The God Delusion: Arguments for God’s Existence

In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins sets out to free the world of a dangerous irrational belief that has plagued mankind for thousands of years. That hazardous idea is the belief in "a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us" (Dawkins 31). Dawkins begins by disassembling some of the most common arguments for the existence of God then presents an argument against the existence of God; he then moves into a naturalistic explanation of the roots of religion and morality, as well as the harms caused by religion; he finishes up by advocating atheism as the correct worldview. I will examine some of the points brought up by Dawkins that I found to be of interest. I will start with his dissection of arguments that support God's existence.

In his third chapter Dawkins expounds on eight different arguments for God's existence. I will touch on three that piqued my interest. The first is the argument from personal experience. Dawkins opens with a story about a young man and his girlfriend who, while camping in Scotland, hear the Devil himself speak to them in their tent. The experience was so unforgettable that it was one of the reasons he decided to become ordained. Years later, Dawkins was recalling the story to two ornithologists who burst out laughing and told Dawkins that what his friend had heard was the shrieks of a bird nicknamed the "Devil Bird" (Dawkins 87). In short, Dawkins writes off all religious experiences as either hallucinations or a byproduct of the brain's 'simulation software.' This simulation software is our brain's internal way of processing information to make it recognizable. The misfiring of this software is often the explanation for illusions like the Necker Cube. To him when a religious personal experience can be explained in physical terms it loses its credibility as a genuine religious experience.

Unfortunately, Dawkins debunking of personal religious experience has an unintended side effect. When his method is applied to any subjective experience the result is a destruction of the validity of that experience. What Dawkins fails to realize is that all human experience, including science, is subjective. Everything we see, hear, touch, smell, and taste is just an electrical signal sent to our brains which use its simulation software to make sense of the electrical signal. Imagine what would happen when you turn this logic on some every day subjective experiences. If you tell me you like pistachio ice cream and I rebut that you don't actually like pistachio ice cream; it is simply a matter of the chemical receptors on your tongue sending a certain electrical impulse to your brain that releases some endorphins into your blood; you would laugh at me. But this is what Dawkins is suggesting that we do with religious experiences. I have no doubt that most, if not all of our personal religious experiences have physical explanations. However, I do not think that finding these explanations completely debunks religious experience. If that were the case then we could just as easily debunk the remainder of human experience and we would be left with nearly nothing.

The second of Dawkins' points that drew my interest was that of the argument from scripture (92-7). Dawkins argues that the Bible is full of inaccuracies, lies, and distortions. Most of his attacks come from other sources since he himself is not a Biblical scholar. He mainly contends that the Bible, in particular the New Testament, was written long after the events it records, it contradicts itself, and that major additions and subtractions have since occurred. Dawkins places a burden of proof on the Bible so heavy that I wonder if our modern newspapers could stand up under its weight let alone any ancient document_ Once again we see that if Dawkins' standards are applied to areas outside of religion we find self destructive side effects. Consider this: if you compare the number of copies we have and the time gap between the earliest copies and the events themselves for New Testament and other ancient books you find out that we have over 5,000 copies of the New Testament and a time gap of 50-100 years. The nearest competitor is The Iliad with 643 copies and a gap of 400 years. Livy's History of Rome only has 19 copies with a gap of 1,000 years and Caesar's Gallic Wars has only ten copies with a gap of an entire millennia (McDowell 38). If we apply Dawkins stringent requirements to the Bible we must concede that we know nothing at all about the ancient world before the printing press (and the time after that is somewhat sketchy as well).

Dawkins' final point that I wish to cover here is based on his dismantling of the argument from scripture. He attacks the trilemma put forth by many theologians concerning Jesus as either "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord." Dawkins asserts that "the trilemma on offer would be ludicrously inadequate. A fourth possibility, almost too obvious to need mentioning, is that Jesus was honestly mistaken" (92). However, if any thought is given to the problem at hand this fourth option is quickly seen as ludicrous. What we are considering is how Jesus viewed his identity. Realizing that this question is a matter of identity and not of external fact is very important.

If the problem was a matter of an external fact the possibility that Jesus was honestly mistaken is possible. If you ask someone where the nearest Kmart is they might say the one by I-95, not knowing that there is one much closer. Their statement is false, but they are not necessarily crazy or a diabolical liar. However, if someone gives a false statement about their identity there are only three possible reasons. For the moment let's substitute me into the problem and let's have me claiming to be George H. Bush's son (a clear problem of identity). My claim can either be true or false. If it is true then I am his son. If it is false then I must be consciously lying or unconsciously lying. If I am lying consciously then I must be a liar. But if I am unconsciously lying I could be forming my claim on reasonable grounds or unreasonable grounds. If there is evidence that I am George's son then I could be honestly mistaken until I discover later that I am adopted. However, if there is no evidence then I am acting against reason and I am what we often refer to as crazy. You can substitute any other outrageous claim of identity (like claiming to be Napoleon or an alien named Zorak) and you will see even more clearly how ridiculous it is to claim that Jesus was honestly mistaken about who he was.

All of the arguments for the existence of God have holes in them and Dawkins has done some research into finding those holes. However, at times he must work so hard to find the holes that he unwittingly destroys the credibility of all subjective experience, erases most of history, and declares that people that claim to be God, Napoleon, or an alien named Zorak might not be crazy, but have made an honest mistake. No argument is air tight, not even the argument for gravity or existence, but at some point we have to go with what seems the most correct and fits the best with reality. For me it is that God created this universe and came to earth as a man, Jesus of Nazareth, to die for my sins. My arguments and reasons for believing this aren't invincible, but they are the best fit I have to the world around me.


References:

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2006.
McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.1999.

The Informed Faith

This blog started as a comment to clarify a brief statement in A Brief Introduction to Mormonism. It quickly grew out of control and became its own entity. At the risk of a similar event occurring again I invite you to read, ponder, and comment on the content below. Enjoy.

Hebrews 11:1 states "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (NASB). For a long time this concise definition of faith sufficed when I thought about this very abstract idea. But is that all there is to faith? I think not. Jesus showed his great wisdom when he used the metaphor of house building in relation to our lives (Luke 6:47-9) and so I will borrow this metaphor to illustrate my idea of faith. Faith is much like a house. Like a house, faith must have a foundation. But not all foundations are equal. A faith that has a weak foundation is what I call an uninformed faith. Conversely, a faith which has a strong foundation is what I refer to as an informed faith.

The foundation of faith is most assuredly belief. Belief can be supported by a number of things such as experience, reason, and tradition. Often beliefs have more than one support. For instance, my belief that goats will eat shoelaces given the chance is based on tradition and experience. My mom told me to be wary around goats because of their affinities for shoelaces (tradition). But I have personally had to shoo goats away from me lest they consume my shoelaces (experience). Now when I see an unfamiliar goat I can form a new belief using my reason which says that this particular goat will attempt to eat my shoelaces. If tradition says that goats will eat the shoelaces of the unwatchful and if I have seen the hunger of the goat first hand it is a good bet that any given goat will try to eat anyone's shoelaces. Each way of knowing confirms the others. I could believe that goats like to eat shoelaces simply because my mom said so. The tradition she has passed down to me is strengthened by my own experiences with the shoelace-starved goats I have encountered. Now, if on my journey I meet a goat who is not intent on devouring my shoelaces I may need to rethink my belief about goats. To my knowledge no such goat has been found.

Belief needs some kind of support. The more support a belief has (from tradition, reason, etc.) the stronger and more credible it is. For example, I believe that Christ lived, died, and was resurrected because the support is there in the form of tradition, reason, and experience. Tradition, in the form of the Bible, tells us much about Jesus and his early church. Reason utilizes physical evidence that informs us that he did indeed live when and where tradition tells us. And personal experience has brought me to the knowledge that he still lives and interacts with mankind. This confluence of supports has created for me a strong belief that Jesus was who he said he was.

Earthly house foundations are often made with rebar and concrete. Instead of rebar, the walls of houses have wooden 2x4's to support them. In place of concrete, contractors use drywall and paint to complete the walls. In the same way, faith is not necessarily made from the same materials that make up the underlying beliefs. Faith does not necessarily have hard evidence to back it up. For example, I have faith that Jesus' death atoned for our sins. There is no tangible evidence for this claim, but I have faith that this doctrine is true because I believe that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament spoke the truth. Tradition, my reason, and experience have led me to be confident that my belief in the accuracy of the Bible is well placed. With a solid foundational belief in the Bible I can take on faith doctrines which have no physical evidence, like free will and predestination, laid forth in the good book.

Faith is like the walls of a house. Those walls need a foundation if they are to stand against the elements. The foundation that faith is built upon is belief. Beliefs are constructed from tradition, reason, and experience. When beliefs are constructed from incorrect facts, faulty logic, and emotion they are more prone to crumbling and taking down the faith that is built upon the belief

Getting back to the reason that I started writing this blog, my discussions with the Mormon missionaries (the Elders), I must state that there is no question that I privilege the informed faith above the uninformed faith. Who among us would argue for a faith that springs from falsehoods and forgeries? I think that I should further clarify what I mean by an informed faith. It is a faith supported by belief which has credible evidence to support the belief in question. Ancient manuscripts and carvings are, to me, more credible evidences than a feeling you get. My belief in the veracity of Christian theism is backed up by real evidence; many of the doctrines I believe are taken on faith but are based on the belief in Christian theism. When I speak to the Elders I can't help but think that their belief that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith is a prophet is based on the subjective feeling or vision they received when they prayed. Their faith is based on a belief supported by feelings. It makes me wonder if they are really building their houses on the Rock or shifting sands.