Did you know that unbelief is even an option?

No further into The God Delusion than the preface to the paperback edition (which is the first of two prefaces) do I come across endlessly repeated misrepresentations of Christianity.  I here only address Christianity because I don't believe in other systems, and truthfully would hold them to be as damaging.  That being said, and only considering how this book interacts with Christianity, allow me to comment on those misrepresentations.

At the very beginning we are met with the assessment of anyone who says "I am an atheist, BUT", or the related statement "I used to be and atheist, but", to be "unhelpful, nihilistic" and "suffused with a sort of exultant negativity."  So there can be no meaningful and/or reasoned position within such a view as Christianity.  It is discounted at the outset.  This and a few others are the faulty presuppositions upon which both prefaces precariously perch.  I will agree with Dr. Dawkins, that far too many use this statements referenced above as some sort of credential, so as to say "you should listen to me because I am coming from your point of view", or some thing similar, but on both parts (Dawkins' and the one making the statement) there is a fundamental ignorance of where epistemic truth comes from.  Dawkins presents a straw man argument here (although he says its not later in the preface, he fails to state why it's not).  It's a straw man argument because both Dawkins and Christians believe that that statement is no basis of authority, as it is most often attempted to be used.  For the Christian, the Bible is the Epistemic basis of truth, and therefore what other Christians are doing or saying is irrelevant.  Nothing is here gained by Dr. Dawkins' assessment of these statements.  They are therefore truly meaningless, and hardly damning.

Dr. Dawkins states that those of us who believe have never realized or been told "unbelief is an option". Really?  It's that easy?  Thank you for relieving me of my ignorance Dr. Dawkins.  I never once considered that my faith was the result of the inadequacy of our (do you mean ours [America] or yours?) educational system.  Clearly I am too ignorant and poorly educated to grasp those things which I've studied, think on them critically, and apply them.  Unbelief is an option?!  Brilliant!

Much to the contrary, such an assessment is intellectually dishonest as it dismisses weighty, meaningful arguments at the outset by labeling them as unhelpful and nihilistic.  Dr. Dawkins couches his convictions of stupidity, ignorance, and dependency in the assertion that what he is saying is not shrill or intemperate when compared to food critics, a sampling of whom He then quotes on page 16.  I can't help but think that even in their abrasiveness the food critics are at least honest.  They want us to know they didn't like it, and more accurately hated it.  Yes, there is a bit of exaggeration there, but the message is an honest one.  A better comparison of Dawkins to a food critic would be one who says "I didn't like your food, but you're too stupid to know that making anything better is even an option."  Dawkins disguises such statements (unbelief is an option) in this manner to ease the blow and stroke the ego, hopefully making the hearer/reader more apt to listen.  Spare us!

Granted these were just he prefaces, but if Dawkins insists on finding an epistemic basis for the truth of Christianity in what most Christians think or do or say, I am afraid the rest of this book will be simply addressing objections that aren't really there...the very definition of a straw man.  There is no demonstration of even an attempt to understand the Christian position, so Dr. Dawkins goes to bat against something which he has constructed and therefore knows how to demolish.  This is not Biblical Christianity that Dawkins presents.

Both of Dr. Dawkins' prefaces (without considering the convictions of stupidity, ignorance and dependency) can be combatted with the simple retort: "have you ever considered that belief is an option?"  It will be disappointing if the full force of Dr. Dawkins' doctorate, as applied in this area amounts to these few straw man arguments.  I refuse to think that Dr. Dawkins can't understand, and I will not call him stupid, but I will say that perhaps he won't understand, which is an indication of the assertion of his will in accordance with his clear bias.  I continue to read and remain hopeful, however knowing what I do about the author and his work, I doubt that things will get better as I progress.

Chapter one coming soon.

Richard Dawkins' God Delusion

As an off shoot of my last post, oh so long ago in January of this year, I will be reading Richard Dawkins' God Delusion.  As I read I will respond to each chapter as best I can, taking into consideration the arguments and subjects used therein.

Since you all know that I already stand at odds with Richard Dawkins' work, it is rather obvious that I will be presenting refutations of Dawkins' arguments, answers to his questions, and hopefully (if I can find resources) counters to his research.  My goal will be to show how even someone like me (barely educated compared to Dawkins), using a Biblical position and that as my presupposition, can show such people as even Dawkins to be the embodiment foolishness itself (1 Corinthians 3:19).

I will use the same sort of contextual analysis I do with the Bible to do my best in representing Dawkins position accurately.

Stay tuned in...this should prove interesting.

Instinct, Faith, Routine

I will approach these words with the following presuppositions:

1. The Bible is historically accurate.

2. The Bible is internally consistent

3. The Bible is reliable as to what is observable in reality, with respects to both believers and unbelievers.

Since these things are empirically provable and have been demonstrated over and over again to be propositionally true; such presuppositions are safe and equitable over and above any other view founded in relativity.  In fact, all other views, at least partially rely on God's identity as revealed in the Bible as a basis for their assertions.  Since this is off topic I will leave such a discussion for a later time, suffice to say that the Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, Muslim, etc. relies on God's identity, as described in the Bible, for the very existence of their argument, as they all appeal to morality, and principles of which God is the author.  

That being said, when I hereafter refer to God, I mean specifically God as He is described in the Bible.That God whose identity is not merely love, but more-so holiness, justice, and righteousness as those qualities which define the context of His love. I will also hereafter combine Agnostic and Atheist positions, since both represent a desire to equate self as God.  So, when I say Atheist, I also mean Agnostic.  Since I presume this to be the position of my audience, and to promote focus and specificity, I will not address other religions aside from those I have just mentioned (Atheism/Agnosticism).

Instinct

In Genesis we read the account of original sin.  Here first, and many times after, is demonstrated man's innate sinfulness as Adam and Eve both follow the leading of the serpent to eat of the tree of the the knowledge of good and evil.  Why?  In Genesis 2:5 we see that Eve, and then Adam both ate of the forbidden tree for many reasons, the culmination of which was their desire to be "like God."  Early in the Bible we come across the reality that people, when left to appeal to instinct, will seek to be God: absolutely free and autonomous.

The desire to be God transcends all of humanity as we observe atheists who deny even God's existence and reality alike, yet appeal to morality in a construct of relativity where morality cannot exist except individually, and therefore not at all in the context Atheists use the term.  Since morality is then relative, the individual becomes God to self, determining what is right, wrong, just, unjust, etc.  After which, if the Atheist is being consistent in his/her view, no morality can be imposed unless approved by their God: self.  Since each one would then have their own morality, ultimate morality breaks down and ceases to exist.  As we have now uncovered, the Atheist's appeal to morality is the very definition of inconsistency.  In their appeal to ultimate morality Atheists assert that each one holds their own morality

Does the Biblical position present a cure for such inconsistency?  Certainly!  Since, according to the Bible, it is the innate condition of man to be sinful to the last, ultimately seeking to be God if not influenced by an outside, more powerful force; we here have a sufficient explanation for "instinct," or what I am treating as "what man does naturally."

To explain further, God created each person with a knowledge that He at least exists.  Simply through observation of the world before us (Science) everyone has sufficient knowledge to know that God exists as a propositional truth (Psalm 19).  Because we all naturally seek to be autonomous and free as God, we suppress that truth through our desire for power.  Even going so far as to try to control God, which is an abject impossibility.  From the perspective of people being innately sinful and seeking to be God, the Bible presents God’s decree against that, His system of diagnosis, and His prescription treating it.

From the Bible we have the innate sinfulness of man and instinctual desire to be God.  God decrees that we “shall have no other God’s before me” (Exodus 20:3). God does not qualify this decree, and therefore applies it to all things which we could and/or would offer dedication and worship to, including ourselves.  Since we are at best sinful and seek to be that which God decrees (as sovereign creator) to be evil, we have all wronged Him and must therefore make amens.

The declaration of God’s Lordship (represented in the name Yahweh, I AM) is one of power over all creation and therefore bears itself upon believers and unbelievers alike.  Both believers and unbelievers share the same nature (instinct): sin.  Because the Bible teaches that Jesus is God (indeed the three of the trinity are one in essence), then we see that God has authored sin (as a means by which He may display his justice), provided recompense (payment for sin, making sinners righteous, thereby displaying his mercy) for those He has foreordained will believe (elected; showing his power and sovereignty to cleanse only those whom He wills).  Those whose pleasure it is to bask in sin, people whose great pleasure it is to submit to God’s election in their disbelief will ultimately believe and be the ultimate means by which God’s justice is demonstrated as He punishes evil.

Therefore salvation comes by God’s declaration of the depth of man’s sin (i.e. man’s instinctual nature to be content in depravity), the influence of God’s spirit upon that sinful one so much as to impress the gravity of that sin, and the power of God’s spirit to produce a change in that one towards greater purity over the course of a lifetime, so the sinful person more and more hates the sin they once loved and cherishes the God they once hated.  This is not evidenced by a prayer someone says on any given day (i.e. the sinner’s prayer) but is evidenced by the believer’s willful adherence to God’s standards as presented in the Bible.

So we see here a system based on God’s identity, which works to effectively address the consequences of instinct.  Are there consequences to instinct?  Surely!  Certainly one cannot assert that in our highly social world, that via the relative appeal to morality, one will surely not impose their own morality on others?  If one interprets the actions of another as against their morality, would it be wrong to seek an apology (i.e. recompense)?  If yes, then the consequences will come in the form of animosity between the two parties (the wronger, and the one wronged) or something similar.  If no, then the consequences will manifest in the “wronger” feeling poorly about his/her actions, or perhaps the “wronged” not receiving the apology and consequently feeling betrayed or taken advantage of.  Whatever the outcome, there are certainly consequences which speak to the inconsistency and absurdity of such relative standards.  Contrastively, God’s standard serves to address and relieve the ultimate consequences of man’s instinct, and gives cause for equitable treatment of others since each one is no different than the next: a sinner.  And since Christians don’t know who the elect are, and since they know of the depths of their own wickedness, they are commanded to tell everyone of Jesus’ work on the cross, and thereby be the means by which the elect are called to repentance.  The key is to think not in terms of what man is free to do, but what God is free to do.  For apart from God’s absolute sovereignty we are, can do, and will be, nothing.

Faith

In the construct of God’s identity, the standards of living He has revealed in His word, and the power of His decree to preordain (elect) those who will be in heaven, faith ceases to be that thing we use to explain our doctrine, as if to say “I believe it because I have faith.”  NO!  I believe it because it’s true, which produces faith within me that the things I have no capacity to logically deduce (such as miracles), or that which I cannot see (such as heaven), will make sense, and I will see.  Hebrews 11:1  says “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”  What is hoped for?  What is not seen?  Does this possibly refer to the existence of God?  No, because we are told elsewhere in the Bible that all people have sufficient knowledge of God’s existence.  Why then, would this verse be saying that faith is exercised to produce belief in God’s existence?  The answer is that this verse does not say that.  Since the author of this book of the New Testament is speaking to Jewish people (Hebrews, and thus the name of the book) who believe in God anyways, and since the author never expressly argues for the existence of God but uses it as a presupposition, it would follow that this verse is talking of things (specifically the raising of the dead) which require faith to believe.  So the argument here is something to the effect of “because we know God exists, and because the scriptures are true, we have faith that only through Jesus may we enter into heaven.”  

Then the author goes on to explain how people like Abraham and Moses would be credited with saving faith.  Just as Christians today cannot explain the inner workings of how Jesus remained fully God and yet fully man, but accept such a conundrum by faith, Abraham and Moses accepted similar things by faith, which I have already demonstrated is based on the repeated support of empirical data.  The nature of that data would have been different for Moses than it would have for perhaps Paul, but the end result was the same because the data had the same cause and overwhelmingly pointed to the same verdict.

So faith is not how we believe, but the means by which we believe the more spectacular claims of the Bible, as we are supported in all other areas by hard evidence which imputes it’s truthfulness into those same spectacular areas in scripture.

The Atheist would do well to point out that truth cannot be imputed in such a way, yet we in America use the very same standard in court when determining the authenticity and reliability of a document.  I agree that this supposed imputation is logically flawed, but is that not synonymous with the definition of faith I presented to begin with?

Routine

If by routine you would join me in defining it as that which is normative for the Christian, I would have to turn to such books of the New Testament as 1 John where we are given the way by which one may observe regeneration (change in one’s desires from being content to continue in sin, to the desire to honor God by obeying His word) in the life of one who professes salvation has taken place.

Therefore routine for the Christian is such things as letting go of any ideas of success which are foreign to the Bible, not trusting in their ability to ear money for their sustenance but trusting God’s identity and promises, unreservedly loving other members of God’s elect no matter what, fighting against the urge to sin in the same ways and frequency as you once did, loving the God you once hated, etc.  Truly then, routine becomes almost anything that makes the “rest of the world” take notice, and most often say “you fool” or something equally abrasive.  For the world knows not the father, nor does it desire to.  In fact the Bible says that the one who loves the world and it’s ways is an enemy to God.  So that is routine to the Christian, hating the world and it’s principles and touting God’s above all, even unto death if needs be.

You notice that I did not say that sinlessness is routine for the Christian.  Indeed it is much to the contrary.  Sin is very much routine for the Christian, as it is for the unbeliever.  However the Christian has the motivation and the means to sin less and less, whereas the unbeliever is a slave to sin.  The unbeliever serves their sin, while the believer, through God’s influence and power, persecutes their sin.  And because of the perfection of God as displayed in the person of Jesus Christ credited to those whom God has chosen, believers will be forgiven of their sins as a demonstration of God’s mercy, while unbelievers (evil) are punished as a demonstration of God’s justice.  So the position of the believer is infinitely better than the unbeliever.  

This is not the same as pascals wager.  There is indeed a God.  He is the God of the Bible.  There is no two ways about it and therefore no wager.

Conclusion

What is the connection between all this?  It is the very essence of the gospel: the fact that Jesus died as a payment for sins we all commit, he arose from the dead as the fulfillment of a promise and as a display of God’s power over even death, and that He provides reconciliation to God for only those He intends to.

So the question is not about instinct, faith, or routine.  As Paul Washer tends to put it: The questions is, as you have been reading about the gospel, has God done such a work in you that you are ready to die to self, hate the sin you once loved and love the God you once hated?  If so, then go now and produce fruit in accordance with repentance!  (i.e. go read your Bible, pray to God, and obey His word).  If not, I encourage you to call out to God as if your life depended on it, because it does.  Ask him to save you.  If he doesn’t answer, ask again.  If he still doesn’t answer, ask again.  And again, and again, and again, until he either saves you, or you go to hell.  You’ll either be saved and absolutely know it, or you’ll ask for a lifetime and one day go to hell and then know.  Either way, God will be good, God will be righteous, and God will be holy, for he is the same yesterday, today, and always.  No matter what or whom anyone wishes Him to be, He will remain the God of the Bible.