The God Delusion Ch. 1

As I review the first Chapter of The God Delusion I am disappointed to be hearing the same old tune.  A tune which we are coaxed to believe is accurate and true.  I mean, one who has an advanced degree is presenting this material and you would think this one has learned to do research, and learned to think inductively...right?  Sadly no.

After a short anecdote, a quote from Darwin, and Carl Sagan (of which I will comment on later), we find a quote from Steven Weinberg.  As a side note, it is interesting that these people’s credentials are sourced in their own work (advanced degrees) or others noticing the like (Nobel Prize).  This is the source of their authority, as if that somehow trumps, or even competes with the source of Christian authority.  

Steven Weinberg says “Of course, like any other word, the word ‘God’ can be given any meaning we like.”

I’m afraid not Dr. Weinberg!  Words have clear and indisputable meaning.  Perhaps what Dr. Weinberg meant was that we are free to choose the semantic usage of any particular word?  Even so, the only one endowed with that freedom of choice is the original user of the word.  However, when we choose the words we use to communicate some meaning, we stand the risk of using them improperly; as does our readership and/or listeners stand the risk of assigning wrong meaning to our words.  In such a case, the one using words in err or the one hearing/reading words in err also stands the risk of being corrected.  Dr. Weinberg’s statement is a wonderful example of this.  Yes, we are clearly able to ascribe the word ‘God’ to anything we like, but we also may very well be wrong, as compared to those authoritative documents which clearly communicate God’s attributes and character.  Just as one who asserts that Green Eggs and Ham was written by William Shakespeare is able to easily be proven wrong, so can Dr. Weinberg.  Like Dr. Weinberg, one who wishes to ascribe any meaning to any word must thereby realize that the consequences of their desires destroys any meaning of any word.  No word has clear meaning, so everything then means nothing outside of what the reader/hearer wants it to mean...or it means everything (semantically) all at once and then loses any authority of meaning.  This is the post-modern, relativistic view at it’s finest.  Everything centers around the meaning one finds for oneself, but that meaning isn’t and shouldn’t be the same for everyone.  Meaning no longer exists, but those of us who demonstrate clear meaning in language and find reasons why any one word can’t mean the other semantic usages in it’s domain are labeled intolerant, disrespectful, and ironically ignorant, amongst other colorful language.  Alas, words have meaning, whether Dr. Weinberg, Dr. Dawkins, or anyone else wants them to or not.  In the Christian context the word God has a very specific meaning which is so repeated in scripture that one wonders if any of these men have read the Bible.  If they have, they are being dishonest to what they have read; if they haven’t, they are being dishonest about their research.  Which is it?

What Dr. Dawkins does a great job doing is explaining what he sees atheists as believing.  However, one is left with a nagging question.  Who cares?  Who cares what people believe?  Upon what authority is that belief founded, and is the information accurately represented as to support such a belief?  These are the important questions.  So much of the first chapter of Dawkins’ book assumes the authority of science as interpreted by whomever, Ph.D. holders, Nobel Prize winners.  While I admit these people have expertise, they lack any real authority.  Likewise their beliefs and statements lack any real authority.  At best they refer back to other people.  I say this so confidently because all of science points back to God, and therefore Dr. Dawkins’, and Dr. Weinberg’s authority is false and empty.

“Great scientists of our time who sound religious usually turn out not to be so when you examine their beliefs more deeply.” - Dawkins

“What most atheists believe is that although there is only one kind of stuff in the universe and it is physical, out of this stuff come minds, beauty, emotions, moral values - in short the full gamut of phenomena that gives richness to human life.” - Julian Baggini

These statements also beg the question, who cares?  Christianity does not rely on “Great scientists” or “most atheists” for its authority, so why do these statements matter or have bearing on the subject?  The answer is THEY DONT, which is the very definition of a straw man argument.  Once again, Dawkins fails to engage with Biblical Christianity.  Without enumerating them (because there are far too many), further statements in this chapter call into question “religion” as a field (though I have never heard of such a field...rather Theology would be the field Dr. Dawkins is speaking of.  Who ever heard of a Religiogian?  More like Theologian).  Other statements try to associate Catholicism with Christianity, as if they were synonymous, when they aren’t even similar.  And still other comments seek to rob ‘religious faith’ of rational justification.

I hope I have demonstrated the lack of rational justification of Christianity as it seeks to read and use words accurately and honor the writer’s original meaning.  If this is a lack of rational justification, I wonder what is Dawkins’ justification?  We shall see in coming chapters.

NOTE:  If you are reading along with me, you will do well to notice that Dr. Dawkins’ source for defining God, faith, religion, etc. is “what most (people, christians, deists) believe.”  No reliable source has been used and no analysis of ANY religious primary documents has been offered.  Doctoral caliber research???  This sort of material would not get me a ‘C’ in even an undergraduate class.