Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion (currently on the best sellers list), has been added to the long list of books that tout atheism as the only “smart” choice. However, Dawkins has moved from a mere voice in the choir of atheism to a lead singer with a particular song. As of late, Dawkins has made media appearances on everything from the mainstream media to Comedy Central. Although it is unusual for an atheist to get such broad attention, it is Dawkins strategy that is creating ripples in the media markets. Dawkins is not so much attempting to convince God-believers that they should no longer believe in God. To the contrary, Dawkins is attempting a very different cultural and political move. He wants to make respect for belief in God socially unacceptable.
Gary Wolf, writer for WIRED magazine, wrote the cover story: The New Atheism, for its November 2006 issue. Wolf explains that this newly assertive form of atheism declares a very simple message: “No heaven. No hell. Just science.” Wolf goes on to write, “Dawkins is perfectly aware that atheism is an ancient doctrine and that little of what he has to say is likely to change the terms of this stereotyped debate but he continues to go at it. His true interlocutors are not the Christians he confronts directly but the wavering nonbelievers or quasi believers among his listeners–people like me, potential New Atheists who might be inspired by his example.”
As Dawkins explains himself,
“I’m quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism.” The Oxford professor (a.k.a. the Jerusalem of Atheism) also understands that atheism is a political issue as well as a theological question. “The number of nonreligious people in the US is something nearer to 30 million than 20 million. That’s more than all the Jews in the world put together. I think we’re in the same position the gay movement was in a few decades ago. There was a need for people to come out. The more people who came out, the more people who had the courage to come out. I think that’s the case with atheists. They’re more numerous than anybody realizes.”
Dawkins is also clear in his breathtaking condescension regarding what he thinks of people who have taken the eraser to God vs. those who cling to the fictional notion of God:
“Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists . . . . Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn’t add up. Either they’re stupid, or they’re lying. And have they got a motive for lying? Of course they’ve got a motive! Everyone knows that an atheist can’t get elected.”
Question:
In light of this, how would you go about addressing Mr. Dawkins?
I think I would point him to 1Co 1:18-31, show him how his view point and approach were biblical. Then I would thank him for proving, yet again, the Bible is right.
I would ask him what exactly he means by the ‘virtues of atheism.’ What exactly makes some things virtuous and other things not in a universe where there is no authority higher than the individual?
I wouldn’t cite Scripture. The problem with going to the Bible with a staunch atheist like Dawkins is that he doesn’t recognize the Author.
You’ve got to show him that his logic is inconsistent, or at least, that he can’t live with the consequences of his own beliefs.
If you’re interested, the Wired article that features Dr. Dawkins’ remarks can be found here: The Crusade Against Religion. This got me going:
For one thing, he errs when he equates all religious faith with that of the Islamists because Islamists and Christians (for example) believe different things. (See Faulty Generalization.)
This is also a great illustration of what Francis Schaeffer called the “upper-story leap.” Dr. Dawkins is missing (or ignoring) the fact that religious faith is not just a bunch of personal values that have nothing to do with reality. Religious faith still comes down to concrete ideas that are either true or false. Dr. Dawkins would like to dismiss all religious faith as false because he believes there’s no such thing as a supernatural reality…
…but this is begging the question. It’s as if he’s asking the question, “Is religion true, or is it false,” and goes on to make the assumption that religion is false. Guess what? He concludes that religion is false.
It does not seem like a lot can be said to this man. He is obviously on a crusade to wipe out all religion for “the good of mankind”. Debating and quoting verses will probably not help much. Only God can make a change here. Just pray for God to change this man’s heart.
Until someone experiences a relationship with Christ outside of “religion” then the status quo remains.
For his sake he had better tred lightly on the Muslims of they will put a price on his head as they have with others like Salman Rushdie with his book “Satanic Verses”. Even this kind of potential threat strengthens his points of religion being the evil in the world.
Sadly this is a strong trend and I agree with thisDilbert Blog Entry. It seems as though atheists have really come out of the closet since 9/11 and is like the new gay rights movement.
No wonder this trend grows with war in Iraq being such a debacle and the results of all of the Islamic sects fighting and killing each other, and the extremists trying to kill everyone that does not believe. Then on top of that President Bush claiming to be a Christian, the Catholic scandals with altar boys, and Muslims fighting Jews. It does seem like all the war in the world is based on some kind of religious conflict.
So no religion then no more conflicts right? I do see where this guy’s misguided approach hails from, but his solution sounds like a John Lennon song…Imagine, and eventually could end up with another Hitler type to rise up and gain power to throw all “religious people” to the lions…..or off with our heads.
Sounds kind of like an “Anti-Christ” doesn’t it? This is very interesting and troubling at the same time.
Mr. Dawkins is as arrogant as he is ambitious to push for the stigma of “ignorant” to be placed on anyone who would adhere to “religion.” In the article cited by Hugh, it is reported:
Dawkins rejected all these claims, but the last one — that science could never disprove God — provoked him to sarcasm.
Science, after all, is an empirical endeavor that traffics in probabilities. The probability of God, Dawkins says, while not zero, is vanishingly small. He is confident that no Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Why should the notion of some deity that we inherited from the Bronze Age get more respectful treatment?
What is the posture we should take with such an outlook? While I would encourage us to engage people such as Mr. Dawkins, I would also encourage you to remember the way King David viwed the likes of Mr. Dawkins:
“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.'” (Ps. 14:1)
We are to be ready to give an answer (I Peter 3:15) to those who inquire as to our reason for hope. However, there are some people who are fools. We should pray for these people and engage them in discussion, but always with the realization that the best of answers is no answer at all for a fool.
I believe this is a critical backdrop from which we must begin our inquiry/discussion. With this understanding firmly entrenched in our approach, what are some other ways that we can challenge Mr. Dawkins?
I think if we do choose to answer him, we should, as much as is possible, force him to operate within the world-view he holds, not allowing him to use concepts borrowed from a Christian world-view. For example, any time he uses terms like ‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘true’, ‘false’ etc. we should call him on it and insist that he provide the basis for his assesment. Why is this particular think you cite as ‘true’ really true? How do you know that?, etc.
Attempting to discuss moral absolutes (or any absolutes for that matter) with no basis or standard for them is one of the things that marks the atheist as a fool in my humble opinion. 🙂
Larry, excellent point: I believe it can very useful to ask a person who eliminates the easiest basis for absolutes (God) and how he or she will explain the foundation for his or her set of absolutes within a no-God system. Can anyone cite a good example along this line that would provide a clear breakdown within the atheistic worldview?
Here’s a shot from your medium-intellect, simple vocabulary, layman blogger…. 😉
This would be my basic question or idea…..
Why is anything that we consider “wrong” wrong? Who sets the standard and what is the basis for basic right and wrong then? Just because we feel it’s right or wrong is it really so?
Then anything goes. Anarchy Rules.
Atheist perspective…a joyful pronouncement?
“Eat Drink and be merry for tomorrow we die”
or
The same basic idea from a Christian perspective….the result if we are wrong?
I Cor 15:14 “and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.”
I Corinthians 15:32 “If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”
C.A.: right on chief.
Here’s a great tactic that builds on that. Greg Koukl asks the question: throughout history, what worldview is responsible for more murder and bloodshed than any other?
The conventional wisdom is Christianity or perhaps Islam (think the Crusades and various Jihads). Both are wrong. The answer is atheism. Hitler was an atheist. Stalin was an atheist. Chairman Mao was an atheist. History is replete with examples of murderous atheists.
… and who can blame them? They were only acting in a manner consistent with their godless, survival-of-the-fittest worldview. If atheism is true, it means you can’t say one word against Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.
By the way, Stand to Reason has a ton of stuff on atheism. Check it out.
Atheists will also tend to attack the people that believe the bible by pointing out all of the supposed evils that in their minds seemingly condone slavery and murder in the name of God. This warped view totally ignores all of the wonderful commands and promises that God makes to us throughout the Bible. Even the most staunch atheist could not disagree with many of these.
Take a look at this Good Stuff from the Bible.