This chapter can be found online here.

It’s not all negative ranting. In fact none of it is. Robertson even has the grace to thank Richard Dawkins for including his first letter on his web site. By his own admission this is Robertson’s favourite chapter. He recognises and identifies with much of what’s written and even finds himself in agreement with some of it. But Robertson begins by gently chiding Dawkins for taking his atheistic revivalist rallies through the US. He unearths the religious fervour that accompanies the advocates and devotees of Dawkins’ position. One can almost imagine the atheistic faithful streaming to their evangelistic rally, their approved text under their arm and whooping with delight as their ’spiritual’ enemies are ridiculed and exhorted to convert to the true faith. Except they wouldn’t call it that, even though that’s what it is.

As I see it, Robertson takes issue with six main conclusions that Dawkins makes in his first chapter A Deeply Religious Non Believer.

1. He takes issue with the atheistic account of beauty

Dawkins argues that to believe that God created and is responsible for the magnificence of the creation is to demean the beauty and explain away the sense of wonder. But Robertson counters that,

‘You cannot explain beauty or evil, creation or humanity, time or space, without God. Or at least you can, but to my mind the materialistic, atheistic explanation is emotionally, spiritually and above all intellectually inadequate. Indeed, it takes a great deal of faith to be an atheist!’

Robertson suggests that Dawkins’ accusation that on the whole Christians have failed to express the magnificence of the creation as revealed by science may be the case. But he suggests that’s not because science has the monopoly on truth but because the church has failed to unleash the God of the Bible. We’ve boxed Him in and become antagonistic to anything that doesn’t fit into that box. But the unboxed God implores His creature to explore His creation. In short, Christianity has nothing to fear from the scientific endeavour.

2. He takes issue with the false dichotomy between science and religion

Science and religion are not two competing belief systems. It’s not scientific presuppositions that mean we should be atheistic but philosophical ones. Robertson writes,

‘The danger of the position that you are advocating is that you want to drive a wedge between science and religion to suit your own philosophy. But your position is philosophical, not scientific. To put it more plainly, the reason that you are an atheist is not that you are driven there by scientific fact, but because that is your philosophy. You use science to justify it but then many religious people also use science to justify their position. The question is not science but rather the presuppositions that we bring to science.’ p28

In other words, it’s possible to be a devotee of science and a devotee of Christianity. Science doesn’t mean that we have to be a scientific naturalist.

3. He takes issue with naturalism’s scientific reductionism

Naturalists like Dawkins think that everything is physical. He quotes with support Julian Baggini’s definition that

‘What most atheists do believe is that although there is only one kind of stuff in the universe and it is physical, out of this stuff comes minds, beauty, emotions, moral values - in short the full gamut of phenomena that gives richness to human lives’. p14 The God Delusion

Or as he himself puts it this way,

‘Human thoughts and emotions emerge from exceedingly complex interconnections of physical entities within the brain. An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe,, no suol that outlasts the body and no miracles - except in teh sense of natural phenemena that we don’t yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope to understand it and embrace it within the natural’. p 14 The God Delusion

But Robertson retorts that this is only a hypothesis. It’s an unproven assertion. But it’s also a profoundly depressing one! It’s so minimalist. Do we really want to say that the scientific explanation is all that there is to be said on the matter? Robertson cheekily calls Dawkins’ position a ’science of the gaps’ approach. The things we observe that we can’t explain he says can be explained by scientifically but we just haven’t found out how yet. Science provides the theory of everything.

4. He takes issue with the use of the ad hominem argument

The ad hominem argument is the debater’s equivalent of the two footed lunge. It’s an attempt to tackle the man and not the ball. Basically if you can successfully disparage the proponent of a view you need never give serious consideration to his views. So if Dawkins can show how stupid Christians are then of course God doesn’t exist. Not the most persuasive argument is it? But it works.

5. He takes issue with the contemptuous dismissal of theology

Robertson has a dig at Dawkins for his contemptuous dismissal of religion as an appropriate field of academic study. And good on him for that. I’d like to think that three years at theological college reading the likes of Edwards, Calvin, Luther and Augustine meant something! But basically Dawkins can use this as a device for expressing strong opinions in a field of expertise for which he is horrendously underqualified. Clever!

6. He takes issue with the false definition of faith

Dawkins quotes with approval two sources who misrepresent faith.

‘As everyone knows, religion is based on Faith, not knowledge.’ p17 The God Delusion

‘The whole point of religious faith, its strength and chief glory, is that it does not depend on rational justification’. p23 The God Delusion

But as Robertson points out,

‘I would argue the opposite - faith without knowledge is blind and stupid. Biblical faith is in a person. If you do not know about that person you cannot have faith in him.’ p31

And, as with everything else I’ve read so far, I’m with him on that.

Robertson closes by distinguishing religion from belief and ends with this great quote,

‘You may aspire to be a religious non-believer. I am delighted to be a non-religious believer.’ p32

The following is a short article on the wonderful subject of regeneration. It’s not a hostile takeover!

Amongst the chaos of the Christmas season I managed to find some time to read three essays by one of my favourite Christian authors, J.C. Ryle. I love Ryle because he makes those spiritual giants, the Puritans, accessible. Writing when he did, in the 19th Century, he was strongly influenced by them. But writing as he did, in recognisable English, he makes them understandable!

The three essays that captured my attention were those on the subject of Regeneration. I guess I wanted to be reminded that missions, like our forthcoming ‘The God Confusion’ are worth the hard work. I wanted to know that the end result for which we’re hoping is worth all these sleepless nights, meetings, admin, early morning prep and last minute praying!

It was time well spent. Here are four of the essential things that I learnt about regeneration

1. the necessity of regeneration is our human depravity
The Bible’s teaching is unequivocal. We are depraved. Not one ounce of our being is unaffected by our sinful inclinations. In fact, we’re so pervasively depraved that regeneration depends entirely on God’s intervention. We simply cannot bring new spiritual life to ourselves. Ryle explains why this new birth is absolutely necessary in these words,

‘it is because of our sinful hearts, our inbred corruption; we are born from the very first with a disposition towards that which is bad; we have no natural readiness to serve God – it is all against the grain; we have no natural insight into the excellence of Christ’s spiritual kingdom, no natural love towards His holy laws or desire to obey them, no natural fitness for heaven; an unrenewed man would be miserable in the company of Jesus and the saints’.

Unregenerate man cannot save himself.

2. the nature of regeneration is radical change
Regeneration or being ‘born again’, as Jesus described it, is essentially an instantaneous, supernatural implanting of new spiritual life that radically changes the whole person. Ryle says this change is,

‘a change so thorough, so searching, so radical, so complete, that he who has gone through it may be called born again, for he is to all intents and purposes a new man’.

Regeneration isn’t turning over a new leaf; it’s receiving a new life.

3. the agent of regeneration is the Holy Spirit
We can no more bring this change upon ourselves as a dead man can resuscitate himself! We need God the Holy Spirit to be at work wielding the sword of His word to pierce our unbelief and kill it. As Ryle puts it,

‘the Spirit alone can make the seed that we scatter bear fruit: the Spirit alone can lay the first foundation of that holy kingdom we want to see established in your hearts’.

And so we need to pray and ‘preach’.

4. the result of regeneration is new life
If we’re Christian we know what it is to be regenerate. But we may have forgotten. Perhaps Ryle will remind us,

‘to be born again is as it were to enter upon a new existence, to have a new mind and a new heart, new views, new principles, new tastes, new affections, new likings and new dislikings, new fears, new joys, new sorrows, new love to things once hated, new hatred to things once loved, new thoughts of God and ourselves and the world and the life to come and the means whereby that is attained’.

Regeneration is a truly wonderful thing, isn’t it? On balance I think ‘The God Confusion’, God willing, will be worth the effort!

This chapter can be found online here.

Robertson begins his first letter by highlighting two problems.

The first is that Dawkins has expressed an unwillingness to engage with ‘fundamentalists’ on the issue of supernaturalism. As Robertson points out that tends to close the door on dialogue. And load the dice in favour of the anti-supernaturalist! In fairness to Richard Dawkins he has shown a willingness to debate with supernaturalists, as his recent debate in the US with John Lennox has demonstrated. Whether this is a change in policy because he feels his ideas are failing to win over the waiverers, I don’t know. But the principle of non-engagement was rigidly applied to nine of David Robertson’s letters when he attempted to post them on Richard Dawkins’ website. There’s always editorial control but that’s ridiculous!

The second problem is the idea that atheists are more intelligent, rational and honest than supernaturalists. Dawkins claims that atheists have achieved and operate on a higher plane of consciousness. Essentially he means that atheists are academically astute and theists are thick. He doesn’t put it that way but that’s the gist of his argument. It’s a great way to start a book in which you’re keen to ridicule the beliefs of theists and bolster the confidence of atheists. But he offers no evidence for this presupposition, or convenient prejudice.

Robertson recognises that The God Delusion will be purchased by every atheistic zealot and that they’ll love it’s anti-theistic rhetoric. He gently mocks the selection of those chosen to commend the book and the self promotional blurb on the cover. He is scathing in his assessment of the intellectual and logical rigour applied to these issues. But, if you’re preaching to the choir that doesn’t matter. Passionate anti-religious vehemence is often sufficient! But Robertson also realises that the ideas proposed in The God Delusion cannot go unchallenged. Despite the inadequacies of Dawkins’ presentation Robertsons writes in despair,

‘What is disturbing is that your fundamentalist atheism will actually be taken seriously by some and will be used to reinforce their already pre-judged anti-religion and anti-Christian stance. Your ‘arguments’ will be repeated ad nauseum in newspaper letters, columns, opinion pages, pubs and dinner tables throughout the land.’ p15

For that reason Robertson writes these ten letters of response.

He concludes this brief first letter with two observations.

First, he addresses the implausibility that those with weakening religious convictions think it’s impossible to escape their faith. It’s nonsence to suggest that in the UK and the USA that an unbeliever couldn’t leave their religion. Admittedly in the US you might find it hard to run for President [as Arnie Vinnick, the character played by Alan Alda, in the West Wing discovered!]. But it’s harder to escape the scorn of a secular world and become a Christian than it is to be a part of the prevailing ideology of secularism. We’d be hard pressed to identify careers in which a Christian profession would be a positive advantage. And I’d include being an Anglican Clergyman in that! Dawkins needs to stop whingeing on this one.

Secondly, he addresses the idea that atheists represent a misunderstood and persecuted minority opinion. It’s ridiculous to think that government institutions, media outlets and educational establishments are biased against atheism. They’re overwhelmingly secular. If anyone gets the rough end of the stick it’s the mainstream Christians. The lunatic fringes will always get airtime because they undermine the credibility of the sane, but secularists aren’t open to that. As Robertson writes,

‘those who are primarily in charge of our media outlets are those who share many of your presuppositiions and prefer to make programmes whcih present Christains aas either weak ineffective Anglican vicars, or tub-thumping American Right Wing Evangelists who want to hang gays. It is propaganda - not truth, not reason, not debate and most certainly not fair.’ p19

In the closing paragraphs Robertson returns to his accusation that Dawkins is preaching to the atheistic choir. He suggests that The God Delusion will delight his disciples but make no significant impact on genuine truth seekers. That may be true. But there don’t seem to be many genuine truth seekers around these days. There seem to be many more people who prefer to be deluded by Dawkins. And I think Robertson realises that, which is why he’s published a book unpicking Dawkins’ faulty presentation of theism. The God Delusion may be ’a desperate attempt to shore up atheism’s crumbling defences’. But it’s making inroads. People are reading it. And even if they’re not reading it, they’re glad to have a copy. It’s their manifesto written by one of the cleverest men around for why they can live life as if there’s no God. But I’m thrileld that Robertson is trying to tame Darwin’s Rottweiler.