The God Delusion - The God Hypothesis Part 2


I started looking at Chapter 2 of The God Delusion titled “The God Hypothesis” here. There I dealt with his sections on monotheism and polytheism specifically.
In this second look at the chapter I will consider Dawkins' thoughts on whether we can resolve “The God Hypothesis”. Can we prove or disproved whether "God" exists, or will we be left wondering?

Dawkins said in his preface, specifically to agnostics, "I hope that Chapter 2 will change your mind, by persuading you that 'the God Hypothesis' is a scientific hypothesis about the universe, which should be analysed as sceptically as any other".

He states “The God Hypothesis” as that:

"there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."

His alternative view that he advocates in this book is that:

"any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution".

My initial feelings are that he won't really be able to prove or demonstrate this, and that he may be attempting to prove more than he should or could. His argument will revolve mainly around evolution, but evolution doesn't say that God couldn't create a world or universe in the first place. And it doesn't prove he is the not the cause of the order we perceive in nature - what we call the laws of nature, or the law of physics. Also on the origins of intelligence: he would at least be arguing something like: "intelligence" some how emerges from complexity. It is also intriguing by what he might mean by "creative" intelligence. Creative to me hints at a creator and some sort of ingenuity.
The other issue is the "only". If he can demonstrate that a "creative intelligence" can come from a gradual process, he hasn't proved the "only", i.e. that this is the only reason or cause. Also he hasn't proved that a "creative intelligence" must be caused.

The God Delusion - The God Hypothesis Part 1

I looked at the previous chapter of The God Delusion here.

The next chapter of “The God Delusion,” which is "The God Hypothesis," seems to be Dawkins' brief survey of the different ideas about "God". I say "seems" as I don't know if I can encapsulate it in one succinct idea or flow of thought. Some of his ideas which are more random I will probably leave out or wait for a later post. I will deal with this chapter over two posts, as there is a reasonable division I can make in the ideas presented.
Overall I think he is really looking at the "western" ideas for "God", and maybe we could say the western ideas about the “Christian” God. He also says the idea of God is a "scientific hypothesis", but I'll bring this up in the next post where I'll primarily deal with his thoughts on agnosticism, since that's his main audience for this “idea”.

So in this post we will look at what he says on theism, since this where he goes first. He splits Theism into Polytheism and Monotheism.

The God Delusion - A deeply religious non-believer

Dawkins first chapter proper of "The God Delusion" takes a look at people he says are "deeply religious". It seems he is calling himself a "deeply religious non-believer". ( I looked at the Preface here)

He groups the "deeply religious" into two categories - those who "deserve respect" and those who don't.

He starts off with two stories. One of a boy who looks up at the sky and the wonders of the universe and has a "religious experience" that lead him to "God" and the Anglican priesthood.

He then considers another boy, who "could have been me", looking up at the stars being dazzled by the constellations, and having another experience which might have lead to another conclusion: that "all was produced by laws acting around us".

He states of the experience, "A quasi-mystical response to nature and the universe is common among scientists and rationalists."

Obviously he can't (or doesn't think it is useful to) deny this experience which many take to point to God. But says, "It has no connection with the supernatural". He doesn't mount an argument here, except seeming to suggest we should realise it is just the "laws acting around us".

Maybe he doesn't realise, but to me this raises a number of the questions: "Why should there be laws and not chaos," and "Where do these laws come from?"  And since they do exist, do they somehow exist in their own right, or are simple the order with which God created and sustains the universe.

The God Delusion - Preface, Part2

I started talking about the preface of The God Delusion here, so lets know get down into it.

I won't go into too much detail about the preface of "The God Delusion", especially as Dawkins is mostly just introducing his ideas, and giving an overview of the chapters to follow, but it is worthwhile picking up on a few things, and also listing down some of my thoughts and expectations about what is to follow.

Also he doesn't seem to lay down his main thesis till the start of the second chapter, so I'll wait till then to discuss it.

And also I probably won't list all that is in his book, but concentrate mainly on the content I am most interested in discussing, or is most significant. I could comment on all 400 pages or so, but we would be here till Christmas (or longer, given the speed of my writing).

In the preface, after his opening request to consider changing what you believe, he makes the comment that Religion is not the "root" of all evil for "No one thing is the root of all evil". He does want to be fair it seems, and not overstate his case by saying "Religion is the root". But can he and will he demonstrate or prove there is no root to evil. It seems like it is just given. It prompts the question: where does evil come from? From us? Where, then?

The God Delusion - Preface

I mentioned here that I have just started reading The God Delusion

Before I go into detail about the preface, I just want to pick up on his first few paragraphs and also relate it to some of my early experiences.

He starts the book with a story about how a child hated her school when growing up, and only made it known as an adult. Her mother, aghast, said, "Why didn't you tell us". The now adult child said, "I didn't know I could". She didn't know she could complain or do anything about it, or even change schools (as an illustration of changing religions/beliefs).

Dawkins admits that that was him. He didn't know either that he could change his mind, change his "religion".

I sympathise with him. Not so much from my own experience, but what could have happened. If I had been in a different situation, in a different country, culture, with an upbringing and religion that I wanted to reject - then yes.

But I don't think I was in the same sort of situation. I think I had an awareness that you could change. I remember that I was aware at some stage before aged ten that people had different beliefs, not all were Christians, and that you could be one or not. I was also aware at least in late primary school that all of my school friends were not Christians, or might have only been nominal Christians. I'm not sure the exact categories I had at that age, but my friends were definitely different from me and my family.
At age 10 I saw the need to be serious about Jesus, that there was a need to me to make a change of sorts. Being a follower of Jesus wasn't a matter of going to church, doing good etc, but was a personal commitment, to turn away from sin, and to trust in him to save me by his death on the cross. I was aware that this life was not all there was, and that eternity was spent either in heaven or hell. And this was something I could talk to my parents about.
Well, I became a Christian in my mind at that point. Possibly in Dawkins terms, I have already been indoctrinated, but I think we will come to this later - there seems to be a chapter on it.

Getting back to Dawkins: his point, after saying he didn't know he could change, is that this could be you. You didn't know you could change, or don't know there are very good reasons to doubt Christianity (in his thinking), or religion in general. Maybe I haven't considered enough the opposite view, that Christianity is wrong, or bad, or both. Maybe I have a lot to learn, that there is a whole other way of thinking.
Or on the other-hand, maybe Dawkins hasn't really understood Christianity at all, and he has only rejected his misconception of it, and that he has merely multiplied clever arguments in his favour.
We shall see.

The next post looking at the preface is here.

The God Delusion

I've recently obtained a copy of "The God Delusion", by Richard Dawkins for free.

A work colleague had apparently run out of space at home and had a few books to off load. Good thing I trotted off quickly to his cubical, as two of the books were already gone (to people in his cubicle), and a moment after I had arrived and confirmed by interest, another person came over to claim it too.

My friend joked with me a bit about whether it was worth giving it to me or not, knowing my faith. I later joked that I wouldn't let anyone else have it, as it was too dangerous a book. Or maybe I should just stick a big warning sign on it, before I let others read it - but hey, I think I'm getting ahead of myself, I haven't read it yet, so maybe I should wait to the end to decide what to do, whether to burn it or not ( ;P). I shouldn't believe all the hype, innuendo and criticism etc about the book, until I have check it out in full for myself. This indeed might contain previously untold revelations, it might be the book to redeem me from my religion, to rescue me from the dogma I have obviously been brainwashed into ... sorry getting ahead of myself again.

My friend and I thought it would be a good idea to discuss the book as I read through it. I pointed out that a common acquaintance, Robert Martin, who runs City Bible Forum in Melbourne, had recently started blogging his way through a book "The Moral Landscape," by Sam Harris, another "New Atheist", taking up the challenge Sam more recently gave.
After showing the blog to my friend, I said I wouldn't be able to do that, it would be too much, and I don't usually have the time (and I might add, English, especially expression is not my forte. I'm more of a numbers and logic person myself). 

Well here I am, mainly because I wanted to do a reasonable job at interacting with the ideas, and that I have already written about ten pages (small pages not A4) in a note book from reading the preface and half of the first chapter. I'm sure many others have already done this, and a better job e.g. here, but here goes.

My next post on the topic is here where I start to have a look at the book.

Operation World

Recently (this or last month) the latest version of Operation World has been published.
Operation World has been a great tool for praying for the nations, and encouraging a missionary heart.

On each Nation it contains, containing history, political info, analysis of religions, and denominations, people groups, answered prayers and prayer points and more.

With the events of 9-11 shortly after the last major revision, it isn't hard to see why this latest addition is needed more than every to keep up with the developments in the World.

Please join me in praying for the nations, that they may see his glory.

" ... And they shall declare my glory among the nation" Isaiah 66:19

 "I will give thanks to you, O LORD, among the peoples; I will sing praises to you among the nations." Psalm 108:3 

"Sing praises to the LORD, for he has done gloriously; let this be made known in all the earth." Isaiah 12:5

http://www.booko.com.au/books/isbn/9781850788621

http://www.operationworld.org

The Pilgrim's Progress

I have been reading an abridged simplified version of the Pilgrim's Progress to the kids.
It reminded me of this quote from it, which my Grandparents also have in a picture frame in there house:

"and all their talk at the table was about the Lord of the hill; as, namely, about what he had done, and wherefore he did what he did, and why he had builded that house; and by what they said, I perceived that he had been a great warrior, and had fought with and slain him that had the power of death, but not without great danger to himself, which made me love him the more" (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bunyan/pilgrim.html)

I hope you all know the longing to which Bunyan alludes.

Also found a useful article entitled: Why Evangelicals Don't Read Pilgrim's Progress (And Why They Should)

In Hebrews 11, the author conducts his great survey of pilgrims. He describes these Old Testament saints as strangers and pilgrims on earth, with no abiding city, relying on faith in the promises of God, knowing that their inheritance was something better than this present world.

Scandalous: The Cross and Resurrection (Part 1)

I recently started reading this new book by Don Carson "Scandalous". Having owned and read many Carson books I didn't expect to be disappoint. Well so far it looks very good, and that's from the 1st Chapter, when I was looking forward to the 2nd and 3rd.

The first Chapter on Matthew 27:27-51a which is titled "the ironies of the cross" picks on four ironies, or even double ironies, from the Crucifixion of Jesus. Carson here offers four points of irony, where Jesus is mocked by various people before and during his crucifixion.

1. The man who is mocked as king - is king.
2. The man who is utterly powerless - is powerful.
3. The man who can't save himself - saves others.
4. The man who cries out in despair - trusts God.

In exactly what he is mocked, he is actually in truth doing what they say - yet they don't realise it. They mean the opposite, but unwittingly tell us the truth.
Take for example the soldiers who mocked Jesus as King and put a crown of thorns on this head. They didn't realise that in his death he was actually showing he is the King.
Also the case of "He saved others, but can't save himself. ... Let him come down now from the cross"  - yet it is by not saving himself that he saves others.

I remember preparing some thoughts for a Bible Study on the similar passage in Mark's Gospel, but I hadn't quick come to terms with what it was teaching, and how it was - think partly working out how to understand the point of some Narratives besides just their description of what happened.
Carson does well with this passage in making it clear.

The Roots of Endurance

The Roots of Endurance: Invincible Perseverance in the Lives of John Newton, Charles Simeon, and William Wilberforce.
By John Piper.

Review (Part 1 of N, where N is approximately the equal to the number of chapters).

I thought for this book I might blog as I read through it, as I find helpful and interesting ideas.

The setting for Piper's book:

Our time is marked by emotional fragility. We shatter easily when misfortune comes our way. In the face of sustained contention, we have little ability to withstand the onslaught, let alone surmount it with joy.

So Piper goes in search of the "root" of endurance. What is it that gives Christians endurance in the life of Godliness, and endurance in the face of opposition:

In his search Piper finds Newton, Simeon and Wilberforce as:

Men who rose to the challenges before them. Men who endured trial after trial, year after year. Men who weathered life-long opposition with joy in Christ.

Newton was a slave trader who found "Amazing grace", and later became a pastor and authored that well-known hymn.
Simeon was a pastor who endured much opposition. For his first 12 years out of 54 at the same place, his "pewholding" parishioners boycotted his services.
Wilberforce is well known for his battle to first abolish the slave trade, and then slavery itself from Britain and its colonies - but what gave him the power to endure what became a very long battle?

In his introductory chapter, what I find very interesting, and indeed Piper was surprised by this - justification by faith is the root of endurance for these three warriors of the faith, especially for Wilberforce:

The deepest root of endurance for Wilberforce - and Newton and Simeon shared this view entirely - was the precious and powerful experience of the justification of the ungodly by faith alone (Romans 4:5) - leading necessarily to a life of glorious freedom in the never-ending battle against sin and injustice.

Piper (and I) knew somewhat of Newton's finding of "Amazing grace", but new little of the cause of Wilberforce's and Simeon's endurance.

I did not realize that both of these men would make the cross of Christ so vital to the root of their endurance, and that Wilberforce in particular would focus on the very nature of justification as the linchpin of endurance in righteous living.

Book Review: The Reason for God

The Reason for God: Belief in an age of scepticism.
by Timothy Keller

You've got to love the quote on the introduction: '"I find your lack of faith - disturbing", Darth Vader'. It started well, and didn't disappoint, what's more, it far exceeded my expectations, even those given by another positive review.

His book is aimed at the "postmodern" sceptic, not so much the "modern" sceptic of a generation or two ago, though his answers will generally be good for the "modern" sceptic as well. He does also consider the "New Atheism" of Dawkins, Hitchens etc. In his experience of outreach he probably encounters a wide range of sceptics.

I read my father’s copy, and was so impressed I bought my own copy to lend to others.

I think he is gentle and engaging. He also gives some of his own history and testimony which helps to see how he was struggled with different issues in coming to firm faith in Christ and answering his doubts. This, along with his own humility and self-examination, have helped him in to present in this book sincere and clear yet powerful arguments that can engage both the sceptic and seeker. He is well equipped for such a book, from his own life experiences, his church planting of an inner-city church New York City, which has grown to 5000 members and planted many subsequent churches - he has the heart of a pastor, the passion of an evangelist, as well as being Biblically faithful and well read. Many of his arguments in the book have come from his own experience at reaching out to post modern New Yorkers and so he knows how to engage and address the intellectual and spiritual questions they ask. Showing as the scope of his reading, he refers to Kiekegard, C S Lewis, N T Wright, A Plantinga, Bonhoeffer, Dorothy Sayers, just to name a few, as well as secular thinkers and philosophers.

The book is divided into two halves. The first dealing with common questions raised against Christianity over seven Chapters. e.g. "There Can't Be just One True Religion", "How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?". On all these he argues powerfully and convincingly, yet drawing the readers in, for his goal is not to knock down their arguments but to draw them into examining their own unstated beliefs for themselves, and at least becoming a better thought-out atheist for example.
Primarily in this section, though throughout the book, he is very clear yet gentle in bring the sceptic when criticising the "unproven" faith to see they also have their own unproven faith. And further that those who reject absolute truth, or the idea there is only truth or true religion, are really just ascribing belief in another "preferred" absolute truth.

He then has a powerful "intermission" chapter where he invites the reader to seriously consider "Christianity", not in the sense as consider a "proof" for it - he argues against "strong rationalism" where one expects to have some “absolute proof” for anything, but argues for "critical rationality" where essentially we can test and justify our belief and argues with C S Lewis, that Hamlet to find out about the author, needs the author Shakespeare to write himself into the story. In fact that's how we see Jesus.
The second section he introduces both reasons for belief and introduces important aspects of the gospel and why they make sense themselves and of reality. He deals with topics such as sin, grace, the cross, resurrection.
I was a little confused with his chapter title "The knowledge of God". I think I was thinking in terms of "Special Revelation" though he is pointing to what might be term "General Revelation" in terms of our knowledge of right and wrong ("morality") that God gives everyone, though he argues it convincingly for a postmodern audience.
He does defend sacrificial substitutionary atonement, but not quite propitiation. He does defend Hell, and doesn't seem to have a problem with it being eternal, unlike some other Evangelicals. He does take a lot from C S Lewis. He does give the hint he is defending propitiation, which I will treat as that God’s wrath, his personal anger against us for our rebellion and sin, is appeased by Jesus death, who as our substitution faces it instead and thus God is satisfied. He does quote antagonists who object to the idea "of a wrathful God who needs pacifying", and see that the cross is "divine child abuse". I think he lays the foundation in this chapter and others for propitiation but might not be explicit in his defence as I was expecting as a reader from his intro to the chapter. I might be wrong on this but that's what I got from it. Maybe he is leaving that detail until the readers have laid the ground work, in developing a biblical world view. These are small issues, and I expect he is being more apologetic than just purely preaching the gospel. He does help even those readers who do understand propitiation to think more about the cost.

My favourite chapter of the book is the last one in this section "The dance of God" where he uses the ideas of Jonathan Edwards, C S Lewis and others. He builds on the work of previous chapters for a God of love and shows why the Trinity is the reason there can be both a loving and personal God. The main reason that non-trinity God can't be personal or loving, is because they never could love or relate until creation happened, and therefore it wouldn't be in their nature. On the other hand the Trinity shows that a "divine dance" between the members of the trinity has been going on for all eternity which is in its nature personal and is filled with love. What's more, God has created us to draw us into this dance which will continue for all eternity. For this reason we were redeemed.

He ends with a "Where to ..." chapter which among other things helps the reading to see what might be stopping them moving forward in faith or further enquiry. But he ends with the conclusion that we don't find God but it is he who finds us, this being out of his grace.

I don't think my review can quite do the book justice. Some of his arguments I have quoted or summarised are stronger still in the book. This is a very good book.
I haven't given this to any non-Christians yet, but will be praying for opportunities. As the book covers indicate, I'm not the only one with this goal.