Posts Tagged ‘Richard Dawkins’

The New Atheism, Part One

Posted: March 15, 2009 in Atheism, Creation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

According to an article in Wired the New Atheism differs from the old atheism in mode and mood. New atheism is more aggressive in attacking Christianity. The leaders of New Atheism are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett and with evangelistic fervor, the new atheists not only reject theism but have gone on the assault. Fox News reported that The American Humanist Association ran a Washington, D. C. $40,000 holiday ad campaign on buses saying, “Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness’ sake” (Fox News.com Wednesday, November 12, 2008). In reference to his book The God Delusion, Dawkins said: “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down” (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, New York; Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008, pg. 28). Here is another sample of Dawkins’ venom:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, blookthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully” (p. 51).

With all its rhetoric, however, the New Atheism does not address the origin of life.

The origin of life is the issue we are wrestling with this in this post. Psalm 33:6 and 9 make a very clear statement about the origin of life for those of us who believe the Bible to be the Word of God: “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. For he spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.”

When I was pastoring Swan Creek Baptist Church, I borrowed a high school biology book from one of the teenagers in our church just to see what they were being taught in our local public school. Her biology textbook clearly pitted evolution against God’s Word:

For thousands of years, most people believed that each separate species of organism had been specially created. This view was set forth in the Bible’s Book of Genesis. From time to time philosophers proposed that the living world changed over centuries, but by the mid-seventeenth century most of the Western World took the word of Genesis literally and believed that animals and plants were created during the six days of the Creation. From about 1750 on, however, many people became convinced that species changed over the ages (Camp, Karen Arms. Biology-A Journey into Life. Saunders College Publishing, page 249).

The biology textbook went on to discuss Charles Darwin, father of the modern theory of evolution, who studied theology and as a young man believed in special creation.

Years of observation and reading, however, presented Darwin with evidence that seem incompatible with the notion of God as the Designer and Creator of living things, and a more logical explanation for the origin of species took shape. Darwin then was appointed naturalists on the Beagle, a British naval ship embarking on five year mapping and collecting expedition. In 1859, Darwin wrote The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. In it he marshaled an impressive array of evidence to support his theory. Not until the 20th Century, however, did most biologists fully accept the idea that
evolution was by means of natural selection (Camp, page 250, 251).

What did Charles Darwin believe was the origin of each species? Let’s hear him on the question.

As many more individuals of each species are born that can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently reoccurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in a manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principles of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Chicago: Thompson & Thomas, n.d., page 457).

More and more 21st century scientists and scholars are rejecting evolution. Paul Le Moine, a French scholar clearly represents this growing group: “Evolution is a fairy tale for adults” (Lutzer, Erwin W. Twelve Myths Americans Believe Chicago: Moody Press, 1993, page 31).

In Part two, I will discuss the tenets of evolution.

Review of Chapter Six “Science Has Disproved Christianity” in The Reason For God.

Posted: January 10, 2009 in Book Reviews, Creation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Tim Keller rejects the view of Richard Dawkins who “argues that you cannot be an intelligent scientific thinker and still hold religious beliefs.” But Keller believes the view of a six twenty-four-hour day creation is “fortunately…losing credibility with a growing number of scholars.” In both Dawkins’ and Keller’s view, science has undermined the interpretation of Scripture. Keller even says, “There is no necessary disjunction between science and devout faith.” Keller repudiates the literal interpretation of Genesis one and two in order to believe in theistic evolution: “it is false logic to argue that if one part of Scripture can’t be taken literally then none of it can be.” The theologians who hold to the different forms of theistic evolution contradict themselves in rejecting the creation of the universe in six twenty-four-hour days in order to accommodate the science of atheistic evolution.

The reigning Baptist theologian from the late 1800’s to Millard Erickson was Augustus Strong. He was a staunch conservative for the fundamentals of the faith. Strong, however, had his problems. He did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture nor in a six twenty-four day creation.

Millard Erickson, who replaced Strong as the reigning Baptist theologian, is a progressive creationist. Both Strong and Erickson believe God used the process of evolution to varying degrees. Strong believed that God used evolution to a greater degree than Erickson: “Evolution is only the method of God.” In Strong’s view, evolution brought brute beast to a certain development and then God miraculously intervened and created a soul in Adam, the first man. “We are compelled, then, to believe that God’s ‘breathing into man’s nostrils the breath of life’ (Gen. 2:7), though it was a mediate creation as presupposing existing material in the shape of animal forms, was yet an immediate creation in the sense that only a divine reinforcement of the process of life turned the animal into man” (Systematic Theology, pages 466-467).  So, according to Strong, evolution provided the body and God the soul.

  

As a progressive creationist, Erickson, believes that “between these special acts of creation, development took place through the channels of evolution. For example, it is possible that God created the first member of the horse family.” In regard to man, unlike theistic evolutionists, Erickson believes that “when the time came for man to be brought into existence, God made him directly and completely, God did not make him out of some lower creature. Rather, both the physical and spiritual nature of man were specially created by God.” 

  

Erickson argues against the theistic evolutionary view that the “dust” of Gen. 2:7 cannot be literal dust but must be symbolic for already existing creatures. Here is how Strong explains “dust” in Gen. 2:7: “The ‘dust’ before the breathing of the spirit into it, may have been animated dust” (page 465). Also from other statements of Strong the dust must have been evolved animals before God breathed into them and the animal became the first man. Erickson presents a good argument against this allegorical interpretation of Scripture. “The word dust occurs not only in Genesis 2:7 but also in 3:19, ‘You are dust, and to dust you shall return.’ If we understand it in 2:7 to represent an already existing creature, we are faced with two choices: either the meaning of the term must be different in 3:19 (and in 3:14 as well), or we have the rather ludicrous situation that upon death one reverts to an animal. It should be noted that in those severe degenerative cases where a person becomes virtually subhuman, the change occurs prior to actual death. It would be better, then, to let the reference to dust in 3:19 (the clearer) interpret that in 2:7 (the less clear)” (Christian Theology, Vol. 2 page 483).

        

And yet, Erickson does not hold to a literal interpretation of “dust.” “The Bible tells us that God made man from the ‘dust’ of the ground. This dust need not be actual physical soil. It may be some elementary pictorial representation which was intelligible to the first readers” (Christian Theology, Vol. 2 page 482). To use Erickson’s logic against theistic evolution’s rejection of the literal meaning of “dust” then at death we do not return to actual physical soil but to some pictorial representation of death. Why cannot we just read the Word of God in the normal sense of language and except what it says? It is this refusal to take God’s Word at face value that has led to theistic evolution, progressive creationism and the age/day theory.

        

Gleason Archer, who believes in theistic evolution, in his discussion of Genesis has a section entitled Genesis 1 and Modern Scientific Evidence. In this section, he writes “From a superficial reading of Genesis 1, the impression received is that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four-days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author (a questionable deduction, as will be presently shown), this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago” (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, page 181). Just because modern science contradicts the plain sense of Scripture, the literal interpretation of God’s Word is abandoned.       

                

Science at times has been wrong, as Wayne Grudem reminds us: “For example, when the Italian astronomer Galileo (1564-1642) began to teach that the earth was not the center of the universe but that the earth and other planets revolved around the sun (following the theories of the Polish astronomer Copernicus (1472-1543), he was criticized, and eventually his writings were condemned by the Roman Catholic Church….Galileo was forced to recant his teachings and had to live under house arrest for the last few years of his life” (Systematic Theology, page 273).

        

Ken Ham, who is with Answers in Genesis, in a taped lecture, tells about two Sunday school girls who were discussing the six days of creation and one asked the other, “Why did God take so long?” How would you answer that Sunday schooler? Six days were a long time for our all powerful God of the universe to create everything. Could not God have created the universe in six seconds, or six minutes, or in six hours? Why did God take six days? The answer is in Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:15-18. These two passages argue for six literal 24 hours days of creation and not ages. Just as God took six literal solar days to create the universe and then rested on the seventh, he has commanded us to labor six days and rest one. If God interprets Genesis one and two literally, why cannot we?

First Book Review of “The Reason for God”

Posted: December 22, 2008 in Apologetics, Book Reviews
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1

Have you ever struggled with doubt? I mean doubt in God. His goodness, fairness, or love because of the pain you were suffering or the disappointment you were experiencing. James Dobson talks about the awesome “Why?” The first time in your life you seriously questioned God. I was a high school senior taking biology with my educated teacher who taught atheistic evolution, when I felt the sting of the first “Why?” In contrast, my pastor, though godly, was illiterate and a creationist. The biology teacher successfully planted doubts in my mind to the truths I had loosely held most of my life. I will never forget the strange, new feeling of cynicism. I doubted the divine person I, at least, had held in high esteem. The darkness in my soul was like a lost confidence in a mentor because of some scandal or betrayal by a best friend.

In the coming weeks I will review, chapter by chapter, Tim Keller’s book on apologetics subtitled, Belief in an Age of Skepticism. Keller introduces his book with this quote from Darth Vader setting the tone: “I find your lack of faith—disturbing.” In the introduction, Keller shares his own battle with tough questions about Christianity: “What about other religions? What about evil and suffering? How could a loving God judge and punish? Why believe anything at all?” As he studied these issues, Christianity won out.

Keller documents: “the population in America is paradoxically growing both more religious and less religious at once.” He quotes a George Barna report confirming “One in Three Adults Is Unchurched.”  The anti-religion books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens are increasing in sales.  At same time, members are leaving, dead old-line denominations and going to orthodox churches that demand conversion to Christ. For example, Keller launched his church in New York City, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, in the late 1980s and by 2007 his weekly attendance was over 5,ooo.

Each of the growing groups, skeptics and conservative believers, should look at their doubts. Each group has its doubts and belief systems and needs to deal with the hard questions the other side is proposing. Believers should be able to answer the skeptic’s arguments against Christianity lest they fall prey. I was unequipped to answer the atheistic evolutionary tenets of my biology teacher and I was rocked.

The skeptic should go and do likewise. The cynic who says “There can’t be just one true religion” cannot prove that truth claim empirically and therefore has faith in an indefeasible belief. Keller says to the skeptic that it would “be inconsistent to require more justification for Christian belief than you do for your own.”

Keller declares his thesis: “If you come to recognize the beliefs on which your doubts about Christianity are based, and if you seek as much proof for those beliefs as you seek from Christians for theirs—you will discover that your doubts are not as solid as they first appear.”

In the first half of The Reason for God, Keller confronts seven objections skeptics level against Christianity and the alternative beliefs those objections rest on. On Keller’s website, “The Movement”, which you can access from my blogroll, he has a post entitled Deconstructing Defeater Beliefs: Leading the Secular to Christ. In this post Keller calls the seven objections Defeater beliefs which he describes as “a set of ‘common-sense’ consensus beliefs that automatically make Christianity seem implausible to people. These are what philosophers call ‘defeater beliefs’.  A defeater belief is Belief-A that, if true, means Belief-B can’t be true.” Next week we will review chapter one and the Defeater belief: “There Can’t Be Just One True Religion.”

In the second half of the book, he examines the reasons underlying Christian beliefs. Keller ends his introduction with the example of Thomas. When Jesus confronted “doubting Thomas” he challenged him “to acquiesce in doubt (‘believe’) and yet responded to his request for more evidence.” Jesus gave the skeptic the evidence of His deity in his hands and side. This is Keller’s approach, to give more evidence to the skeptic to win them. Publishers Weekly agrees when it writes that Keller’s book was “written for skeptics and the believers who love them.”

Sometimes I like to read several books at the same time, instead of sitting down and reading right through one book. If that is your modus operandi, then join me in reading through The Reason for God and add your weekly comments.

Comments, anyone?