Tag: Outgrowing God

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 The creation story of the Bible is largely regarded as mythical or allegorical and largely superseded by evolution with two tremendous gaps, namely the creation of the universe and the creation of life within it.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 – 5&6

This is my 4th post commenting on the book Outgrowing God by Richard Dawkins, Here I am covering Chapters 5 and 6 which are related to each other. Chapter 5 is entitled Do We Need God in Order to be Good?, and Chapter 6 is How Do We Decide what is Good?

In a way these are silly questions because we are none of us “good” by God’s standard of perfection. Mankind’s standard is somewhat lower and we certainly do not need God for other people to consider us good or not. So in a couple of sentences I have answered the question that heads Chapter 5, yet he found it necessary to write a whole chapter. He finds it necessary to go through the 10 Commandments one by one, commenting on each. I really don’t think that Christians agonise over the 10 Commandments – we have internalised them even though we might well have to think carefully if asked what they are. The point is that we know we are not perfect and that we have sinned “in thought, word and deed”, for which we ask forgiveness and resolve to do better. “Sin” is an emotive word, but is a conveniently short one for falling short of perfection.

So being a Christian is not about “being good”, it is about praising God for the goodness of his creation, about thanking him for his goodness to others and to ourselves, and asking for what we deem to be important to us and to others and, importantly, giving us guidance on how to live our lives. If we have faith in Jesus Christ, we are promised eternal life, but that is not our motivation. I believe that Christianity is right for this life.

So on to Chapter 6, How do we decide what is good? Well Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist (not a theologian nor educated in logic) so he gives us an evolutionist view on how we decide what is “good”. So although it is perhaps interesting to see how people’s idea of good develops and changes, it is not really relevant as far as faith is concerned. I believe that God tells us through his Holy Spirit, whether what we are thinking, saying or doing is good or not. Not for us to judge whether what other people think, say or do is good or not, unless what they are doing is manifestly evil in its impact on others.

So that brings us to the end of Part One of the book. I should have mentioned earlier that he calls Part One “Goodbye God”. He certainly has not persuaded me to say goodbye to God. He has told us that people have had many gods over time: that does not preclude the existence of God. He has questioned the truth of the Holy Bible, without considering how much is eye-witness or second-hand at most. He has told us about myths. He has questioned whether the Bible is “good”. He has talked about goodness in a way that is irrelevant to faith. He has to do better to have us say goodbye, but will persuade those who have already said it.

Part Two is entitled Evolution and Beyond. As an evolutionary biologist, he has to include his pet subject. Some of it is quite interesting. Of course the origins of the universe and of life are complete unknowns, but he has faith that science will come up with answers, but more of that later in future posts.

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.

Outgrowing God – 2 – But Is It True?

Chapter 2 of the book Outgrowing God by Richard Dawkins is titled But Is It True? and is entirely about the Bible, and what isn’t in the Bible, so concentrates on Christianity. I have only read a few chapters, but the list of contents seems to indicate that he does not give the same treatment to other religions.

He quotes “Chinese Whispers” as showing that a story changes with the telling from one person to another, so that it becomes unrecognizable after a few tellings. Because the Gospels are all written after the death of Jesus, he therefore calls their accuracy into question. He makes a big thing about the way that even to this day, erroneous and untrue stories make the rounds.

He mentions that it wasn’t finally decided what books go into the Bible until centuries later. He then makes a big thing about books which aren’t in the Bible – the gospel of Judas Iscariot and a book about the early life of Jesus. He did this just to heap on the ridicule. It may make a good read, but doesn’t add anything. The Christian answer is that the people deciding on which works belonged in the canon were guided by God. He goes on about historical accuracy, but I think excludes some important points.

He questions the authorship of the gospels, including Luke’s. But I think it worth examining this. Luke wrote two books of the Bible – The Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel that bears his name. There is little doubt that they are by the same person. The Acts starts with the aftermath of Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection, then Paul’s conversion and then Paul’s activity and travels. Much of it is written in the first person – the word “we” frequently appears – because Luke travelled with Paul and Paul mentions him in one of his letters. Paul also knew Jesus’s disciples, so Luke would have heard from him the details of what they did after Jesus’s death. We can therefore be very confident about the accuracy of The Acts of the Apostles and, of course, Paul’s letters.

Luke’s Gospel is of course after the fact, but his stated intention is to write as accurate a history as he can. My own view of the New Testament is that it may not be 100% accurate but that it is 100% true in its revelation of God. You can quibble about the genealogy of Jesus, but does it really matter?

The chapter includes a quote from Josephus, the first century Jewish historian. It is likely that the reference to Jesus being the Messiah is a later modification or insertion, but what he wrote about the death of John the Baptist is slightly different from the Bible account, and so is less likely to be a forgery, and he records the execution of Jesus’s brother James, which isn’t in the Bible so there was clearly no alteration of Josephus manuscript.

Dawkins does condescendingly agree that there was indeed a preacher called Yeshua who was executed, but that is about as far as it goes. So I will end with a quote from Acts 5 v 34-39:

“But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honoured by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: ‘Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.’”

It stands up to Dawkins too.

Outgrowing God – 1 – So Many Gods

Outgrowing God is a book by Richard Dawkins, author of the better know (but rubbish) The God Delusion. So why would I, a committed Christian, read such a book? Certainly because of curiosity – I was interested to read what he had to say, especially since he is quoted so often and atheists repeat what he has to say as “justification” for their disbelief. I also wanted to be sure that my faith was strong enough to withstand his arguments against the existence of God.

I borrowed the book from our local library (there was no way that I was going to buy it) and have only read a few chapters so far. I shall try to write a chapter by chapter critique and this covers Chapter 1, titled So Many Gods. I should say at the outset that this book is written by someone who most definitely does not believe in any god, and he cannot resist mocking belief.

First, let me say that he says something very sensible, that children are ascribed the religion of their parents before they can even talk, e.g. a Catholic child, a Muslim child, a Protestant child and so on. It is as if religion is something inherited, as if it were race, whereas it is nothing of the sort. I have said before that I am grateful for my nominally Christian upbringing, but that is not the reason that I am a Christian, although it is impossible to say whether it made it more likely that I would be a Christian than have any other faith. In fact I wish children were not branded in this way and I think it a mistake to reinforce it with religious education. Children must be free to believe or disbelieve, rather than indoctrinated to think that they are right and that therefore others are wrong. That’s why people kill.

So this chapter is about the many different gods there have been through history in different societies. His point is that there are so many gods that we cannot logically believe in, that we cannot believe in any. If societies make up gods, then gods are made up.

Superficially, that might seem fairly convincing, but of course it is not a logical argument. The fact that people invent gods, does not logically mean that there is no God.

More interesting would be to know why societies have made up gods. It has to be the realisation that there is indeed a mighty power behind creation. People have not just accepted things the way they are, but thought there was something behind it. The question Dawkins does not ask, because he does not believe in God, is whether God might have put these thoughts into people’s heads. I say that as someone who could not get it out of my head that I simply had to get hold of a Bible. .I say it as someone who knows of extraordinary conversions to belief.

So if God gave people the idea of gods, why was it incomplete? There are many possible answers to that question, but it is worth considering that the story of God in the Bible took thousands of years to unfold. It is only with the New Testament that God is finally revealed.

So Chapter 1 is no argument against the existence of God. It is written so as to ridicule the idea that God exists and claims that existence is unlikely, but will only persuade those who are already persuaded.