For the third or fourth time I am trying to slog through
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I don't enjoy it. His arguments go against what I most deeply believe. I get irritated by his snippiness and arrogance. I get sleepy from boredom. Why, then, am I reading it?
Most simply, I want to meet the challenge--the challenge of religious skeptics, of avowed atheists, of searching teens, of many close to me. I think Christ and the Church meet that challenge not just for me but for many. Where Dawkins and his cronies fail, the risen Lord fills the void. I could go into many of the objections I spot as Dawkins makes his case, but I would rather present a hopeful alternative to the negative outlook he presents.
From the start, Dawkins stakes his turf as truth being only that which is based on evidence--observable, measurable data that is repeatedly found to be true, verified by many individuals, and written into fact. Fair enough. He's a scientist (of sorts), so that's how his mind works.
He cites a study on prayer to see if patients with serious illnesses experience any difference based on a Christian community a few states away praying for them. No surprise: There are no discernible differences between patients receiving prayers, those not receiving prayers, and the control group.
He cites the historical and literal inaccuracies from Scripture, particularly surrounding the life of Jesus, even going so far as to say Jesus may not have existed as an historical person.
He cites religion as
the major cause of wars and violence.
He looks at weaknesses in philosophical proofs for the existence of God, trying to address the metaphysical foundation of religion that gives a logical spine for believing in a deity.
He addresses the religious experiences so many people cite as evidence for their belief by saying psychological and physiological explanations make more sense than an encounter with a God who much of the world sees as absent.
Dawkins is convincing. His arguments, while not philosophically satisfying, are witty, original, and researched (though I will wait to answer some of his specific arguments in a future post since doing so here will distract from my purpose in writing). I see why he has a legion of people that subscribe to what he is saying, even if they wouldn't identify themselves as his followers. New atheism aims at the human weakness toward absolute control and knowledge. We insatiably crave to know our world and have it mold to our expectations.
However, as convincing as Dawkins can be, he and his contemporaries will not eradicate religion. They will not have lasting disciples. They may win sympathizers in debate, but they won't win the hearts of men and women, which is what spurs life change and religious conversion (or as is the aim of new atheists, religious exodus).
Here's why:
The God Delusion is an argument, not a movement; an intellectual game, not a call to purpose; a negation, not an arrow aimed at truth. Dawkins isn't
for something; he's only
against God and religion. He spends this book and multiple others trying to explain away something he says doesn't exist. There's an idiocy in the logic. Why spend so many pages talking about the unreal? If it's unreal, why don't we just see it like you do? Why is the vast majority of the world convinced there is something beyond this universe? If we're all logical human beings with the capacity for intellectual curiosity to stir our religious understanding, why doesn't everyone just look at the facts you present and agree? If you're right, why are there so many alternatives? If the physical world is all we have, why isn't
The God Delusion sufficient?
Each person wants her or his life to have meaning, and negating someone else's meaning does not constitute a purpose in life. What gets each of us out of bed in the morning? Chances are high it's not the demise of others. Even the most evil side of people is in pursuit of something to satisfy the longing for meaning in life. Why do people steal? To provide for themselves or achieve monetary convenience. Why do people lie? To protect themselves, their reputation, or others. Why do people kill? To protect, to uphold a belief, to fix a situation. We have an expectation of how the world should be, and we try to make ourselves and our world meet that expectation. That expectation is our reality, and our reality builds our meaning. Humans beings share a basic need for meaning. That's why the best arguments in the world aren't going to win over the general public. That's why the new atheists, powerful as their logic can be, do not have a satisfying answer to life's deepest mysteries. They aren't conceiving meaning but are tearing it asunder.
New atheist Christopher Hitchens spent years of his life not in discovery but in researching and writing an entire book seeking to undermine and humiliate Mother Teresa and the work accomplished by her order, the Sisters of Charity. He gave his book a title that illustrates the snarky pride (and darkly secular humor) of new atheists:
The Missionary Position. Why would someone want to follow such a deeply negative person? Aren't there better ways to use our limited time and abilities?
Humans are complex, beautiful, and more than the body in which we reside. If evolution explains everything we see and experience, there is no room for love, for emotions, for teenage angst, for beauty, for morality, for faith. There is only survival. Why would we have developed the baffling human nature that gives love and takes it if all we were interested in doing was instinctual? We would have no sense of right and wrong if all we cared about was staying alive. If evolution explains us completely, shouldn't there be more Spocks lacking emotion and less tears? There's no logic to our current state. There's no explanation for why a Hallmark commercial makes my sister-in-law cry or why a newborn brings inexpressible joy to parents even though it means a complete life reorientation and sleep deprivation. There's no repeatable science experiment to figure out why we are attracted to some and not others (either romantically, in friendship, or otherwise).
Dawkins and the new atheists are almost exclusively white, well-educated, wealthy males. They see a universe they claim is magnificent and vast, but their own worldviews cloud the intellectual rigor to go beyond what they can take into their senses. Their curiosity is stifled by the scientific method. Our existence is not so bland and restricted.
We are free. We are magnificent. We are explorers. We have reason to believe in something because the physical world before us has a direction that fits into an evolutionary scheme without denying the need for a starting and ending point that cannot be explained away. If evolution is real (and I think it is), what set the process in motion?
Who set the process in motion? And
why did it happen? What's the point of it all?
The point is this: We are meant to be curious. We are meant to ask questions and not stop seeking answers. The answers are not all-encompassing, just satiating. The beginning and end, the alpha and omega are endlessly debated, but the possibility for God is real, alive, and well.
Dig deep. Dig wide. Dig always. Be a part of something greater than yourself or your mind or your scars, physical and emotional. Our capacity to explore is only exceeded by our capacity to love, and I am grateful for both as a human being. Even if I struggle to slog through
The God Delusion, I don't get the sense that I am deluded. Not everything adds up as cleanly as Dawkins would like. Life isn't a thesis. It's an experience. I would rather follow something I know within the recesses of my heart, mind, and soul than spend my life denying what is and has been fundamental to human existence for as long as we know.
Bring on the arguments. I'll stick with faith, love, and hope.
