A Christian Response To Richard Dawkins

I have just finished reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I found this book to be both interesting and difficult to read. When I say ‘difficult’, there were three distinct types of difficulty I encountered: 1) keeping up with the logic of some incredibly convoluted theories; 2) the scathing attacks on the Bible and God Himself, which stem from misunderstanding scripture and/or the conclusions from the aforementioned theories; 3) the references throughout the book to ‘Christian’ beliefs and behaviours that are directly contrary to the Bible. I hope to deal with difficulties 1) and 2) in future articles. However, in this first article I will examine the third difficulty – by far the most painful of the trio.

As a Christian, I need to take a long, hard look at the log in my own eye before proceeding with Dawkins. Furthermore, I believe that Christians in general need to carefully examine the painful ‘Christian’ examples of un-Christ-like behaviour and false beliefs. Additionally, we cannot expect other Christians or even Christian leaders to be perfect examples of Christ and to have perfect doctrine. Thus, the ‘Christian’ actions and beliefs so triumphantly presented by Dawkins as examples of Christian responses to atheism must be measured using the foundation of Christianity – the Bible.

Personally, I found the most painful section of the entire religion-bashing book in pp.242-245, where Dawkins quotes ‘Christian’ hate mail directed at atheists. The ‘Christian’ authors of these letters almost joyfully condemned their recipients to hell, along with a few especially vivid threats of violence towards them. One could, I suppose, write these ‘Christians’ off as complete loons who will use any excuse for hatred and violence (which is likely to be true), but the tragedy is that the name of Christ is dragged through the mud in the process. 

The attitudes of these hate-mailers are obviously and shockingly wrong, but I would go further than just expecting Christians to refrain from sending hate mail. To the Christians who read this article, I ask: what is your attitude towards unbelievers? Is it similar to that of the Man from Galilee whose heart was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd (Matt. 9:36)? Or, in response to a direct attack on your belief, would you join Stephen in saying “Lord, do not charge them with this sin” (Acts 7:60)?

The Lord Jesus did not even address the rampant paganism of Rome during His day, but He came down very hard on those who were self-righteously religious. In his first Chapter, Dawkins laments the fact that religion is given too much respect by society, which leads to religion being used to justify human atrocities. I agree with him, and I think there is another Person who would too. If you think Dawkins is hostile towards religion, consider the following sample of Jesus’ words directed at the most religious people of His day: “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.”; “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.”; “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness” (Matt 23:13-14, 25 and 27).

Besides overtly aggressive 'Christian' responses, there are other responses towards evolutionary theory and atheism that do great harm to the name of Christ. In particular, the liberal or ‘progressive’ response to evolutionary theory is to undermine the Word of God. Liberal theologians claim that the Bible is really just ‘a good moral guide’ and that Genesis chapters 1-10 (amongst many other passages) are symbolic myths that are used to teach moral lessons. That Dawkins prefers these theologians to those who truly defend the Bible is not surprising. By treating the Word of God as a cute Sunday school storybook, they provide atheists with endless ammunition to attack God’s Word.

Dawkins uses these compromisers to good effect – by calling them ‘reputable’ and ‘progressive’ theologians, he elevates their opinions of the Bible and appears to respect them more than other religious people. By contrast, he scorns and ridicules those who defend the Biblical account theologically and scientifically. Ironically, he understands the bankruptcy of liberal theology better than most Christians. On p.269, he responds those who claim that the book of Genesis cannot be taken literally – “But that’s my whole point! We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories. Such picking and choosing is a matter of personal decision, just as much, or as little, as the atheist’s decision to follow this moral precept or that was a personal decision, without an absolute foundation.” I couldn’t have said it any better myself!

Another common response to evolutionary theory amongst Christians is theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is the attempt to intertwine the theory of evolution with a belief in God, best described by the statement: “God used evolution to create”. This is basically the scientific version of the theological compromise described above, and most liberal theologians would give credence to theistic evolution. Once again, Dawkins and his fellow atheists point out the fatal flaws in this theory, which Christians seem to miss. On p.144, he explains that Peter Atkins (author of Creation Revisited) shows that a god that uses evolution is no god at all: “Step by step, Atkins succeeds in reducing the amount of work the lazy God has to do until he finally ends up doing nothing at all: he might as well not bother to exist”. If you are a theistic evolutionist, I encourage you to carefully examine your belief.

The final category of ‘Christian’ response to evolution is that we must simply abandon our faculties of reason and rely on blind faith. The idea behind this is that we just need to believe, no matter what science discovers. To Christians, this may sound noble, as it shows how ‘strong’ your faith is. In reality, this belief simply provides even more ammunition for Dawkins. On p.221, he quotes Martin Luther saying that: “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has”. How could faith in the Source of all reason be entirely contradictory to reason itself? Indeed, one of the best logical arguments for the existence of God that I have encountered (and one which Dawkins does not mention in his chapter on the topic) is the Argument from Reason. Contrast Luther’s statement above to a quote from C.S. Lewis: “If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.” The argument is simply that rational thought cannot come from nature, if it is able to make any valid statements about nature itself. For more detail, I encourage you to read Miracles by C.S. Lewis.

We have finally emerged from the gauntlet of false ‘Christian’ behaviours and beliefs. However, Christians cannot simply reject these issues, or ignore broadside attacks on Christianity by Dawkins and other atheistic authors. For each of the above errors, there are genuine Christian equivalents that are based on the Bible. The biblical response to atheism is not hate mail, but to follow Christ’s example of compassion and Stephen’s example of forgiveness that I quoted earlier. The other ‘Christian’ responses present a greater, more insidious threat to Christianity; their biblical equivalents therefore deserve closer consideration.

As we have seen, liberal theology destroys the very essence of scripture by arbitrarily deciding which parts of the Bible are accurate accounts of history and which are ‘moral myths’. Similarly, theistic evolution destroys the very essence of who God is. Dawkins recounts the story of a geologist (Kurt Wise, p.322) who realised that evolutionary theory and the Bible cannot be true at the same time. To convince himself of this fact, he literally cut out the passages in the Bible that cannot be true if evolution is true. He relates that after his physical Bible editing: “I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two”. His first response to this graphic discovery was biblical – he threw out evolution in favour of God’s Word. His second response, however, was unfortunate: “I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science”.

Am I suggesting that we throw out science in favour of religion and (similarly) reason in favour of faith? According to Dawkins, these are the only options available. However, these choices are false. Science is simply the systematic pursuit of knowledge of the world, and this pursuit is based on human reasoning. Similarly, religion is based on faith. These two areas of human thought are indeed different, and they deal with different needs within the human mind. However, that does not mean that they are mutually exclusive, and they certainly need not be contradictory. If you find, within your own life, a contradiction between what you believe (and hence how you act) and what you understand, then you need to re-examine both your religion and your science. Atheism is not excluded from the region of human thought that deals with belief, because it, too, endeavours to satisfy the human need for an explanation of the nonphysical aspects of their lives (Dawkins devotes three chapters to this topic).

What I am suggesting is that God has given us our essential human faculties of belief and reason – He expects us to use both. Science and philosophy (i.e. logical reasoning) should point us in God’s direction, but only faith can take us one step further than that and bring us into a relationship with Him. Although one can believe in God without first using science and reason, the God in whom we believe is not afraid of scientific investigation. If we hold erroneous beliefs about Him (e.g. theistic evolution’s ‘God of the gaps’ idea), then those beliefs can and will be debunked using sound logic and science. We therefore need to use our God-given faculties as we study His Word and His world.

The biblical response to atheism is eloquently summarised in 1 Peter 3:15-16: But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed.