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.

Had I Known How to Save a Life

I don't recall what radio station I was listening to when I first heard this song, but I do remember that I liked it. And as the days passed into weeks I heard it more and more and on what I thought was different stations. For me that's quite unusual. Sometimes I hear a Bon Jovi song on the alternative rock station and later the same song on the classic rock station. But crossovers between the Christian station and any others are pretty rare. So my curiosity was raised by the song performed by The Fray entitled "How to Save a Life" when I heard it played on the pop station and the Christian station. Another puzzling point that struck me was that the lyrics didn't really seem to have many strong Christian connections, other than the mentioning of praying to God. So I asked my friend Trevar to also look at the lyrics and give his interpretation. You can find his comments in his blog Explicating The Fray's "How to Save a Life" However, as I took a closer look at the lyrics my inkling that this was not actually a "Christian" song was greatly reinforced. The following is my interpretation of what this song is about.

Overall, the song tells a tragic story of the loss of a friend to either suicide or drug overdose and the events leading up to his death. Let's start from the beginning and see what the lyrics tell us. The song begins with what is commonly called an intervention. Why the intervention is being called is not made clear, but the awkwardness of the situation is apparent in the first verse:

Step one you say we need to talk
He walks you say sit down it's just a talk
He smiles politely back at you
You stare politely right on through
Some sort of window to your right
As he goes left and you stay right
Between the lines of fear and blame
And you begin to wonder why you came

The first step is getting the friend to sit down and have a serious talk. The gravity of the discourse and the unwillingness of the friend are evident by the narrator's need to assure the friend that what will take place is "just a talk." The friend agrees and proceeds to "smile politely back at" the narrator as the narrator "[stares] politely right on through." Although the two are close friends the pair must strain to be polite to one another. We can assume that the awkwardness of the situation is caused by both of them hearing things that they didn't want to hear as we will see in the second verse.

As the duo strains to be polite to one another we get the first hint that the intervention will end poorly "as he goes left and you stay right." The narrator will not diverge from his path, but neither will the friend and from here their paths diverge forever. As the intervention gets rolling the narrator tells us that he must balance "between the lines of fear and blame" struggling not to blame his friend but fearing that he will not reveal enough to convince his friend to change. By the end of the first verse things do not look good as the narrator "[begins] to wonder why [he] came."

The chorus, repeated after each verse, is a retrospective lament of the narrator's failure to save his friend:

Where did I go wrong, I lost a friend
Somewhere along in the bitterness
And I would have stayed up with you all night
Had I known how to save a life

It serves to reinforce the fact that the friend is ultimately loss in the bitterness we will see develop between the two. But despite the ill will that the two feel when they depart each other's company the narrator tell us that he "would have stayed up with you all night / Had [he] known how to save a life." We learn that the narrator would have stayed up with his friend all night had [he] known how to save a life. Said in another, less lyrical, way, the last two lines could read: "I didn't know how to save your life, but I would have stayed up all night with you if I did."

The second verse takes us back to the intervention:

Let him know that you know best
Cause after all you do know best
Try to slip past his defense
Without granting innocence
Lay down a list of what is wrong
The things you've told him all along
And pray to God he hears you
And pray to God he hears you

And we see the narrator's attempt to "slip past his defense" to convince his friend that the narrator's advice should be taken, because "after all, [the narrator] does know best." Once the narrator has built his credibility he does not grant his friend innocence, but rather holds him accountable for his actions. The narrator then proceeds to "lay down a list of what is wrong," a list of actions and behaviors that aren't acceptable in the narrator's eyes.

During this verse the friend is silent, presumably listening politely as the narrator tries to speak sense into his friend. The verse ends with the narrator praying to God. At first this line seems to indicate that there may be a ray of hope because the narrator "[prays] to God [who] hears [the narrator]," but a closer look reveals that this is not what is being said. The song isn't saying "pray to God; [God] hears [the narrator]," but rather, "pray to God [that the friend] hears [the narrator]" All of the narrator's sources have been tapped. He has built up his credibility, laid out his case, and even appealed to God that his argument will bear good fruit. But the reiteration of the chorus that follows reminds us of the untimely end of the friend.

The final verse brings us to the end of the intervention. It is here that the friend replies to the narrator's accusations and condemnations as the narrator lays out an ultimatum:

As he begins to raise his voice
You lower yours and grant him one last choice
Drive until you lose the road
Or break with the ones you've followed
He will do one of two things
He will admit to everything
Or he'll say he's just not the same
And you'll begin to wonder why you came

As the friend raises his voice in anger, the narrator presents him with a choice. Either the friend will continue down his self destructive path until he loses the road and destroys himself or he can abandon that road and try to break his deadly habits. The narrator knows that he has forced his friend into a corner where he will either "admit to everything" and accept responsibility for his actions "or he'll say he's just not the same" and cut his ties to the narrator as he continues to pursue his vices. The verse does not tell us explicitly which one he will do, but things do not look good as the narrator "[begins] to wonder why [he] came."

The title of this song is misleading in that it does not speak on the subject of "how to save a life" but rather laments "had I known." Had he known how to save a life the intervention would have been the turning point for his friend and not the last warning sign before his senseless suicide or drug overdose. What appears on first listen to be an uplifting song that tells us how to save the lives of our friends turns out to be a dark lament of a failed intervention, a failed friendship, and ultimately a failed life.