-to-man theory, i.e. Darwin's theory of evolution. It is not supported by practical observations of current species, nor is gradual evolution supported by fossils. Instead, the observations fit better with the creation model, where the species have been separate from the beginning. The so-called evolutionary tree, which describes the relationships of organisms starting from the first primitive cell, i.e. from the stem cell, is simply wrong. The observations better support the creation model, which has thousands of separate trees (basic species), each of which may have branches, i.e. small changes. The evidence is on the side of the creation model. The same thing can be observed in the so-called Cambrian explosion, which Dawkins also referred to in the previous quote. It means that multicellular life suddenly appeared about 550 million years ago (according to the evolutionary scale) and there have been no major changes since then. Stephen Jay Gould explains this remarkable event. He states that within a few million years, all the main groups of the animal kingdom were born:
The Cambrian explosion is a key event in the life history of multicellular animals. The more we study the episode, the more we are impressed by the evidence of its uniqueness and decisive influence on the course of later life history. The basic anatomical structures born at that time have dominated life since then without significant additions. (8)
What makes the Cambrian explosion problematic for evolution? There are two reasons for this, both of which support the creation model but not the evolutionary model. These reasons are:
Complexity at the beginning. The fact that Cambrian fossils are completely finished, complex and clearly separate and different from each other points to their creation by God. These first multicellular organisms are not simple or semi-finished, as the theory of evolution assumes, but as complex as today's species. They do not differ much from the current forms, except for those species that have become extinct. In addition, no simpler precursors can be found below the Cambrian fossils. If the evolutionary model were correct, simpler precursors should be found, but it has been impossible. The findings clearly support a creation model in which species were ready-made, complex and separate from the beginning. Even Darwin had to admit the problem of the Cambrian explosion. He did not take the evidence as it was, like the most famous paleontologists of his time, but tried to make it fit his theory:
There is another similar difficulty of a much more serious nature. I mean that species belonging to various main periods of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known rock kinds that contain fossils. - - To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous formations belonging to those earliest ages, older than the Cambrian, I cannot give any satisfactory answer. - - Today we cannot come up with any explanation for this, and this fact can indeed be used as a weighty proof against the opinions I have presented. - - the sudden manner in which different groups of species appear in European formations; thirdly, the almost complete absence of formations rich in petrification below the Cambrian strata—all these difficulties are of a rather serious quality. It is therefore quite understandable that the most advanced paleontologists, such as Cuvier, Agassiz, Barrande, Pictet, Falconer, E. Forbes, etc., and all our greatest geologists, such as Lyell, Murchison, Sedwick, etc., have unanimously, often vehemently, held to the immutability of species. (9)
Species abundance at the beginning does not fit the evolutionary model. Because if the evolutionary model and the evolutionary tree were correct, there should have been only one primordial cell in the beginning, from which other species gradually developed. The number of species should have increased all the time, the more time passes. One and a few species at the beginning should have become more and more species over time. However, the Cambrian explosion is contrary to the previous observation. It shows that in the beginning there was an abundance of species, but now there are much fewer species than before. The trend has been that species are becoming extinct all the time, and they cannot be restored. If the evolutionary model and the evolutionary tree were correct, development should go in the opposite direction, but that does not happen. This fits better with the creation model where there was an abundance of species in the beginning.
Who is a history denier? When you read evolution literature, an essential part of them is the understanding that the development of organisms has taken place over tens and hundreds of millions of years. However, it is admitted that major catastrophes have occurred over the course of millions of years, e.g. 250 and 65 million years ago. It is believed that most of the life at that time was lost in these destructions. Richard Dawkins also writes about millions of years in his books. In his book on evolution, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, he names people who do not believe in the theory of evolution and long periods of time on earth as history deniers. He compares this to Holocaust denial:
I call evolution deniers “history deniers” and by that I mean those who believe that the age of the universe is measured in thousands of years, not so much thousands of millions of years, and who believe that humans walked alongside dinosaurs… Evolution is a fact… The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the holocaust , even if we take into account those who saw the Holocaust with their own eyes. (10)
The question is whether Richard Dawkins and naturalists like him are themselves deniers of history and rely on fables (2 Tim 4:3,4: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables.), when they deny creation and the Flood? Because when they cannot prove that the origin of life is possible by itself, the destructions they imagine, for example 250 and 65 million years ago, can also be explained in another and historical way: the Flood. When there are, according to some estimates, even hundreds of flood stories, it points to the historicity of this event. It makes much more sense to believe in it than the millions of years in the geological table:
Around 500 cultures – including indigenous peoples of Greece, China, Peru and North America – are known in the world where the legends and myths describe a compelling story of a large flood that changed the history of the tribe. In many stories, only a few people survived the flood, just like in the case of Noah. Many of the peoples considered the flood to have been caused by gods who, for one reason or another, got bored with the human kind. Perhaps the people were corrupt, like in Noah’s times and in a legend by the Native American Hopi tribe of North America, or perhaps there were too many and too noisy people, like in the Gilgamesh epic. (11)
In the book Earth, it is written about the flood narratives:
If the world-wide Flood was not real, some nations would have explained that frightening volcanic eruptions, large snow storms, droughts (...) have destroyed their evil ancestors. The universality of the story of the Flood is therefore one of the best pieces of evidence of its truthfulness. We could dismiss any of these tales as individual legends and think it was only imagination, but together, from a global perspective, they are almost indisputable.
Nature also shows signs of the Flood, as water has covered areas that are now high mountains or dry land. The next couple of examples can be found on the highest mountain in the world, its highest peak, Mount Everest. The first quote is from a book from 1938. Similar signs of marine life can be found in other high mountains.
In the glaciers of the Himalayas there are bones of oxen and horses. An avalanche of ice that originated on a glacier at an altitude of 5000 metres brought such bones. A large English expedition, reaching almost the top of Mount Everest, discovered petrified fish at these heights lying on the mountain. (12)
Harutaka Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu has for many years researched these marine fossils in the Himalayan Mountains. He and his group have listed a whole aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Fragile sea lilies, relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, are found in rock walls more than three kilometers above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals and plankton are found as fossils in the rocks of the mountains (…) At an altitude of two kilometers, geologists found a trace left by the sea itself. Its wave-like rock surface corresponds to the forms that remain in the sand from low-water waves. Even from the top of Everest, yellow strips of limestone are found, which arose under water from the remains of countless marine animals. (Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta, p. 55)
Jerry A. Coyne’s book (Why Evolution is True?, p.127), which discusses evolution, tells how Darwin found fossilized sea shells from high in the Andes. The writer admits that the mountain has been under water, but doesn’t believe it has been due to the Flood:
While travelling on the Beagle Darwin himself found fossilized seashells from high up on the Andean Mountains. It shows that, what is now a mountain was once under water. (Jerry A. Coyne: Miksi evoluutio on totta [Why evolution is true], p. 127)
Finnish geologist Pentti Eskola wrote already decades ago how the remains of sea animals can be found in the Alps. How can these remains of marine animals be located in high mountains? The standard explanation for their location in general is that the land must have risen from past times, but it must be noted that water has covered these areas in any case. They have been under the sea at some point. What makes the observations problematic in terms of the geological time chart and its millions of years is also the fact that on the slopes of the mountains there are remains of organisms that had to live in the earliest periods of the earth's history. Based on the geological time chart, they should be located at a depth of tens of kilometers under other layers. However, they are located on high mountain slopes or peaks:
There is a reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in mountain ranges. It is best seen in the Alps, in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called Helvetian zone. Limestone is the main rock material. When we look at the rock here on the steep slopes or at the top of a mountain - if we had the energy to climb up there - we will eventually find fossilized animal remains, animal fossils, in it. They are often badly damaged but it is possible to find recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or skeletons of sea creatures. Among them there are spiral-threaded ammonites, and especially a lot of double-shelled clams. (…) The reader might wonder at this point what it means that mountain ranges hold so many sediments, which can also be found stratified in the bottom of the sea. (p. 236,237, Pentti Eskola, Muuttuva maa)
How is the location of fossils interpreted? When Richard Dawkins and evolutionists like him explain the past of the Earth and life, the basic starting point is usually the idea that life began in the sea and then gradually moved to land. Because of this, they believe that the fossils of marine animals (Cambrian and other periods considered early), such as the trilobite that lived on the sea floor, represent an older age than mammals that lived on dry land. The difference between their occurrence on Earth is considered to be hundreds or tens of millions of years. Stephen Jay Gould explains this view:
For example, every time I gather fossils from a Paleozoic (550-225 million year-old) rock, I don’t expect to find fossilized mammals. After all, mammals evolved in the next Triassic period... If I were to find fossilized mammals from Paleozoic strata, especially such mammals that developed quite late, like cows, cats, elephants and humans, our evolutionary theory would be doomed. (13)
However, there is a simple reason why fossilized mammals such as cows, cats, elephants and humans are not found in the so-called Cambrian stratum and other strata that are considered old. It is that trilobites and other similar so-called Cambrian organisms represent marine life, while mammals such as cows, cats, elephants, and humans move around on dry land. Between these two zones there might have been, and still may be today, a difference of tens or hundreds of kilometers. (On the other hand, dinosaurs, which have been considered younger than Cambrian organisms but older than mammals, lived between the dry and marine zones. They moved in lower regions than most mammals. They lived near water.) That is why they are usually not found in the same strata, because even today Marine animals and dry the animals of the earth are not close to each other. Ecological compartments and nature zones were true both in the past and today.
The age of the universe. What about the age of the earth and the universe? Richard Dawkins and naturalists like him assume that the universe started on its own, and the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago is usually attributed as the cause. They believe in this concept, even though no one has been able to explain how from nothing can come something by itself. Such a notion makes no sense and is not supported by any practical observation from modern times. Non-existent things do not appear out of nowhere by themselves. What about when we look at the universe and space? It can just as well be said that the universe looks only 6000-7000, and not 13.7 billion years old. No one can prove this thing using the methods of science. By looking at space and the universe, we cannot determine its age. On the other hand, the older the universe is assumed to be, the more likely it is that the stars and galaxies have run out of fuel. The fact that we currently see billions of stars and galaxies shining and radiating light fits better with the idea of a young than an ancient universe. What about radioactive dating? Evolutionists put a lot of trust in these methods, but e.g. the radiocarbon method leads to interesting results. This method only measures the age of organic samples, and its official half-life is 5730 years, so there should not be any radiocarbon left after 100,000-200,000 years. However, it has been observed that radiocarbon is present even in organisms and dinosaurs from the Cambrian period - usually, radiocarbon measurements are not even made on organisms considered to be this old. It shows that the history of the living world cannot possibly be millions of years old, let alone hundreds of millions of years:
In the 1950s and 1970s, however, the values given by radiocarbon measurement were approached with caution in official circles. This was due to the fact that by 1970, in the measurement results published in the Radiocarbon magazine, almost all measured samples (more than 15,000 samples) were found to contain 14C isotopes. The obtained measurement results were considered unreliable because among the samples there were plenty of fossils that were millions of years old. Their age was determined according to to an index fossil -chart, which is considered reliable. (14)
Fossils that are assumed to be very old are not usually carbon-14 dated because they should not have any radiocarbon left. The half-life of radioactive carbon is so short that it has practically all decayed in less than 100,000 years. In August 2012, a group of German researchers reported at a meeting of geophysicists the results of carbon-14 measurements that had been made on many fossilized dinosaur bone samples. According to the results, the bone samples were 22,000-39,000 years old! At least at the time of writing, the presentation is available on YouTube. (15a) How was the result received? Two of the chairmen, who could not accept the measurements, deleted the abstract of the presentation from the conference website without mentioning it to the scientists. The results are available at http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html. The case shows how the naturalistic paradigm affects. It is almost impossible to get results that contradict it published in the scientific community dominated by naturalism. It is more likely that the raisins fly. (15)
What is the effect of the Christian faith? Richard Dawkins's books, especially The God Delusion, strongly attack the Christian faith. Dawkins does deal with other beliefs and world religions, but mostly the Christian faith, because he thinks he knows it best. The same topic will also be discussed in the following lines of this article. There are mainly two reasons why Dawkins attacks the Christian faith. They are:
1) Dawkins considers the Christian faith to be unfounded. The main reason for this attitude is certainly Dawkins' own belief in the theory of evolution and a naturalistic world view. However, individuals like Dawkins are on weak ice when they try to explain how the universe began in itself from scratch and how life began (in practice, it is a question of creation and an attempt to explain it in another way). One has to abandon common sense when one believes in their emergence by themselves.
2) Another reason why Dawkins has a negative view of the Christian faith is that he considers it harmful like other religions. He criticizes the image of God in the Old Testament and brings up examples of injustices and strange things that have been done in the name of God. Dawkins is convinced that if there was no belief in God, but everyone were atheists, the world would be a much better place.
Was Jesus good or bad?
- (Luke 6:22) Blessed are you, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
When starting to study the subject, a good starting point is the person and life of Jesus. Without a doubt, he is the most central person in the New Testament. Four gospels tell about him. In addition, he and his death on the cross, his resurrection and the atonement for sins that came through Him are central subjects in the letters of the New Testament. Without Him, there wouldn't even be any Christian faith. That's why we can't forget Him. But was Jesus good or bad? Richard Dawkins believes that the Christian faith is not a good thing, but in doing so he attacks Jesus. However, Jesus' life and teaching testify to His goodness:
Jesus' life testifies to His goodness. He could say to His adversaries: ”Which of you convinces me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do you not believe me?” (John 8:46) His goodness is also referred to by both opponents and disciples. When Dawkins claims the Christian faith is evil, he should show the following statements about the goodness of Jesus as false:
- (John 8:28-30) Then said Jesus to them, When you have lifted up the Son of man, then shall you know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father has taught me, I speak these things. 29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father has not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. 30 As he spoke these words, many believed on him.
- (Hebr 4:15) For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
- (Hebr 7:26) For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
- (1 John 3:5) And you know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
- (2 Cor 5:21) For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
- (Matt 22:16-18) And they sent out to him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God in truth, neither care you for any man: for you regard not the person of men. 17 Tell us therefore, What think you? Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt you me, you hypocrites?
- (Matt 27:3-5) Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see you to that. 5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
- (Matt 27:17-19) Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said to them, Whom will you that I release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? 18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. 19 When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, Have you nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
Jesus’ teaching, such as the Sermon on the Mount, serves as an example of His goodness. If these teachings were adhered to, the world would be a much better place. The greatest commandment Jesus referred to, is to love your neighbor, which also extends to our enemies. The disciples abided by the same rule. If Dawkins and other atheists like him claim that Christianity is harmful, they should show us, what is wrong in the following teachings:
- (Matt 22:35-40) Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like to it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
- (Matt 5:44-47) But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love them which love you, what reward have you? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if you salute your brothers only, what do you more than others? do not even the publicans so?
- (1 Cor 13:1-3,13) Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profits me nothing. 13 And now stays faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
- (1 John 3:17,18) But whoever has this world's good, and sees his brother have need, and shuts up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwells the love of God in him? 18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
The God of the Old Testament and teaching about hell. Richard Dawkins strongly attacks the Old Testament image of God, just as he criticizes the New Testament teaching on hell. The main reason for his attacks is surely that he does not think God is fair. He does not believe in God, but he sees it in such a way that the Old Testament descriptions of the judgments of societies or the New Testament's teaching about hell do not represent justice. Dawkins' comments are certainly thought-provoking and appeal to many. However, there is also another side to the matter: If God does not react to evil and considers it evil, how can such a God be good? For if God accepts evil and is indifferent to what happens, He is in fact evil. Therefore, only a God who clearly sides with good and condemns evil can be good. The God of the Bible is like this. As evidence of God's anger towards evil are e.g. descriptions of when He judged the Canaanites who burned their children in the fire, and when He judged the violent generation of Noah's day. These judgments did not happen by chance or arbitrarily, but were the result of people's continued wickedness and impenitence. The New Testament's teaching about hell, which is intended specifically for unrepentant wrongdoers, continues the same line: wrongdoers are held accountable for the wrong they have done to others. Nothing happens by chance. Even in today's society, the same model is generally followed, where the perpetrators of the crime have to make amends in prison for the wrong they have done to others. There is also another side to the matter. When Dawkins and atheists like him only see one side of God, they don't take into account that God wants good for people, and that they would not go to hell. He wants us to be saved, to have eternal life and to have everything forgiven. God has loved every person, and that is exactly why Jesus came into the world. This is the basic message of the entire New Testament, which should not be rejected. Everyone can receive the gift of eternal life, and the only thing that can prevent us from experiencing it is our own impenitence and our unwillingness to turn to God through Jesus Christ. From God's side, everything is ready and grace is available, but we ourselves can keep the door of grace closed:
- (1 Tim 2:3,4) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
- (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
- (1 John 4:9,10) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
- (Rev 21:5,6) And he that sat on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said to me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 6 And he said to me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to him that is thirsty of the fountain of the water of life freely.
- (Rev 22:17) And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
Errors of the Church. When Dawkins criticizes the Christian church and the wrongs done in the name of God, he is absolutely right in his criticism. You can't deny that. Many wrong things and strange things have certainly been done and thus God's name has been dishonored. However, Dawkins and atheists like him generally fail to consider the following related points:
Grievous wolves. For example, Paul knew how to foresee that after his departure there would be grievous wolves who would pretend to be Christians, but who in reality would be far from God. Jesus also taught that false prophets can be known by their fruits. This shows that not all people who appear in the name of God are connected with Him.
- (Acts 20:29-31) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
- (Matt 7:20-23) Why by their fruits you shall know them. 21 Not every one that said to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
- (Tit 1:16) They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him
The call to repentance was one of the basic teachings that both Jesus and the apostles called for. If a person lives contrary to this teaching, it is likely that he has never come into communion with God. At least that was the teaching of Jesus and the early church:
- (Luke 6:46) And why call you me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
- (Luke 13:2,3) And Jesus answering said to them, Suppose you that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, No: but, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish.
- (1 Cor 6:9) Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived
People might fall. Although someone would be converted to God, it doesn’t stop them from falling. They might, e.g., fall for sex, money; get too proud, or angry. Or there may be people suffering from mental disorders who can harm themselves or others because they hear the "voice of God". The media often write about such things with delight, but it must be taken into account that not all guidance is from God and that anyone can fall. In the end, we are quite weak and can get lost. Every person has weaknesses, to which he is prone to fall, if he does not control his condition. However, no one can plead to anyone else’s actions and wrongdoings before the throne. We are only accountable for our own life and actions. We should primarily be concerned about the state of our own life.
- (Rom 14:10-12) But why do you judge your brother? or why do you set at nothing your brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, said the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
History. As stated, it is possible for some to act wrongly or foolishly in the name of God. You can certainly find these examples if you look for them. Christian faith is almost the same thing as science and politics. Both can be misused. However, no one rejects science because some scientists have developed nerve agents, weapons of mass destruction or otherwise acted immorally (e.g. Nazi doctors). The same is true of politics. There, too, both abuses and great achievements can be observed. However, we do not abandon politics simply because some have abused their position. However, the Christian faith, if it is truly authentic, should have a positive meaning for society in several sectors. We look at a few areas.
Crime is decreasing. When Jesus and the apostles declared: "Repent" and called to believe in the gospel, it means that a person should give up his wrongdoings. Sometimes, in people's eyes, it can mean small things like wrong thoughts and attitudes, but also bigger things like crime, i.e. theft, acts of violence and giving up other crimes. In practice, if a person is touched by God, it should always bring about a positive change in him. Acidic and bitter people can become more positive, drug addicts can stop their drug use and theft. A gambler gets an interest other than games or a terrorist can stop terrorist activities. They are changes that can positively affect their lives and the lives of others. If faith is genuine and not mere religiosity, such changes are likely. Charles G. Finney tells how this happened during one of God's movements in the 19th century:
I have told that the moral situation changed greatly through this revival. The city was new, economically prosperous and enterprising but full of sin. The population was especially intelligent and ambitious but as the revival swept through the city by bringing large crowds of its most remarkable people, men and women, to conversion, there happened a very miraculous change concerning the order, peacefulness and morality. I had a talk with a lawyer many years later. He had been converted in this revival and was a general prosecutor in criminal cases. Because of this office, the criminal statistics were thoroughly familiar to him. He said about the time of this revival, “I have examined documents of criminal law and noticed a surprising fact: while our city has grown three times larger after the times of the revival, there has not been even a third of the indictments than there were before. So miraculous an effect did the revival have on our society.”(…) (16)
When crime decreases, it also reduces society's expenses. A considerable part of society's expenses goes to correcting the consequences of wrong lifestyles. One of these areas is the breakup of families and the other area is crime, which is also often related to the breakup of families. However, when a person turns to God, it prevents the breakup of families and reduces crime. If even one criminal ends his criminal career, society's costs can be significantly reduced. The following example tells about spiritual prison work, and how it has led to the end of prisoners' criminal careers. They have become taxpayers to society, as well as helpers of the underprivileged. At the same time, many have been freed from alcohol and drugs, which are also a large expense for both the prisoner himself and society in the form of social costs. It has been estimated that in Finland, for example, alcohol directly costs society a billion euros a year and indirectly up to five billion euros (Kauppalehti 16.9.2011). Thousands are addicted to alcohol.
Over the years, a large number of prisoners have come to faith, only a few have had biographies or newspaper articles written about them... The Bible says that "Jesus Christ is worth receiving in every way", even financially. For sure, everyone who has been in prison, especially a drug user, now has more "coins" at the bottom of their purse than before, when they went down the throat or as a thorn into a vein. But it also has economic benefits for society. One day in prison costs society around 150 euros. If we imagine now that these 27 former prisoners would not have come to faith, but continued their old ways and each of them would have had 10 more years of cake to eat. Thus, additional funding of almost 15 million euros should have been found in the state coffers, so that they could have been kept inside the walls. Not to mention the costs that they would have had time to cause with their crimes outside the walls before being caught. Now Jesus has turned the scale to another position by influencing the lives of these people so that they have become tax payers who do honest work, even helpers of the marginalized and underprivileged in society. (17)
Democracy and the stability of society.
- (1 Tim 2:1,2) I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
In the first letter to Timothy, we are encouraged to pray, e.g. on behalf of the authority, so that we could live a peaceful life. It is better than a society with disorder, unlimited dictatorship, or constant rebellion against rulers. It is better for economic and other development that leaders strive for good. Some researchers have stated that specifically Christian missionary work has had a positive impact on the development of democracy and the stability of society. This has been seen to happen in African and Asian countries. Where there has been active missionary work, the situation is better today than in areas where missionary influence has been less or non-existent. It comes to the fore in matters such as the economy in the sending areas today is more developed, the health situation is relatively better, infant mortality is lower, corruption is lower, literacy is more common and access to education is easier than in other areas. In Europe and North America, the same development has already taken place, and the Christian faith has certainly had its own impact on it as well.
Scientist: Missionary work set off democracy
According to Robert Woodberry, the assistant professor at Texas University, the impact of Protestants’ missionary work in the 1800s and in the beginning of 1900s on the development of democracy has been more significant than originally thought. Rather than having a minor role in the development of democracy, missionaries had a substantial part in it in many African and Asian countries. Christianity Today magazine tells about the matter. Robert Woodberry has studied the relationship between missionary work and the factors affecting democracy almost for 15 years. According to him, there where Protestant missionaries have had a central influence. There the economy is nowadays more developed and the health situation is relatively much better than in the areas, where missionaries’ influence has been smaller or nonexistent. In the areas with prevalent missionary history, child mortality rate is currently lower, there is less corruption, literacy is more common and getting into education is easier, especially for women. According to Robert Woodberry, it was specifically the Protestant revival Christians who had a positive effect. In contrast, state-employed clergy or Catholic missionaries before the 1960s did not have a similar impact. Protestant missionaries were free of the control of the government. “One central stereotype in missionary work is that it relates to colonialism. - - However, Protestant workers, who were not funded by the government, reacted always critically to colonialism”, says Woodberry to Christianity Today. The long-term work of Woodberry has received praise. Among others, research professor Philip Jenkins of Baylor University has noted the following about Woodberry’s research: “I really tried to find gaps, but the theory holds. It has great influence on the worldwide research on Christianity.” According to Christianity Today magazine over ten studies have reinforced Woodberry’s findings. (18)
Abolition of slavery. The Christian faith has contributed to the abolition of slavery. For example, in the ancient world this custom was common, but it disappeared from many areas in the Middle Ages when the Christian faith spread. In Richard Dawkins' home country of England, the Christian faith also influenced the abolition of slavery. There was a powerful revival in this country in the 18th century, and John Wesley, the father of this revival and the Methodist movement, were important figures in the anti-slavery struggle. It has also been said that due to the influence of John Wesley, England was spared the revolution that befell France. An important figure was also William Wilberforce, who made several legislative initiatives to abolish slavery. His pastor was John Newton, who was a former slave ship captain, but who experienced a conversion and began to oppose slavery. John Newton is also known for his spiritual song "Amazing Grace". He encouraged Wilberforce in the anti-slavery struggle until these efforts bore fruit.
A society led mostly by Christian activists and thinkers based on biblical principles had come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong. British Member of Parliament William Wilberforce introduced the first initiative to abolish slavery in 1789. Motivated by the biblical concept that all people were created in the image of God, he introduced no less than eleven bills to the House of Commons to abolish slavery until in 1807 the slave trade was abolished. Further campaigning resulted in the abolition of slavery itself in 1833. Britain then sought to persuade other nations to abolish slavery – the government paid over a million pounds to Portugal and Spain to abolish slavery, and in turn gave military aid to France. The British Navy spent 40 million pounds over 50 years. During that time, it captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 slaves. (19)
Status of women. One charge against the Christian faith is that it is patriarchal and has undermined the status of women. This accusation has been made especially by members of the feminist movement and others who have adopted a similar way of thinking. These people think that a woman's status depends on her acting exactly like a man (eg female priesthood) and not on her being valuable in herself and especially through Christ. In this point of view, a woman's worth is measured only by her similarity to a man and not by her identity as a woman alone. However, it is paradoxical that the same members of the feminist movement who claim to represent women strongly advocate abortion, which is a rejection of true femininity. True womanhood does not include killing a child in or outside of the mother's womb. Instead, a close relationship between mother and children and taking care of them is healthy femininity. The current leaders of the feminist movement have forgotten that. Another problem that has followed during the strong activity of the feminist movement is the increase in the number of single mothers. This issue has only become common during the current generation, when Christian principles and the permanence of marriage have been abandoned. Many women are under a greater burden than they were before the era of the current feminist movement. It has not made it easier, but made their position worse. What about the accusation that the Christian faith has weakened the status of women? This is not true at all in the light of history. It's just the opposite, because the Christian faith influenced e.g. for the removal of abandoning of children (mostly girls), improved the position of women in marriage and improved the position of female widows. In the Christian church, the position of women was better and their share was greater than in Roman society in general.
Rodney Stark, professor of sociology and comparative religion, has written a book about the growth and success of Christianity and analyzed the importance of women in the spread of Christianity. According to Stark, the position of Christian women was good from the early stages of Christianity. They enjoyed a higher status and security than, for example, their Roman sisters, whose status was significantly better than that of Greek women. Abortions or the killing of newborns were also not accepted in Christian communities - both were strictly forbidden. Thus, Christianity was very popular among women (Chadwick 1967; Brown, 1988) and it spread especially through upper class women to their husbands. (20)
Besides, it is needless to deny what even the heathen opponents of Christianity openly admitted, that this new religion attracted an unusual number of women, and that many women found in the teachings of the Church a comfort which the old religions could not give. As I have mentioned, Celsus saw the disproportionately large proportion of women among Christians as proof of Christianity's irrationality and populism. In his writing, Julian rebuked the men of Misopogos (the Hater of the Beard) of Antioch for allowing their wives to waste their wealth on the "Galileans" and the poor, with the unfortunate consequence that the "atheism" of the Christians had gained general admiration. And so on. The evidence for early Christianity frankly leaves no room for doubt that this was a religion that strongly attracted women and that would not have spread nearly as widely or as quickly if it had not had so many women in its circle. (21)
Hospitals and social work. Richard Dawkins and others like him do not understand the positive meaning of the Christian faith in the Western world. They see the things where the teachings of Jesus and the apostles have not been followed, but are unable to see the positive things. However, the Christian faith has had a positive impact in numerous areas, including social work. Poverty, disease, hunger and homelessness are major problems in many areas of the world, but those societies where the Christian faith has prevailed and where there have been spiritual revivals suffer less from them. Of course, no society is perfect, but if there was no gospel in the world, there would be far fewer hospitals and more poor and hungry people. Most hospitals in the world have originated under the influence of the Christian faith:
During the Middle Ages the people, who belonge to the Order of Saint Benedict, maintained over two thousand hospitals in the Western Europe alone. The 12th century was remarkably signigicant in this respect, especially there, where the Order of Saint John operated. For example, the large Hospital of the Holy Ghost was founded in 1145 at Montpellier, which quickly became the center of medical education and the medical centerl of Montpellier during the year 1221. In addition to medical care, these hospitals provided food for the hungry and took care of widows and orphans, and gave out alms to those who needed them. (22)
Even though the Christian church has been criticized a lot throughout its history, it has still been the forerunner in medical care for the poor, helping captives, homeless or the dying ones and improving working environments. In India the best hospitals and educational institutions connected to it are the result of Christian missionary work, even to that extent that many Hindus use these hospitals more than the hospitals maintained by the government, because they know that they are going to receive better care over there. It is estimated that when the Second World War began, 90% of nurses in India were Christians, and that 80% of them received their education in missionary hospitals. (23)
In church the affairs of this life were as much taken care of as were the affairs of the future life; it seemed that everything that the Africans accomplished, originated from the missionary work of the church. (Nelson Mandela in his autobiography Long Walk to Freedom)
Education and literacy. The Christian faith has changed Europe in a positive direction in the field of civilization. Literacy and literary language were born mainly by pious Christians. For example, here in Finland, Mikael Agricola, Finnish religious reformer and father of literature, printed the first ABC book and the New Testament and parts of other books of the Bible. The people learned to read through them. In numerous other nations in the Western world, development has taken place through a similar process:
Christianity created the Western civilization. If the followers of Jesus would have stayed as a faint Jewish sect, many of you would have never learned how to read and the rest would have read from hand copied scrolls. Without theology coined with progression and moral equality, the whole world would currently be at a state, where non-European societies were roughly in the 1800s: A world with countless astrologists and alchemists, but without scientists. A despotic world without universities, banks, factories, spectacles, chimneys and pianos. A world, where most children die before the age of five and where many women would die of childbirth – a world that would truly live in the “Dark Ages”. A modern world only arose from Christian societies. Not in the Islamic realm. Not in Asia. Not in a ”secular” society – as such a thing did not exists. (24)
Is atheism useful? One of the basic assumptions of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion is that the world would be better if belief in God did not exist. He brings up conflicts in which religion has been involved, such as the Northern Ireland problem, the massacres of Serbs/Croats/Muslims, and the wars between Israelis and Palestinians:
With John Lennon, imagine a world without religion. Imagine that there is no suicide bombers, no September 9th, no crusades, no witch hunts, no gunpowder conspiracy, no partition of India, no Israeli-Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croatian/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as "Christ killers", no Northern Ireland " problems", not "honor killings". (25)
If the matter is looked at solely on the basis of the Christian faith, the matter can also be seen the other way around. It is precisely the lack of faith in God and not believing in the final judgment that sustains conflicts. For example, the crisis of the Palestinians and the Israelis is caused by the rejection of the teaching about forgiveness (Matt 6:15: But if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.) and loving the enemy (Matt 5:46: For if you love them which love you, what reward have you? do not even the publicans the same?). Likewise, the cycle in the Balkans, Northern Ireland and other conflicts is due to people rejecting the idea of God's judgment and being held accountable for their actions. If they really believed in judgment after this life and that there is hell for wrongdoers, they would change their behavior. Such people often use God only to promote their own cause. The following example from Northern Ireland illustrates the point:
I remember talking to a group of young men, who were on their way to Glasgow Rangers’ home arena in Ibrox stadium. They held a sheet that read “For God and for Northern Ireland”. (This is too stupid to even begin to explain what this has to do with Glasgow and football.) I ask them if they believe in God. “I’m not sure – but we are Protestants!” “Do you go to church?” “F- - (curse word hidden). We go to Ibrox stadium, why should we go to church?” (26)
So what would society be like if it were completely atheistic, as wished by Dawkins and others like him? The last century gives some evidence of what an atheistic worldview can lead to at its worst. It was one of the most brutal centuries of mankind, and the Dark Ages would be a much better name for it than the Middle Ages. The apostate church and religiosity that renounced Christ have not caused as much destruction over many centuries as what happened in the last century under the influence of atheism. The only atheist states in the world, such as Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, North Korea, and Hitler's Germany, were responsible for such a development.
[What would you say to those, who blame religions?] I would try to make them think about the horrific 20th century, during which we encountered more destruction than ever before. Possibly, along with the destruction of Jews, the greatest crimes were committed by two openly atheistic nations. The Soviet Union with its atheist museum being one and Mao’s China being the other. Both were militantly atheistic. And what did they do? They killed 70 million of their own people. Why won’t we ever hear that this is what atheism causes? There is something devious about it. Why the sins of religion are always so harshly judged (as they should be judged), but no one ever pays attention to the sins of atheism. (27)
If we look only at the development in Europe before the Second World War, it was preceded by the spread of liberal theology in universities, the triumph of the theory of evolution and a strong abandonment of the Christian faith. This tendency was also represented by Hitler's Germany and by Hitler himself, who strongly criticized the Christian faith and who believed in the doctrine of evolution. Hitler's attitudes come out well, e.g. in the memoirs made by his secretary, which Dawkins also refers to in his The God Delusion book. In addition, Hitler distributed books by the philosopher Nietzsche to his friends. This philosopher denied the existence of God. An indication of the kind of development prevailing in Europe before the Second World War can be seen from the following quotation. It tells how people abandoned God and how they separated from the churches. The quote is from 1934, five years before the Second World War. The essential point in the quote is that the men of that time who were considered scholars claimed that modern science made belief in God impossible. They were probably evolutionists similar to Dawkins today. They believed that the primordial cell-to-man theory proved the existence of God impossible, although there is no practical evidence for this theory.
From time to time, there have been mass movements of abandoning the church in several countries after the war. Thus, in Germany in 1920, 305,000 people left the evangelical churches. This escape from the church has continued. In 1930, in Berlin alone, 59,225 persons renounced the Lutheran Church, not to mention those Catholics and Jews who abandoned the faith of their fathers... We need not say much about the spread of blasphemous ideas in the 20th century. Suffice it to say that the number of those who publicly confess or tacitly accept the absolute non-existence of God has increased immeasurably. Some men who are considered scholars claim that modern science makes belief in God impossible. They either completely stop believing in God or present that "science requires a new understanding of God". This denial of God begins among children at school. In some cities, thousands of 6-14 year old children, starting from elementary school, have walked the streets carrying the following posters: "“God out of schools”, “Take down God-superstitions”, " Religion is an anesthetic” etc. (28)
People’s God belief
- (Ec 3:11) He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
When you read Dawkins' book The God Delusion, you can see how he strongly attacks all forms of religion. However, he admits and states the fact that religion is a universal thing. All human cultures have a belief in God, but animals have nothing to compare it to. Animals don't pray and they don't even have language and other complex abilities that humans have. Dawkins does not know how to connect this with the possibility that man was originally created in connection with God and in God's image (Gen 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.). Why else does man differ so much from the rest of creation? With evolution, and the notion that all life originates from a single primordial cell, it is difficult to explain the difference between humans and animals. Dawkins states in his book:
Everyone has their favorite theory about where religion comes from and why all human cultures have it... Religious behavior can be said to be human universal in the same way as heterosexual behavior. There are individual exceptions to both generalizations, but these exceptions understand all too well the rule from which they have deviated. The universal features of the species require a Darwinian explanation. (29)
Dawkins also attacks unquestioning faith without realizing that people like him are guilty of the same thing. They cannot explain the origin of life or the origin of the universe by itself from nothing, but it is a naturalistic view based on faith. This was already brought up in the opening songs. We all move in the area of faith in the questions of this topic:
Christianity, as well as, Islam both teaches children that undoubting faith is virtue. There is no need to defend what you believe in. (30)
There is one topic, which Dawkins addresses that is the truth. He writes the following:
I don't want to judge people's feelings. However, I want to clearly bring out in the conversation what it is about: feelings or truth. Both are important, but they are not the same thing. (31)
When it comes to the truth, it is an essential part of Christianity as well. In fact, it is personified in Jesus Christ. He said He is the Truth and that He speaks the truth, so we need to address it. If He did speak the truth, for example in saying that He is the only way to God, we cannot overlook that. The following passages are some examples that relate well to this topic:
- (John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.
- (John 8:45,46) And because I tell you the truth, you believe me not. 46 Which of you convinces me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do you not believe me?
- (John 1:17) For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
What about the meaning of Jesus Christ? Of course, we cannot directly prove His great significance, as it is a matter of faith. However, we should take into consideration the words of Jesus. He said that if someone wishes to do God’s will, they will know, whether His words are true. We must be open to His words, in order to know if they’re real. He who seeks will find, and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. So when it comes to your own life, be open to the words of Jesus. Do not reject Him and His words, but take them seriously:
- (John 7:17) If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
- (Matt 7:8) For every one that asks receives; and he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it shall be opened.
REFERENCES:
1. Richard Dawkins: ”Is Science a Religion?”, The Humanist. January/February 1997, p. 26 2. Philip E. Johnson: Darwin on Trial, p. 152 3. Darwin, F & Seward A. C. toim. (1903, 1: 184): More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray. 4. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p. 153 5. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 6. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” teoksessa Godrey (toim.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution 7. Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä, p. 240,241 8. Stephen Jay Gould: Hirmulisko heinäsuovassa (Dinosaur in a Haystack), p. 115,116,141 9. Charles Darwin: Lajien synty (The origin of species) 10. Richard Dawkins: Maailman hienoin esitys (The Greatest Show on Earth), p. 14,16 11. Kalle Taipale: Levoton maapallo, p. 78 12. Raamatullinen aikakauskirja, p. 17 13. Stephen Jay Gould: Hirmulisko heinäsuovassa (Dinosaur in a Haystack), p. 440 14. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 194 15a. http://creation.com/redirect.php?http:// www. youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ 15. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p.146 16. Charles G. Finney: Ihmeellisiä herätyksiä, p. 245, 246 17. Harri Lampinen: Katkaistu kahle, p. 6,7 18. Matti Korhonen, Uusi tie 6.2.2014, p. 5. 19. David Robertson: Kirjeitä tohtori Dawkinsille (The Dawkins Letters), p. 121 20. Mia Puolimatka: Minkä arvoinen on ihminen?, p. 130 21. David Bentley Hart: Ateismin harhat (Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and its Fashionable Enemies), p. 224,225 22. David Bentley Hart: Ateismin harhat (Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and its Fashionable Enemies), p. 65 23. Lennart Saari: Haavoittunut planeetta, p. 104 24. Rodney Stark: The victory of reason. How Christianity led to freedom, capitalism and Western Success. New York, Random House (2005), p. 233 25. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p. 21,22 26. David Robertson: Kirjeitä tohtori Dawkinsille (The Dawkins Letters), p. 40 27. P. Cousineau: Conversations with Houston Smith on the spiritual life, p. 259 28. L.H. Christian: Kylvöä ja satoa, p. 114,115 29. Judith Wallerstein, Julia Lewis, Sandra Blakeslee: Avioeron perintö (The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce) 30. Michael J. Sandel: Oikeudenmukaisuus (Justice. What’s the Right Thing to Do?), p. 283,284 31. Bill Hybels: Kristityt seksihullussa kulttuurissa (Christians in a Sex Crazed Culture), p. 132 32. Carl-Gustav Severin: Rohkeasti täysin raitis (It Is Never Wrong To Be Totally Sober), p. 100 33. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p. 174,177 34. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p. 315 35. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p. 359
Six major lies. Six arguments that appear in the literature of God-rejecting people. Read why they are not worth believing in and why they are based on a lie An open letter to Skepsis ry. The scientific or unscientific nature of the Skepsis Association? Learn how representatives of Skepsis are not scientific, though they may think so A letter to freethinkers. A personal letter to freethinkers, that is, a discussion of freethinkers' worldview and action against God Free thinking under analysis. Free thinkers consider themselves sensible in denying God. Does the arguments of free thinkers make sense or not? Read on and find out! Is God good or bad? Is God good and just or not? Many do not realize that Jesus was and is the perfect image of a heavenly God Christian faith and prejudice. People have a variety of objections to the Christian faith and to God. Read if these objections and prejudices make sense Why grace is rejected? The most common reasons and objections that cause people to turn their backs on God and salvation. Read why they are bad excuses People who reject God. Today, people in the West reject God because they do not believe in creation or disagree on moral issues. Proof that God exists. Evidence of the existence of God. Read how nature, the perception of right and wrong, and numerous other factors refer to the existence of the Creator, or God
|
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
|
Six major lies. Six arguments that appear in the literature of God-rejecting people. Read why they are not worth believing in and why they are based on a lie An open letter to Skepsis ry. The scientific or unscientific nature of the Skepsis Association? Learn how representatives of Skepsis are not scientific, though they may think so A letter to freethinkers. A personal letter to freethinkers, that is, a discussion of freethinkers' worldview and action against God Free thinking under analysis. Free thinkers consider themselves sensible in denying God. Does the arguments of free thinkers make sense or not? Read on and find out! Is God good or bad? Is God good and just or not? Many do not realize that Jesus was and is the perfect image of a heavenly God Christian faith and prejudice. People have a variety of objections to the Christian faith and to God. Read if these objections and prejudices make sense Why grace is rejected? The most common reasons and objections that cause people to turn their backs on God and salvation. Read why they are bad excuses People who reject God. Today, people in the West reject God because they do not believe in creation or disagree on moral issues. Proof that God exists. Evidence of the existence of God. Read how nature, the perception of right and wrong, and numerous other factors refer to the existence of the Creator, or God
|
