Does Dawkins Exist?

I simply have to read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. To be clear, I believe in the risen Christ, and count myself one of His followers, but I love debate. I believe that lively discussion is a good thing. I believe in the process of thinking things through. Okay?

Apart from the issue of the existence or the non-existence of GOD, make note of this: It is possible to believe in God for the wrong reasons. It is also possible to present good reasons to doubt the existence of God. Someone could argue that romantic love is a curse on society, and the argument might be well formulated, but I would not rethink my love for my wife. Argument and debate are tools nothing more.

Argument does not establish or prove facts, but it supports the conclusions we draw from them. Sometimes, argument is needed to support conclusions we draw in the absence of facts. Argument is a game and a tool, but it is not the only game in town – it is useful in its place. That is my bias, and I state it once.

I believe that it is possible to examine the traces left by previous life, and it is reasonable to try to make guesses about it, and to form theories based on that evidence. I believe in the scientific method, and I believe that God gave us brains intending that we use them. God created us in His image, and I believe that this means that we resemble him in our creative and reasoning impulses.

Let’s be clear: proving that Richard Dawkins reasons incorrectly would not prove that God exists. Speaking for myself, proving that life evolved would not disprove the existence of God either. I do not believe that the Bible is an explanation of how God created life, but I do believe that the Bible explains why He created life.

Many Christians are unable to perceive the interpretations that have been made of Bible text – they confuse their interpretations for the text itself. I am always suspicious whenever someone says that the Bible is very clear on some issue or other. The person who starts this way is really saying: “I have interpreted the following text for you, and I am warning you now to accept my interpretation without thinking. In fact, I will be offended if you think about what I say beyond merely accepting my position.” In short, I do not think it is a virtue to arrive at a correct conclusion by incorrect means. God made us capable of thought, and I believe he intends us to think.

Here is a sample of what Dawkins has to say in Volume 18, Number 3 of the periodical, Free Inquiry : “There is no reason for believing that any sort of gods exist and quite good reason for believing that they do not exist and never have. It has all been a gigantic waste of time and a waste of life. It would be a joke of cosmic proportions if it weren’t so tragic. ”

Wow! My belief in God, and the life I live because I believe in God is a gigantic waste, and a tragic joke!? There is a lot of emotion in those, and many of the other words Richard Dawkins uses. There is anger, frustration, and contempt. I have seen him being interviewed, and he has my attention. He seems to be working very hard to hide or mask his emotions while appearing reasonable. I am itching to read his book.

I am amused by his premise that people believe in God because they want to account for how the Earth came to be. I am curious about how life came into existence, but I do not see why the question should drive me. Why would that question become the focus of my attention and effort? Speaking for myself, I want to know why I am here, and I am only interested in the how of it insofar as it has bearing on the why. In fact, I am not even interested in the why of it, but I want to know that I am using my life well. I believe that what I do with my life matters, and I believe that God is the reason I am here, and that God knows how I should be using my time.

Richard Dawkins seems to believe that how we use our time is important, too. He argues that to believe in God is to waste your life in a laughable but tragic way. I would be most interested in knowing what he thinks we should be doing instead of believing in God. By arguing against the existence of God, he avoids a more interesting question. I am neither offended by his stand nor shaken by his arguments. I am glad to see him engaging the question head on – so few people do that.

My wife will consider me a heretic when I buy the book. It would be easier for her if I developed a porn or drug habit – then she could talk about it with her friends and get sympathy. As things stand, she will confuse my willingness to engage in thought for a questioning of the faith – she mistakes being willing to consider a position with taking the position. Considering means trying something on, seeing if it fits, and she will not put on another persons ideas. She finds me difficult. My willingness to entertain radical concepts, and to give them due consideration, alarms her, especially when she believes that no consideration is due.

I believe that Christianity is suffering today because it is not being well supported from within not because it is being attacked from without. In countries where Christians are being killed for their belief, it is meaningful and brave to cling to the faith. Simply to persist and to pass on the faith is to win. In North America, we live in a marketplace of ideas. Pigheadedness does not win any prizes. In fact, it losses the game.

We Christians are called to be in the world, but not of the world. That is fine, but Jesus was revolutionary for the people he included, for the people he was willing to engage and interact with. Who is going to bring the faith to the thinking person who tries to be decent and does not feel convicted of his or her own sin? There are plenty of people who are content enough with their lives, who do not have broken marriages, who do not have drug habits or who have not been to jail. To tell content people that they will never truly be happy until they accept Christ as their personal savior is unlikely to have any impact.

To reject science seems silly to the rest of the world; and, insofar as Christians embrace and use scientific advancements for their own ends, they seem sillier still. Christians think the battle is between science and belief, but, for the most part, they have no problems with science. They are happy to benefit from science. They have a problem with the conclusions some scientists draw about God based on the evidence. Is the process flawed? Is that why the improper conclusions are drawn? Or, is the process being misapplied? The proper forum for that discussion is science itself.

However, what is interesting about Dawkins, is that he has stepped behind a pulpit – he is preaching disbelief. That is why I want to read his book. In his latest book, Dawkins is not speaking as a scientist. I expect the book to be very revealing, especially since he seems to me to be very angry and frustrated.

Forgive my title, “Does Dawkins Exist?” – it has no relationship to this entry. I was having fun. Still, to justify the title, I will say this: It is possible to engage in a debate about my own existence, or Richard Dawkins, and to doubt it for the sake of discussion. That is reasonable. But, It is not reasonable or healthy for me to seriously doubt my own existence?

That is how I feel about God. Just as there is a place for people who do not believe in their own existence, there is a place for people who do not believe in God. I know where the line is. Do you? Christ was not upset by doubting Thomas. Was he? Asking questions is not the same as taking a stand.