The Atheist Delusion
A response to Richard Dawkins: "The God Delusion"

A friend has recently made me aware of a new book being advertised by its author, atheist Richard Dawkins. In this book, Dawkins makes a "generally convincing, highly entertaining" (BBC) argument for the position that God does not exist, and therefore, all who believe that He does are deluded. The book is called "The God Delusion" for this reason. Of course, he is getting a lot of press because 90% of the word believe in the existence some sort of God or gods, and he sits through interviews and question-and-answer sessions defiantly while plenty of people challenge him.

I didn't really have an hour and a half to watch parts 1 and 2 of a lecture he gave at a university, but I watched his BBC interview. The first impression I got is that he believes his position at least as strongly as I believe mine. He is perhaps one the foremost of a new trend of "atheistic evangelists", who are actively perpetrating their (minority) belief of the non-existence of God. Might I comment that that makes them as closed-minded as anyone who believes anything strongly. I have my reasons, intellectually, personally, socially, emotionally, and spiritually, for believing in God the way that I do. Dawkins also has his reasons, in those same ways, for not believing in God as passionately as he does. He claims to "care deeply about what is true", and so do I.

The most important point I would like to make is that neither his position nor a religious faith are actually science. Both boil down to a matter of faith, and a matter of pre-assumptions. His pre-assumption, whether you agree with it or not, is that "nothing is TRUE that cannot be (a) felt by the senses, or (b) proved using the scientific method." A deist comes to the table with this point of view: "what exists is TRUE regardless whether humans can (a) understand it, (b) prove it, or (c) simply believe it." These very different opinions and pre-assumptions will lead the truth-seeker to an end, albeit not by the scientific method. Rather, he or she will make judgments based upon these pre-assumptions, such as Dawkins does about people of faith: "perhaps they compartmentalize their brain, so that they can believe these things [which I find impossible to reconcile in my own mind]". It is simply the judgment of one belief by another. While he considers it "very unlikely" that God exists, leaving the matter a tiny bit open in case God can suddenly be proven by Dawkins' parameters, there are plenty of other scientists who find God's existence to be as likely as he finds it unlikely. He is of the type of scientists that approach the issue by exalting the scientific method (which has a routinely changing definition, though the idea itself has been around since Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, who were naturalists, secularists, and polytheists) as the absolute "best way to deduce truth." These scientists arrive at an end when they can no longer prove something by this method. However, their logic, in the end, is flawed.

The logic of the scientific method is this: "If A, which is observable, is observed, then B." If it is out of the realm of empirical observation, it is out of the realm of the scientific method. However, scientists who try to prove Gods existence by observing Him arrive at this conundrum: "If A [God, which is supposedly observable], is observed, then B [God exists]. However, -A [God is not observed]." They apply faulty logic to say that because God is not observed (since he is not observable by the scientific method), God does not exist. This does not follow. "If A, then B" does not imply that "if NOT A, then NOT B." The correct answer for this conundrum should be: "-A, therefore, no conclusions can be made (using the scientific method)." If God is not observable by the 5 senses, and cannot be reproduced, empirically studied, nor hypotheses about him falsified, it does not follow that God is an absurd idea. It only follows that God is not within the realm of the scientific method.

The scientific method is a good method for observing things that exist within our natural environment. However, it cannot account for everything that we know to exist. For example, prove to me the existence of the emotion "love". I doubt very much that anyone would deny the existence of love, but it is far beyond the realm of the scientific method. No one can prove to you that you're in love or not in love, you just are or you aren't. You may not even know why or why not yourself. Its just something that occurs. As a married man, I know both the emotion of love, and the love that comes by choice and faith. The emotion is a product of the choice (as I choose to love my wife, I feel more love for her), but neither can be proven by the scientific method. You can observe the actions and words that result from my love for my wife, but you cannot observe actual love. The chemicals in my brain do not cause my love, nor do they represent love incarnate. They are merely a physical product of the love that exists outside of the physiological realm. I am not inventing these ideas in order to allow romance (as the physiological study of love as a chemical reaction is very likely not romantic), this is truly how I see the world. Prove to me that I love my wife, using the scientific method. Falsify a hypothesis for me. You may say, "if you love your wife (A), you will do B", and "if you do not love your wife (-A), you will not do B (-B)." I'm guessing, in my 8 months of marriage, that there are plenty of times that I have not done B (whether it's ask about her day or take out the trash). If you observed this, all you would have is (-B). From this, you may WANT to assume (-A), but that is neither logical nor true. The logic is flawed, and though the possibility is there, in that moment, that I do not love my wife, the fact of the matter is, I do. So neither logic, the scientific method, nor natural rules are capable of defining the love I have for my wife. In the same way, no one can disprove the existence of God. No one can prove it (using science), either. So what? Can you prove you have a brain? Of course not. Even the instruments that measure brain waves and activities simply give us a representation of what is probably there. We are not observing it with our 5 senses. Everyone plays the odds that they have a brain, just as MOST people in the world play the odds that there is probably a creator. The ones that don't play those odds hope their long shot will pay off big. So why is atheism a long shot?

I'll use a hackneyed, somewhat humorous example to show you why the odds are in favor of an eternal, creator God. Just because it's been used before doesn't mean it isn't a logical argument. Take a look at a Coke can, if you have one around. You've all seen them. They exist. They are red, with some silver and maybe black and white, they are made of aluminum, manufactured en masse at Coke plants around the world, all under the authority of Coca-Cola, Inc. They may not all be identical, but they all have approximately the same design, probably because they all have the same designer. What are the odds that any given Coke can was not, in fact, designed, manufactured, and distributed by Coca-Cola, Inc.? What are the odds it was not designed, manufactured, and distributed by anyone at all? What are the odds that it simply found its way into existence? Okay, in the history of the known existence of soda cans, the odds are pretty slim. What if we were wrong about how long soda cans have existed? What if they've been around millions, even billions of years? Now what are the odds that over time, metals and dyes have come together to form this 12-fl-oz can with a flip-top, purely by chance and/or natural processes. I know, it sounds absurd, because its far more reasonable and logical (though not necessarily scientific) to assume that the Coke cans we buy around here were designed, manufactured, and distributed by Coca-Cola, Inc. Hey, as a reasonable man, I've even driven past the Coca-Cola headquarters in Atlanta, GA. I know it exists. At least, I know by my senses that the building does. I didn't actually take the tour to see the cans being made, so I guess I don't KNOW that that's what happens there, nor do I know that the can I bought today out of the vending machine actually came from there, and not from my neighbor's seedy basement faux-aluminum press, or directly out of the ground. But no one can fault me for my lack of observation and evidence, for it is perfectly logical and reasonable to assume that if something exists, it was created.

So why is it different when we look at living things? If you ask me, when I look at DNA and living creatures (note the root of the word creature), and they have certain things in common (like Coke cans and Diet Coke cans), I do not see a common ancestor. I see a common creator, a common designer. Much as a Diet Coke can or Sprite can has a little note at the bottom that says "A Product of the Coca-Cola Company", for those of us who didn't know or had some doubt, all living things have a signature of their creator on them. God's design of the extremely complex DNA of all living things is extraordinary. Why discredit Him and say that it all came from something else, over time, by all kinds of natural processes, some of which we can try to explain (such as evolution), others which fly in the face of current knowledge (such as life from non-life, and matter ex nihilo)? Why take the credit of the design away from the Coca-Cola designers? The answer, unfortunately, is neither open-minded nor scientific. It's personal. The only reason someone would firmly believe that a Coke can was not designed and created by Coca-Cola is because they really want to. They hold firm to their belief that the world is out to deceive them, and by golly, they're going to get to the bottom of this Coca-Cola delusion. Perhaps they've been hurt by someone at the Coca-Cola, so they don't like it, and want nothing to do with it. They want to figure this "problem" out themselves. They may boycott Coca-Cola, or perhaps only accept Coke cans that they personally saw come off the bottling line in the Atlanta factory. Or be a total hypocrite and just drink Pepsi. We'd call these people crazy. Irrational. Conspiracy nuts. But what of those who deny the Creator of the universe, the maker of living things, in spite of incredibly complex and beautiful designs, with a signature of DNA, using the materials of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and others? Those people consider themselves rational. Scientific. Logical. Skeptical. Why are they given any more credit than those that deny the creators of other obviously designed creations? It takes a lot less faith to believe in the Coca-Cola bottling plant than it does to believe in the crazy, shut-in neighbor who makes crafty Coke look-alikes in his basement. Even if you have a crazy neighbor. It takes a lot less faith to believe that one eternal, intelligent designer has designed and created all the marvelous natural beauty that this earth has to offer, and simply authored the natural processes that we observe (much like a computer programmer), the processes which allow the creation to interact with itself.

Another pre-supposition that atheists and naturalists (that is, those that believe nothing happens except that which ought to be able to be explained by scientific, natural processes) have is the eternity of space, time, matter, and energy. While eternity itself is not an idea that any of us can truly grasp, we at least have a word for it, which I find useful. If there is no God that created everything, started everything moving, things growing, and matter and energy exchanging equally, then it follows that space, time, matter, and energy are eternal. They have always existed, and through their many processes, over lots of time, have caused all things to come into the being that we currently observe. Most naturalists would say "I don't actually believe this; the universe is approximately 5 billion years old, etc." Let me ask you this: what existed before the universe? What existed before time? What exists outside of our "ever-expanding" universe? Is there anything that exists besides matter and energy? If you have good answers to these questions, especially if they are consistent with your scientific methodology and general view of the universe, please do share. The point is, no matter what age you end up giving the universe (it's been getting older and older, in order to allow for the possibility of the growing improbability of the facets of evolution), you don't actually believe in a finite universe. A naturalist actually believes in the eternity of time, space, matter, and energy. A creationist believes in the eternity of a Creator God, which designed and created the universe (whether or not the space, matter, and energy of the universe are finite), and also that time itself is a finite creation of a God who is not limited by time. All it boils down to is, which would you prefer to believe? I know plenty of agnostics (those who say they do not know if God exists) who set out to disprove God, only to come to the conclusion that He must exist. Of course, there are plenty of people that have gone the other way, too, but my point is that its not about science. Its personal. If you want to believe in the eternity of time, space, matter, and energy, you have just as much right to believe that as you have to believe in the Creepy Coke-can Copier. In regards to what actually exists, however, you could be completely off. I choose to believe in God, because I see all kinds of evidence for Him, as I marvel at His creation and His good nature. If I am wrong, I don't see my life as wasted, nor deluded.

If Richard Dawkins is correct, and God does not exist, he states that mankind's purpose for living is "to pass on our DNA", and admits that although this is not a greatly desirable purpose (vs. living for a god), it's the only worthy one because its "true". If he is incorrect, and God does exist, hell have to answer to an almighty God that he has denied, simply because he, a finite man, could find no convincing evidence. I'd be scared to witness that conversation. On the other hand, if I am correct, and God exists, my life has been worth living because it gives glory to the only One who deserves glory, the almighty Creator of the Universe. If I am wrong, and God does not exist, what have I lost? I have already propagated my DNA, as I have a child on the way. I may have lived a life honoring a non-existent god, but by doing so, I have served my fellow man with humility and love, and placed others before myself. How is that delusion? How is that not true and good? I see my belief as a "win/win" situation, and atheism as "lose/lose". The best an atheist can hope for is an arbitrary feeling called "happiness", and propagation of their DNA. The worst that can happen is eternal judgment from an almighty God. The worst I can have is a belief in a non-existent god, which ultimately has caused me to better myself, my family, my society, and the world, through selfless service and love. Any atheist would tell you that those are good moral absolutes to live by. The best I can have is obedience and love for a God that loves and cares for me, which reap not only rewards and true happiness in this finite, time-limited life on earth, but also in my eternal life afterwards.

Richard Dawkins ends his interview on the BBC with interesting quotes that reveal the end of his philosophy. In response to "what gets you through the night?" he responds, "...love of human fellowship, love of nature, love of art, love of the world, love of life, love of science, love of children, love of music, all of the things that everybody else has." Ah, so love is supreme, is it, Dr. Dawkins? And to the question, "and you're comfortable with that"? Dawkins replies, interestingly enough, "I am, but even if I wasn't...I don't believe we were put here to be comfortable." Hey, what a coincidence, me neither! But at least I believe we were "put here". Why would you say something like that when you don't even believe that we were put here at all? This reveals to me that Dawkins is not, in fact, an atheist. He actually believes in a god. His god, whom he worships by his words and actions, is the god of science and natural processes. He believes we were "put here" (that is, we came into being) by natural processes, and that no matter what any of us believe, natural processes reign supreme and trump our beliefs as absolute truth. He even hopes to proselytize others into his religion, though he admits he won't convince everyone, because so many of us are deluded into thinking that there is a God. How is this different from any other religion telling another that their way of thinking and believing is wrong?

All Dawkins has done is reveal that his reasoning is futile, saying that God as a supernatural being does not exist, but revealing that he indeed believes that instead, "natural" processes are a supreme entity. I just looked up the definition for "god" in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:

"god"
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler

Dawkins opinion of natural processes exalts them as a god using definitions 3 and 4, though he adamantly denies the existence of anything from definitions 1 and 2. His view of natural processes could even fit the first part of definition 1 "the supreme or ultimate reality", which he believes is nothing more than that which can be observed and sensed by our 5 senses. And the second part of definition 2, "one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality", also fits into his philosophy, as natural processes are what drive everything. All he's really done is taken out the personality and name of God. Well, Dr. Dawkins, it seems youre a deist after all. Too bad.

My final point is this: who are we to say that God doesn't exist? If we are the highest level of evolution, attempting to make higher levels by passing on our DNA, then who really cares if God exists or doesn't? But if we are created by a loving and personal, yet all-powerful and supreme Creator, not only do we have no place to say He does not exist, we have no excuse. An atheist is a fool, for he can never truly prove that God doesn't exist until he himself has gained all knowledge (thus making him God, and negating his own theory). However, I would argue that an agnostic, though not as much a fool as an atheist, is still far more haughty than he ought to be by being skeptical of something so obvious. He should just believe in a God until he sees evidence that there isn't one, just as one ought to believe in the Coca-Cola Company's monopoly on Coke cans until they see sufficient evidence to doubt it. Putting your faith in natural processes, especially when new processes are being discovered, developed, and disproved every day, is far more faith than putting it in an eternal, unchanging Creator.

A few Bible verses on creation.


Back to Opinion Index

Home