Tag: Holy Bible

Outgrowing God – 7 to 12

I decided to complete my review of the remaining chapters of Outgrowing God by Richard Dawkins in one go. This is Part Two of his book, subtitled “Evolution and beyond”. Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, as well as an atheist, and so would like evolution and science generally to explain everything. In some ways he is hoist on his own petard because he accuses theists of using God to explain the unexplained, whereas he uses unknowable science and evolution to explain the unexplained.

Chapter 7, the first chapter of Part Two is entitled “Surely there must be s designer?” and goes on to explain how evolution explains everything, except the origin of life which he cannot explain. The creation story of the Bible is largely regarded as mythical or allegorical and largely superseded by evolution with two tremendous gaps, namely the creation of the universe and the creation of life within it.

Those of us who believe in God, believe that He created the universe and that He created life. Dawkins believes that nature evolved naturally without a designer. It blows my mind, on the other hand, that God could create living organisms that would grow into so many wonderful species of animals and plants and ultimately into intelligent beings like ourselves. That takes a level of magnificent genius that far exceeds making it up as He goes along.

Dawkins asks a couple of questions about belief in God and about belief in good and evil. He asks the question whether we evolved to believe in gods and he tries to explain it. While not denying the possibility, I cannot deny the possibility that God puts it in people’s minds that there is a god. They may not fully understand the god and the evidence is that they didn’t. But the fact is that different races were physically evolving throughout the world, in their different ways, but mentally evolving in the same way to believe in god(s). What a coincidence! Dawkins’ explanation is no more plausible than belief in God.

Likewise, there is remarkable similarity in the moral code of people and societies throughout the world. This point is well argued in the book Mere Christianity by C.S.Lewis. Because societies that had no connection with each other and with physical and cultural differences came up with the same moral code adds to the possibility of a uniform external influence on all people.

Of course, if you are looking for an excuse not to believe in God, you can put everything down to coincidence and as yet unknown science. Dawkins does include a chapter on “Crystals and jigsaw puzzles” which I find rather surprising because crystals, which did not evolve, to my mind demonstrate the mind of the Creator in their wonderful beauty and geometry. Not at all what you would expect by accident. This whole chapter speaks to me of the wonders of creation. What a pity some don’t believe in it.

The last chapter of the book is “Take courage from science”, and is written as if science somehow does away with the need for God, as if it explains everything, In fact, all science does is tell us more about God’s creation. So what this book will do is give atheists more reason to reject God, but it does not give one good solid argument to deny God’s existence.

I will finish with a quote from 1 Corinthians 1:25 – “For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.”

Outgrowing God – 3&4

This is my third post reviewing the book Outgrowing God by Richard Dawkins. I have recently finished reading the whole book and find that it has not in the least shaken my faith. He is persuasive in what he writes, but really seems to be preaching to the converted – those who are atheists or pondering on becoming atheists. It is not reasonable to conclude that there is no God from what he writes, but atheists will like it because it superficially supports their contention that science explains, or will explain, everything and that we do not need to believe in a creator God.

In this post, I will cover Chapter 3, Myths And How They Start, and Chapter 4, The Good Book?. I am pretty much skipping over Chapter 3 because, though interesting, there is enough substance in the Bible to dispel it as a myth. I do concede that there might be an element of myth about Jesus’s life before his ministry, simply because the story will likely have been passed through several people before it was written down. However, what is written is consistent in message with what we can certainly declare as factual.

In all of Jesus’s ministry, he was accompanied by his twelve disciples. Paul was not a disciple, but got to know some of them after his conversion and he got to know Luke, who travelled with him and wrote the Gospel that bears his name and the Acts of the Apostles. Paul’s letters are a significant part of the New Testament. We therefore have a pretty good link to the ministry of Jesus, his death and resurrection. Forget myth – it is not as significant as Dawkins would want you to believe.

On to Chapter 4. The Bible is, or was, frequently referred to as “The Good Book”. Dawkins questions whether in fact it is “good”. The Bible is an easy target, especially the Old Testament, where you can select passages that are quite horrific and do not show God or his people in a good light. There is wholesale slaughter of some peoples, their women and children and animals, except preserving their unmarred daughters. Not nice. How do I explain it? I don’t. What we do have are some beautiful books, like Psalms, the Song of Solomon and good words from the various prophets which include passages relating to Jesus Christ some hundreds of years later. The good thing that comes out of Old Testament times is the survival of the Israelites, scripture, and the environment into which our saviour Jesus Christ could be born. (My words – Dawkins would not say such a thing).

Dawkins has less to say about the New Testament and believes that Jesus comes across as a good man. He mentions two things which give me some difficulty. First is causing a fig tree to wither and die because it did not bear any fruit. Sounds petty. Second is the story of the Gadarene swine. When Jesus casts demons out of a man, they ask to be sent to a nearby herd of pigs. Jesus complies, they go to the pigs who promptly charge down the hill into the sea and drown. I can’t get my head around this at all. Why would Jesus comply with their request? Why would the demons cause the pigs to die so that they are left without anything to occupy? The only thing I can get from this is “Be careful what you wish for”. They ended up with nothing.

Dawkins does say that the bits that people do not like, They tend to classify as allegorical – in other words, only included for the message it conveys. I am content to leave things unexplained and consider the Bible as a whole, and I find it very satisfactory as a whole with many valuable lessons for this day, 2,00 years after Jesus.

Dawkins is particularly scathing and mocking about the crucifixion of Jesus. John Stott, an eminent theologian wrote a whole book on The Cross of Christ, it is cogently argued and explains why the cruel death of Jesus was necessary for our salvation. Dawkins should have got together with his fellow atheist Stephen Hawking, who was of the opinion that God cannot break any laws. If God’s law is “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”, then that is the way it is. Dawkins thinks that God could just forgive everybody anyway, since he is too obtuse to realise that God cannot break his own law. Paul wrote something very apt in one of his letters “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18). It is as if Paul foresaw mocking Dawkins who clearly thinks it foolishness. The cross is central to the Christian faith and therefore its symbol.