A Review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion Part VIII
Listen to the MP3
Oct 19, 2007, Wausau, Wi — In the last installment of my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” I looked at some of the problems in Dawkins’ attempted refutation of Aquinas’ arguments for the existence of God, or at least the lead up to his main argument.
To recap, Aquinas’ first three arguments all deal with the impossibility of an infinite regression of linked events. Such a regression can either go on forever, with no beginning, or it can have a beginning. Aquinas’ argument is based on the claim that it would be impossible for such regressions to go on forever, but there must have been a beginning to the sequence, a first cause, a first mover, etc.
When Dawkins’ gets to his main refutation, surprisingly he seems to concede the main force of the Aquinas’ argument, that infinite regressions are impossible, arguing instead that the beginning of the sequence might be natural.
To justify his position Dawkins writes “Some regresses do reach a natural terminator” (p 78) and goes on to give the example of cutting a piece of gold into two pieces and then taking one of those pieces and cutting it in two to get two more pieces, and how this cannot go on forever. Eventually you will get down a single atom of gold, and if you cut that in half, you no longer have Gold.
While true, like so much of Dawkins criticisms, it really misses the point, and in fact may even be seen as arguing in favor of Aquinas. It misses the point because the arguments of Aquinas are not based on just any sequence but particular types of sequences.
In reality, Dawkins argument raises a huge, and little discussed issue that goes to the core of the difference between atheists and theists. Just what are the natural and the supernatural? Until recently, the natural world has been understood as the physical universe in which we live which is governed by the laws of nature. The supernatural was then something else, something beyond the natural universe, where the laws of nature as we understand them did not apply.
Atheists then argued that reality applied only to the natural universe, and that there was nothing beyond the natural universe. A more nuances argument along these lines was that, while there may be something beyond the natural, since our understanding and knowledge was limited to the natural universe of our existence, it was impossible to know anything beyond the natural.
This view of natural and supernatural worked well for theist and atheist alike, until in the middle of the twentieth century it began to cause problems for those committed to denying the supernatural. This was because the discoveries in science, such as the big bang, made it increasingly clear that the natural world had a beginning. The science clearly showed that at the big bang, reality as we know it, including space, time, and the physical laws that govern how the universe works came into existence. In short, the natural universe came into existence. This was very disconcerting to atheists, who had denied the Bible’s claim of a creation, believing instead the universe was eternal. In fact much of the work in cosmology since has been aimed either directly or indirectly at trying to avoid this conclusion, but to no avail.
Thus those denying the supernatural were put in a very difficult position, for if the universe had a beginning, it either popped into existence out of nothing for no reason, a proposition that would be akin to magic, and would fly in face of everything they believed, or it came from something that was not part of the natural world and thus would fall under the definition of the supernatural.
So far most skeptics have avoided this dilemma by effectively reversing their claim that reality is restricted to the natural into the natural is anything that is real. Thus as science has begun to investigate (or speculate) about be a reality beyond the creation of the universe, since scientists are investigating that reality, that reality is automatically assumed to be part of the “natural” universe.
Yet while such a view may seem to avoid some difficulties, it has may others. For example, much of the rejection of the supernatural is based on the inviolability of the laws of nature. Miracles such as raising Jesus from the dead, or the parting of the Red Sea, are rejected because they would violate the laws of nature, and the laws of nature cannot be broken and they always apply. Since they cannot be broken, miracles are impossible. But what do such arguments mean, if there is a part of natural world where the laws of nature do not apply?
In short, secularists like Dawkins are caught in a huge paradox. If they stick to the old understanding of natural and supernatural their arguments for rejecting the supernatural at least make some sense, even if they are based on assumptions that Christians would reject. But then the reality beyond the Big Bang would by definition be the supernatural. On the other hand, if they expand the concept of natural to include the reality beyond the creation described in the Big Bang theory, they may avoid the problem of seeing this reality as supernatural, but at the cost of having their arguments against the supernatural fall completely apart. Either way they have major problems.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Liberal Compassion
For many, it is almost as axiomatic as the sun rises in the east, that Liberals are compassionate, and conservatives are heartless. But like so many self serving clichés frequently cited by liberals, it does not hold up to critical analysis. While a liberal might say “I feel such compassion for …” The first two words describe the core of what is happening “I feel.” In short this is often more an exercise in narcissism rather than compassion. While Liberals will understandably object to such characterization, it is demonstrated by another trait: existentialism, or living in the here and now. Liberal do have compassion, but only for those before them, either directly on in images. Those they cannot see, do not exist, and this tendency runs through and explains many of their positions, that would otherwise seem disjoined.
One of the most defining of the liberal position is Pro-Choice. For many Liberals this is actually an easy call. They have compassion on the woman who is faced with such a difficult decision. While conservatives often portray them as pro-abortion, they really are not for what drives their beliefs is compassion. This is why the horror stories of back alley abortions and coat hangers play such a role for they are projected upon themselves, they imagine themselves facing such a crisis (yet another indication of narcissism) which they then try to project on their opponents: “what if it were you.” For them, abortion is an issue of a woman facing a difficult and life changing crisis, a woman for whom they have great compassion. For them, the fetus is unseen. It is not before them, and is really more of an abstraction. Given the existential outlook of liberals, it does not exist. For them the issue of an abortion really comes down to “What would I do if I were pregnant.” Along these lines it is interesting that as sonogram technology has grown, allowing parents not only to see their own unborn babies, but to have pictures to share with other, the fetus has become less abstract, and support the Pro-Choice position has declined.
This compassion of the moment is most visible where in cases where positions change as the situations changes. I talked to many liberals who opposed the First Gulf war, when the victims of war were most evidence. And yet many of these same people were critical of Bush 41, for not “finishing the job” and leaving the people of Iraq suffering under Saddam. As the sanction against Iraq had affected many liberals strongly opposed the sanctions, but with the second Gulf War became supporters of sanctions claiming they had been working. This fluidity of position is understandable when looked at as compassion for visible victim of the moment. It is also why liberals can be so strongly against the war because of the deaths that are occurring, and yet completely ignore that far more deaths would occur should we follow their demands that we leave before Iraq is stable. These potential deaths are in the future and there is no future or past, there is only the here and now.
Another issue where this narcissistic existentialism is seen is in the illegal immigration debate. Again the plight of the illegal immigrate is seen and felt by liberals. Illegal immigrates are poor people simply struggling to make a living. Liberals worry about the struggles they go through to get here and try to make it easier for them, with such measures as setting up water stations, and opposing measures that would make the plight of the illegal immigrate more difficult such as building a wall. The problems caused by illegal immigration on the other hand are abstract, and difficult to personalize. While liberals can easily see themselves in the place of an illegal immigrate struggling to earn enough money to feed his or her family, they cannot see themselves as an infrastructure strained under the burden of illegal immigration. Even when the problems are understood, such as the impact on Emergency rooms, or schools, again they have compassion for the illegal immigrant who needs medical attention, or their children who need schooling.
In all of these cases, and many more, liberals see themselves as having compassion, but in all these cases their compassion is selective in that it is for those before them at the moment whose struggle they can personalize. Yet their compassion for these people normally comes at the expense of others who are often unseen. For abortion this would be the fetus killed in the procedure. While liberals can see themselves as, and thus have compassion for, minors who might have to face their parents and thus oppose parental notification laws, the minors who have had complications from abortions and who have died because their parents did not realize their daughter had just undergone a major medical procedure go unseen. While they have compassion for those here illegally, there is little compassion for the unseen who do follow our laws and are waiting patiently to come to the country legally, a wait that is increased as we to struggle assimilate all those who have come illegally.
Many other issues could be cited, such as liberal compassion for criminals, particularly murderers which comes at the expense of their past and in some cases future victims when liberals get their way and convictions are harder to obtain, sentences are reduced or criminals are released on furlough programs. Thus the question is not who does or does not have compassion, but rather for whom will you have compassion, and at whose expense?
A Review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion Part VII
Listen to the MP3
Oct 12, 2007, Wausau, Wi —This week I return to my extended review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” In the prior parts of this review, I have shown how Dawkins’ simplistic approach to the subject of religion regularly leads him into trouble. This is especially true when in chapter 3 he begins to deal with the arguments for God’s existence.
Not too surprisingly Dawkins starts with the classical proofs for God set forth by Thomas Aquinas. His view of Aquinas’ arguments is clearly set forth when he says, “The five ‘proofs’ asserted by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century don’t prove anything, and are easily – though I hesitate to say so, given his eminence – exposed as vacuous.” (pg 77) Reading his supposed refutation, it would seem that Dawkins should have hesitated a little longer.
To understand the problem with Dawkins refutation, it is first necessary to know a little about Aquinas’ arguments. It is impossible to fully cover details of these arguments here, but I hope to cover enough to show the serious flaw in Dawkins attempt at refutation. (For those seeking a more in depth discussion of some of these arguments and some of the objections raised by critics should see Chapter two of my book Christianity and Secularism).
Aquinas’ first three arguments all deal with the impossibility of an infinite regression of linked events. For example an apple comes from a tree, and the tree grew from a seed, and the seed came from an earlier apple, and so on and so on, further and further into the past. Such a regression can either go on forever, with no beginning, or it can have a beginning. Aquinas’ argument is based on the claim that it would be impossible for such regressions to go on forever, but there must have been a beginning to the sequence, a first cause, a first mover, etc.
Unfortunately for Dawkins, he seems too busy finding fault, to have actually have understood the argument. Dawkins’ first attempt at an argument is to claim that Aquinas’ arguments “make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress… there is absolutely no reason to endow [a terminator of the sequence] with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins, and reading innermost thoughts.” (pg 77)
Now it is true that these arguments do not give us a complete picture of God, but neither Aquinas, nor others defending these arguments claim that they did. After all the main purpose of these arguments is to primarily demonstrate one attribute of God: his existence. That these arguments do not give us a complete picture of God, is not an argument that they don’t succeed in the purpose for which they were intended. That a scalpel cannot perform all the tasks needed in surgical operation, is not an argument that a scalpel is useless at the task for which it was intended.
Yet while these and other arguments for God’s existence don’t need to go beyond demonstrating the existence of god to be effective, often they do. For example, the arguments based on the impossibility of infinite regression, not only demonstrates the existence of a first mover, first cause or creator, they also tell us more. For example, for something to be the true beginning of a sequence, it cannot itself be part of a sequence, and therefore must be eternal, which is also an attribute of God.
Since everything in the natural universe, is base on cause and effect, an eternal creator could not be part of the natural universe, and thus, must be beyond the natural, or in other words is supernatural in nature. Thus these arguments not only argue for existence, but the existence of an eternal supernatural creator. While not by any means a complete description of God, it is at least a good start.
At this point Dawkins’ takes a bizarre side trail to expose what he claims is incompatibility in the out understanding of God. According to Dawkins, since God is supposedly omniscient, he already knows “how h is going to intervene to change the course of history.” But since he already knows, he cannot change his mind, and since he cannot change his mind he cannot be omnipotent.
Like so many of the supposedly devastating critics of atheists, much of this argument turns on exactly how you define omnipotent. If it is defined as the ability to do anything, then Dawkins is correct, God is not omnipotent. He cannot, to use another supposedly devastating critique, create a rock that is too heavy for him to move. On the other hand, if omnipotent is defined as God being so powerful, that his desires are not limited by his ability; that his he can do whatever he desires to do, then there is no problem at all.
In fact, not only is there no problem, but Dawkins’ supposed refutation, simply demonstrates yet another characteristic of God: that he is unchanging. So rather than a refutation, now we have these arguments show the existence of an eternal unchanging supernatural creator.
More next time.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Childhood Gods
Listen to the MP3
Oct 5, 2007, Wausau, Wi — In many respects, there is nothing like the simple faith of a child, so uncomplicated, so pure. Like their faith, a child’s view of God is so simple and straightforward. Jesus, recognized this when he said “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (MT 19:14)
But like so many things that are beautiful about childhood, their desirability declines with age. While a young child trying to recite John 3:16 as “only forgotten Son” may bring a smile, the older the child is, the less humorous is such a mistake. The innocence that is so wonderful in a child, in an adult becomes an sad naiveté.
It is the same with our understanding of God. While we are the children of God, and should humble ourselves like children, as we grow, so should our understanding. The apostle Paul recognized this when he told the Corinthians “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” (1 Cor 13:11) He went on to say, “Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.” (1 Cor 14:20 )
While a child like view of God may be admirable in a child, or even in a new Christian, such a view in an older Christian is a indication of a lack of maturity and growth. More importantly, it is spiritually dangerous.
This is because children should lead a sheltered life where they do not have to confront things until they are ready. In fact I would argue that one of problems today is that children are exposed too far too much too early, and that we as a society would be much better if we let children be children.
But a child’s view of God can leave one ill equipped to face the real world. A childlike view of God say that if I just believe and am good then God will bless me and my life will go smoothly. There is some truth to this. If we have faith in God, and follow His commandments, God will bless us, the first and biggest blessing be the salvation.
But like so many truths we learned as children, as we grew up we found that things were not always as simple as we once believed. While God will bless our faithfulness, that does not mean we will receive the blessing immediately, or that bad things will never happen to us.
The belief that “If I believe and follow God commandments I will be blessed” often becomes, if things are not going well, there is no blessing, and if there is no blessing , then that is a sign that there is a problem, a sign of a lack of faith, or an indication of sin. Again like most false beliefs, there is a grain of truth in this. Sometimes God does withhold His blessing because of a lack of faith, or sin.
The problems is that this is not always the case. Just consider the persecution some Christians have suffered for their faith. Can we really say that if Peter or Paul had simply had more faith, or had sinned less, they would not have be crucified by the Romans? How about all those who suffered persecution down through the ages, or who suffer persecution today? Is their suffering an indication that God is dissatisfied with them? Hardly.
The simple fact is that bad things do happen to good people. Those who faithfully trust and follow God still come down with fatal illnesses, are involved in auto accidents, are robbed, or murdered, or suffer the loss of a loved one, or even a child.
When tragedy strikes, it is quite natural and even proper to ask “Why God?” But for some, tragedy sadly results in more than just the question of why; but it becomes a crisis of faith. This is because people find it impossible to reconcile their view of God, with their suffering. ‘Why would a loving God have allowed this to happen to me?”
Basically there are only three ways to answer that question. The first is that the tragedy happened because there is no God to prevent it. Not too surprisingly such an answer results in a loss of faith. The second is that a loving God wouldn’t have allowed it, and therefore God is not loving. This answer results in anger at God, which leaves one separated from God.
However, the third way does not question God, either His existence or His love, but ultimately questions our view of God. It is to struggle with God, to seek an answer, and ultimately results in deeper understanding of God and thus a deeper faith. A faith that is not based on childlike view of God, but on a deeper understanding of who God is, not a God whom we challenge in difficult times, but one whom we can seek comfort in.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Christian Popularity
Listen to the MP3
Sept 28, 2007, Wausau, Wi — As I detailed in my book Christianity and Secularism, throughout the much of the twentieth century, the rising dominance of secularism, combined with a church that was form the most part sleeping and unengaged with the culture, has had a devastating impact on the culture. As a result the popular culture is now not only dominated by secularism, but it is also markedly anti-Christian where negative stereotypes of Christianity are the norm, and outright attacks are common, not only against Christianity and Christians, but even against Jesus.
The damage this has done, was demonstrated once again in a recent study by the Barna Group, which showed “one of the most significant shifts [in American culture] is the declining reputation of Christianity, especially among young Americans.” One of the studies more disturbing findings is that ” only 3% of 16 – to 29-year-old non-Christians express favorable views of evangelicals.”
The study found that for many young people, even including Christians, Christianity was viewed as judgmental, hypocritical, old-fashioned, and too involved in politics. Not too surprisingly these are also the stereotypes that are so common in the popular culture. The study shows that, at least in the PR war, the secularist are winning.
Combating these perceptions will be difficult because these perceptions not only reflect the steady drumbeat of anti-Christian stereotypes, but also that the broader Christians worldview that once dominate in our society even among those who were not Christian, has been replace by a secular one.
Take the first two items on the list, that Christians are judgmental, and hypocritical. A major problem is that both of these terms have been radically redefined. Being judgmental, once referred to someone who was hypercritical, picking on every little flaw or mistake. As it is now applied to Christians, it refers those who make virtually any moral judgment at all. In the secular world view all morals are relative. Thus the common argument against Christians asking “who are you to judge?”
As for hypocritical, that once referred to someone who claimed that an action was wrong for others, but it was ok when they did it. The new secular understanding is that anyone who makes moral judgments, and yet does not live a perfect life themselves is a hypocrite.
This is one of the tricks of secularism, take terms that are commonly seen as negative, and redefine them so that they apply to things which secularist oppose. For both judgmental and hypocrite, the main goal is undermine (rather than defeat in open debate) Christian morality. As a result, under the new secular understandings of these terms, of course Christians are judgmental hypocrites, so how can we defend ourselves?
Secularist have been very successful with these redefinitions, but they have a two huge weaknesses. First they depend on the fact that the redefinition goes unnoticed, so that the negativity of the old definition is automatically transferred to the new meanings. Secondly these new definitions are not, and cannot be uniformly applied if the negativity is to remain. In fact, they are applied very selectively. Thus one ways to defend against such attacks, is to go straight to the core weakness of the secular redefinition.
For example, when the subject of being judgmental came up in my college classes on critical thinking, I would simply point out that the term had been redefined and it was important to know whether one was using the older meaning or the newer one. More importantly I would point out that under the new definition, being judgmental is not always a bad thing, and in fact that everyone is not only judgmental in some areas, but that they should be. One example I would give is, what if someone stole something you valued, such as your IPod. Would you say that to steal was simply their personal choice and who are you to judge; or would you be judgmental and say that they were wrong? Put in such a light suddenly the entire class would become “judgmental.”
Likewise for hypocrite, you can point out that there has been a change, and that either everyone is a hypocrite at which point the term become pretty much meaningless, or it is being wrongly and very selectively used. Which way will work the best will vary from individual to individual, and term to term, but the main goal here is to get onto a level playing field where everyone is speaking, and hearing the same thing.
Yet this problem is much deeper than just the redefinition of some terms. For many of those outside the Church, and even for many Christians, their view of Christianity is one shaped by the anti-Christian bigotry and falsehoods of skeptics. For example, I have found that even among Christians the belief in thing like Columbus having to fight the ignorance of Christians who believed in a flat earth, or that most wars are caused by religion are very common, even though both completely false. While well schooled in the negative aspects of Christian history, such as the inquisition, most have no idea of the important and positive contributions made by Christians such as the abolition of slavery, nor the intellectual foundations Christianity provided for things like science and human rights and democracy.
Such errors and falsehoods can be correct, but to do so we must know the truth, and as Peter said, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do so with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet 3:15).
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
