food4thought

The Myth of the Immoral Bible

The ninth letter is found online here.

‘There are two ways in which scripture might be a source of morals or rules for living. One is by direct instruction, for example through the Ten Commandments, which are the subject of such bitter contention in the culture wars if America’s boondocks. The other is by example: God, or some other biblical character, might serve as – to use the contemporary jargon – a role model. Both scriptural routes, if followed through religiously, encourage a system of morals which any civilized modern person, whether religious or not, would find – I can put it no more gently – obnoxious’ p268 TGD.

Nothing like starting out with an open mind then Richard! And that’s nothing like starting out with an open mind! And that’s one of his problems. Everything is prejudged from the outset. Before we even start to look at the Bible’s teaching we’re told that it’s obnoxious. As Robertson puts it, ‘your understanding of scripture is extreme in its condemnation and seems governed more by your atheism than by any knowledge or understanding of the text’ p101 TDL. How can Christians come back from that sort of accusation? Robertson accepts that there’s nothing he can say to people who share those presuppositions. But for the sake of those who feel less inclined to ‘accept at face value your distorted and sour-grape-picking version of the Bible’ he takes Dawkins to the cleaners on the following three issues.

1. Dawkins doesn’t understand how important Biblical interpretation is

Dawkins’ ignorance of the basic principles of biblical interpretation would prohibit him from teaching in our Sunday school. Clever he might be but competent to teach the Bible? Not on your life. Dawkins doesn’t know how to approach the Bible. It’s not rocket science and so you’re left to wonder why his version of the Bible is so warped.

a. Dawkins fails to read the Bible in context. He pays scant attention to the historical, literary, theological and biblical context. And so he ends up misreading it.

b. Dawkins fails to recognise that the Bible is descriptive. Much of what’s recorded in scripture isn’t prescriptive but descriptive. It’s telling us what happened in the lives of its flawed human heroes rather than using their lives as an example of how to behave.

c. Dawkins fails to read the Bible as literature. Detractors from Christianity are often fond of asking whether we understand the Bible literally. It’s usually the precursor to mocking our simplistic fundamentalist take on the nature of reality. Dawkins is no different. We read the Bible as literature and so we pay attention to the interpretive rules of the game. We recognise that prophecy, poetry, history, letter and law are supposed to be understood differently. Not to do so would be foolish.

d. Dawkins fails to recognise the Bible is progressive. Therefore as Robertson puts it, ‘some aspects of earlier revelation are superseded by the later’ p105 TDL. On the issue of biblical authority and interpretation Robertson’s honesty is winsome. He writes, ‘I believe the Bible is the Word of God; as such it is true, without error and communicates all that God wants it to. That does not mean it is without problems but I would like to suggest that if you read it bearing in mind the basic principles above, then 90% of the problems you cite will disappear. However that leaves the other 10%. It would be foolish to deny that there are major difficulties within the Bible. There are parts of it that make me feel distinctly uncomfortable and that I struggle with. But who am I to sit judgement upon the Bible?’ p105 TDL. Robertson doesn’t shy away from admitting that the Bible does pose questions for Christians. We don’t get everything. We haven’t got it all figured out. But the correct approach to the Word of God is humility and not judgement.

2. Dawkins doesn’t understand how wonderful atonement is

Dawkins writes, ‘I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sadomasochistic and repellent. We should also dismiss it as barking mad, but for its ubiquitous familiarity which has dulled our objectivity. If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them?’ Ah, that old chestnut! Dawkins seems to be ‘channelling’ Rousseau who first claimed that forgiveness was God’s job. It is but He does it through atonement. As Robertson points out few people are willing to accept that we have done anything so bad as to deserve death. The reason for that is that we have an insufficient understanding of depths of the wickedness of our own hearts. If we’re willing to accept the Bible’s assessment of our radical depravity then the doctrine of the atonement comes like a breath of fresh air. It is a wonderful thing to discover that the Son of God willingly stood in my place and took the punishment that I deserved. As Robertson says, ‘It’s the best bit of the whole Bible’ p 107 TDL.

3. Dawkins doesn’t understand how misplaced his confidence in humanity is

Robertson thinks that this is the most disturbing part of the chapter. That’s some claim when you consider how Dawkins has ridden roughshod over the Bible. But this section exposes the rampant optimism that Atheists have in the upwards evolutionary development of human kind. Robertson exposes that assertion for the myth that it is. It simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Or as Robertson puts it, ‘I suspect that only a nice middle-class Western moralist could be so confident and glib about the greatly improving moral situation with humanity. I had thought that such liberal utopianism had received a mortal blow after the First World War and was killed off after the Second. But apparently not. You are once again teaching that the human race is evolving to moral perfection and that the only thing that is preventing us from realising this is the evil of religion’ p108 TDL. Robertson argues that biblical morality not the atheistic zeitgeist has contributed more to the social and moral reformation of the world. He cites numerous examples of where Biblical morality has effected change for the better. And, more alarmingly, he exposes the immoral statements of social Darwinian evolutionary thinking.

Conclusion

Robertson concludes by responding to Dawkins’ material on Hitler. This is something of an area of expertise for Robertson. His closing comments are worth quoting in full because they expose where Dawkins’ position can take us. ‘Hitler clearly did not go to war because he believed in God or because he wanted to spread Christianity. He hated Christianity. On the other hand he did believe that religion was a virus (where have I heard that one before?) and that the Jews especially were vermin who should be eradicated in order better to preserve the species. It was all perfectly logical, Darwinian and godless. Perhaps the atheist zeitgeist has moved on. But meanwhile, until it is proven otherwise, I would prefer to stick with the tried and tested morality of the Bible’ p112 TDL. And me!

The eighth letter is found online here.

‘My fear is that once society as a whole accepts your basic presuppositions (that there are no absolutes in morality, that morality changes and that human nature is genetically determined) then it is a slippery slope to the kind of atheistic societies that the world has already seen (such as Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China)’ p96 The Dawkins Letters.

With this quote Robertson takes us to the heart of his eighth letter. This is no detached philosophical reflection. This is reality. At least it could be. And that’s the point. Atheism has nothing to say to stop it. In attacking the myth of godless morality Robertson makes two telling points.

1. The atheistic account of morality is woefully incoherent

The atheistic case for Darwinian morality rests on three pillars.

a. Being moral or being good is defined as being altruistic. We’re genetically pre-programmed to be altruistic to people who are genetically most like us.

b. We’re also altruistic because that way we end up in a virtuous circle where the recipients of our altruism end up reciprocating our altruism.

c. We gain superiority over our peers when we gain a reputation for altruism. Robertson suggests that there are four problems with this moral framework.

1. it’s selfish

Fundamentally this version of morality is all about me. The Bible locates the heart of the human problem in the self centeredness of the human heart. But it nowhere argues that this should provide the basis of our moral reasoning. On the contrary, the Bible’s moral teaching aims to deliver us from the selfishness of human appetites and decision making. But the basis of atheistic morality is selfishness.

2. it’s deterministic

Atheism argues that we’re only good because we’ve been genetically pre-programmed that way. There’s no room for decision, volition and responsibility. It’s not really me making a moral decision. It’s my genetic pre-disposition. And I can’t be blamed for that. Take it up with my genes. So if this were the case then there are no grounds for human accountability. Of course, we don’t want to be naïve and deny that our genes have some influence on our decision making. But we do make decisions for which we are culpable. The trouble with the atheistic model of morality is that it doesn’t accord humanity with the responsibility that we observe or require for ruling some behaviour illegitimate.

3. it’s relativistic

Atheistic morality is secular. The moral standards of atheism are not absolute. Therefore everything is ‘up for grabs’. That’s pretty frightening. As Robertson notes, ‘if there is no ultimate standard then we are left with anything goes, might is right, or the whims of a changing and confused society’. That’s not an entirely inaccurate description of where UK Government legislation is currently heading. The chickens are coming home to roost.

4. it’s illogical

Darwinian philosophy cannot logically and consistently argue for morality because there’s no such thing as good or bad. Read these words from Dawkins’ the Blind Watchmaker, ‘In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference’. Read that again. It’s chilling. But it’s also illogical. Neo-Darwinism has no rational basis for being good. Atheistic philosophers realise this and so they’re running around like ‘blue-arsed flies’ trying to plug the gap and come up with a rationale for godless morality. But it’s an exercise in futility.

In contrast to the incoherence of the atheistic morality there’s Christianity.

2. The Christian account of morality is compellingly coherent

Presumably Dawkins knows that the incoherence of the Neo-Darwinian account of morality is atheism’s Achilles heel. And he tries to conceal that with a vehement attack on the Christian account of morality. Tactically it’s astute. In all honesty it’s deceptive. His biggest issue with Christian morality is the Bible, which he deals with in chapter 7 of TGD. But it’s not his only issue. He cites the example of immoral acts by Christians which discredit the claim of morality. There are two easy counters to this argument. First, Jesus would not have us be immoral. Secondly, the immoral acts of some who profess faith shouldn’t tarnish everyone who does. But Dawkins also has an issue with Christianity’s big stick approach to keeping us on the straight and narrow. He doesn’t put it in those terms of course. He’s an academic and so he cites Einstein who said, ‘If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed’. I prefer my version. Robertson points out that, ‘The Bible recognises that human beings are complex and that we need a system of checks and balances to help us’. And so he asks Dawkins a series of rhetorical questions. ‘Would you like the police to be removed from Oxford? Do you think that students at your university should be threatened with punishment if they cheat? Or should they be given higher degrees if they do better than their peers? Surely if your students are only studying and not cheating because they fear punishment or have hope for some reward they are a sorry lot?’ If Dawkins was opposed to the threat of punishment as a means of motivating behaviour then he’d answer in the negative. But of course he won’t. Once again he’s hoisted on his own petard. Having defended Christian morality against false charges Robertson then goes on the attack and shows its strength.

1. Christian morality explains evil

The Bible tells us what we already know to be true of ourselves; we’re messed up. The real issue in the morality debate is why people are evil. Christianity has an answer; the answer. But Dawkins’ version of morality is naively optimistic. He assumes that we’ll all end up like middle class Oxford dons. But he can’t explain why we shouldn’t end up like middle class German Nazis. The Bible does, and it calls it sin.

2. Christian morality explains the universe

Quoting CS Lewis’ essay ‘Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe’ Robertson argues that atheism cannot account for the universal moral impulse and a universal sense of moral guilt. Lewis asks where we get this awareness of wrong and right from if it’s not from the divine creation of the universe.

3. Christian morality explains me

The GK Chesterton quote is wonderfully evocative. I think I heard it every year at Christian summer camp. In a letter to the Times newspaper he wrote, ‘Dear Editor: What’s wrong with the world? I am. Faithfully yours, GK Chesterton’. It makes the point that the Bible explains that the evil that caused the holocaust is present in each one of us. Robertson’s point is that atheism has no grounds for morality. Christianity does. But is there’s no such thing as absolute right and wrong then nothing is ruled out and everything, everything is permissible. That this is the case is supported by some of the central figures of atheistic ethics and philosophy.

Peter Singer, the Professor of Bioethics at Princeton, argues that mentally impaired babies have no greater rights than certain animals.

Bill Hamilton, a Professor of evolutionary biology at Oxford, argued for a radical programme of infanticide, eugenics and euthanasia in order to save the world.

Konrad Lorenz, the Austrian zoologist and animal psychologist who founded ethology or the study of animal behaviour, was an enthusiastic Nazi.

J.B.S Haldane, geneticist and evolutionary biologist who was one of the founders of population genetics, was a committed Stalinist.

R.A. Fisher, the evolutionary biologist and geneticist who created the foundations for modern statistical science, argued that civilization was threatened because upper class women weren’t procreating at a sufficient rate.

These are not peripheral figures or straw men constructed in order to caricature a position with which Christianity takes issue. These guys are front and centre. They were advocates of extreme social views. Dawkins ignores them.

Conclusion

But before we move on from this we must be clear on one thing. Christians are not moralists. We believe in morality because the Bible does. But the Bible doesn’t give us a set of laws to observe. It gives us a saviour to trust. We know that our moral transformation comes not through our behaviour but through our belief in Jesus Christ. He dealt with our immorality on the cross and he deals with our morality with His Spirit.

The Myth of the Inherent Evil of Religion

You can find this letter online here.

Dawkins’ chapter five, ‘The Roots of Religion’ is his attempt to explain why there’s a pervading religious presence in the world if there’s no God in the universe. Dawkins’ chapter eight ‘What’s Wrong with Religion?’ provides his rationale for attacking theism in all its forms. Robertson deals with them together in this letter. He tees us up nicely for what to expect in Dawkins’ treatment of this matter when he writes, ‘I find your analysis in these two chapters hard to respond to because they depend on the failed thesis that God has been proven not to exist and, because your treatment of religion is imbalanced, distorted and reflective, not so much of objective analysis but rather of your own subjective anti-God feelings’ p77 The Dawkins Letters.

Robertson has two essential issues with Dawkins.

1. Dawkins has a simplistic view of the prevalence of religion

C.S. Lewis once wrote, ‘Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in the world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world’ quotes on p87 The Dawkins Letters. That’s one answer for the prevalence of religion. There are alternatives. Dawkins’ answer is that religion is an unexpected spin off from natural selection. His argument is that the memetic proliferation of dependent trust, fostered in children towards parents, strengthens the case for evolutionary survival. It’s advantageous in evolutionary terms to be trusting. The problem, as Dawkins sees it, is that some just don’t know when or who to trust. It makes them susceptible to gullibility. Religious faith is a parasitical virus that infects the gullible. It is as Alistair McGrath puts it in his book Dawkins’ God, people do not believe in God because they have given long and careful thought to the matter; they do so because they have been infected by a powerful meme’. But there are three significant problems with this meme hypothesis!

a. There’s absolutely no evidence for such a theory. That means that this theory is an unsubstantiated piece of speculation! Robertson says it’s ‘just making things up as you go along in order to fit everything into your all encompassing evolutionary theory’. He calls it ‘science of the gaps’. Do you see what he’s done there?!

b. If this hypothesis was correct then neo-Darwinian ideas would be simply be a meme.

c. Memes can be neutralized and eradicated by some mental exercises. In fact, to be consistent, since they’re viruses that infect the mind they ought to be. Robertson quotes Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at the University of Cambridge who in his book Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe says, ‘Memes are trivial, to be banished by simple mental exercises. In any wider context, they are hopelessly, if not hilariously, simplistic’. Ouch! I think that pretty much discredits the idea of memes.

2. Dawkins has a fundamentalist approach to the validity of religion

Robertson then deals with Dawkins’ rant against religion in chapter eight. He calls him a fundamentalist. Robertson’s beef is summarised in these words, ‘Whilst it would only be a fool who denies that some aspects of religion and some religious people have caused a great deal of harm in the world, it is equally foolish to make the kind of irresponsible sweeping statements that you do here – in order to foster the myth that religion is harmful. This is an atheist half-truth which is erroneously but widely accepted’ p80 The Dawkins Letters. But Dawkins doesn’t like being called a fundamentalist. He’s a self professed despiser of religious fundamentalism and so he recoils at the suggestion that he’s an anti-theistic fundamentalist. But Robertson suggests that Dawkins attracts this unwelcome description for the following three reasons

a. The logic goes something like this. Dawkins is passionate about what he believes. Fundamentalists are passionate about what they believe. Therefore Dawkins is a fundamentalist. Passion is bad. Apparently. Well, in the wider social context it’s viewed with suspicion. Dawkins falls foul of this and therefore attracts an unwelcome label. Welcome to the club Richard! But there is a downside to his passionate hatred of religion. He must share some concern for the way his vitriolic verbal attacks have consequences as his words are implemented by his devotees in ways that he would not approve.

b. Dawkins doesn’t debate and this simply reinforces the view that his view is right and that there’s nothing really to discuss. I’m not sure that this is still the case. He’s debated Alistair McGrath and John Lennox in recent months. But Robertson is right to say that Dawkins verbally hammers anyone who disagrees with him and lauds those who don’t.

c. Dawkins resorts to caricature, mockery and misrepresentation of those who disagree with him. Chapter eight is littered with this sort of treatment. Dawkins cites the extreme example of Pastor Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church of ‘God hates fags’ infamy. We’re supposed to believe that this is typical and representative of American Christianity. But as Robertson points out anyone could produce a list of fringe mentally imbalanced people on any subject but that doesn’t invalidate the subject. It’s the tactic of the fundamentalist to caricature his opponents, mock them and dismiss them. Robertson writes, ‘You have a good reason to equating Christianity with the unbalanced fringe. It suits your purpose to agree with them as to what Christianity is. That’s why you interview extremist. You set up straw men and then it makes you look so much more reasonable. But that is the tactic of the fundamentalist who is out to prove that he alone has the truth, rather than the scholar or the seeker after truth’ p84 The Dawkins Letters.

Dawkins justifies his heavy handed approach to religion and the lack of refinement in choosing his targets because he thinks that ‘mild and moderate’ religion helps to provide a climate in which extremism can flourish. But of course, the same could be said of ‘mild and moderate’ atheism.

Conclusion

Robertson’s task has been to defend Christianity from the unfair attacks of an anti-theistic fundamentalist. In my view, he’s done a pretty good job. Dawkins has not accounted for the prevalence of faith and he has failed to show that religion inevitably produces extremism.

The sixth letter can be found online here.

‘Why there almost certainly is no God’. That’s the title of Dawkins’ fourth chapter. We’re getting to the heart of the matter. If the rhetoric is to be believed then Theism ought to be in for a rough ride. In fact Dawkins writes, ‘If the argument of this chapter is accepted, the factual premise of religion – the God Hypothesis – is untenable’ p189 TGD. If he gets this right then we can close down the churches, free up our Sundays and I’m seeking alternative employment! There are bigger casualties. But that’s for another post.

Let me summarise Robertson’s critique of this material with the following four headings.

1. Dawkins expects us to be convinced by one killer argument

Dawkins does not engage in a systematic cumulative dismantling of the case for theism. He thinks that’s unnecessary because he’s found the silver bullet. To add another metaphor, Dawkins thinks that he’s found theism’s Achilles heel. Theism stands or falls on the truth of this argument. Robertson summarises the killer argument like this, ‘Evolution is true. Evolution explains the illusion of design. The design argument is the main argument for God. Therefore there is no God’. It’s an argument. But is it a good one? We need to know why Dawkins thinks that the argument from design is so shabby. There’s no design he says, because there’s no designer. And why’s there no designer? Because there’s no one who designed the designer. No really, that’s it. According to Dawkins, there can be no God because we can’t think of anyone who created Him. Robertson is scathing in his assessment of Dawkins’ case. He writes, ‘When I read it [your argument] I was genuinely shocked. Not because of its originality, killer force or overwhelming logic, but rather because of its banality’. And this is the intellectual foundation for Dawkins’ atheism. Consequently, if we can show that this foundation is shaky then the house of atheism as propounded by Dawkins ought to come tumbling down.

2. Dawkins exercises incredible faith in evolutionary theory

On the back of his unwavering faith in evolutionary theory Dawkins dismisses the case for a created God and He dismisses the case for an uncreated God. Anyone would think that he has it in for God! He dismisses the theistic case for God because he puts all his eggs in the neo-Darwinian basket. Because he’s absolutely convinced that evolutionary theory by natural selection accounts for life he must assert that things evolve from the simple to the complex. Complex comes at the end. Simple comes at the beginning. But the notion of a theistic God requires complexity to come at the beginning; to make the simple. And that he can’t or won’t accept. At a very superficial level we can grant that this is the case in biology. But it’s a massive leap into the dark world of scientific speculation to take a principle from biological science and assert its universal applicability. And then, Dawkins just asserts that God cannot be uncreated. But that’s a presupposition that he brings to the table. And so he ends up in a circular argument. There is no God because there can never be anything uncreated and so God can’t be uncreated and so there is no God. Neat, but circular. And it doesn’t prove anything except that circular arguments leave you going round in circles.

3. Dawkins evades the persuasive theistic case for human existence

Dawkins fails to account for two things. First, he cannot explain the origin of matter. Secondly, he cannot account for the conditions of life. For atheism to be persuasive we need to know why there is something and not nothing. There are only three alternative explanations for the origin of matter. Either something came from nothing, or something was eternal, or something was created. There’s no other alternative. If something came from nothing, then as Robertson puts it, ‘At one point there was no universe, no matter, no time, no space. And out of that big nothing there came the Big Bang and our vast universe, tiny planet, evolution and the human species’. But that makes no sense at all. If something was eternal then as Robertson puts it, ‘There is a lump of rock, or a mass of gas or some kind of matter which had no beginning and will probably have no end. And at some point that matter exploded and we ended up with the finely tuned and wonderful universe we now inhabit’. Or we say that something was created out of nothing. But to do that you need an incredibly powerful and intelligent uncreated being. Whether we believe this God exists or not is dependent on which one of the alternatives we find most convincing. Secondly, he cannot account for the conditions of life. We live in a finely tuned universe. Apparently if the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by been one part in ten thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present state. And if it had been greater by one part in a million then the stars and planets would not have been able to form. There are fifteen such constants without which the conditions for life would not be possible. It all begs the question how someone who so prizes intellectual logic can be an atheist. And so we end up with the illogicality of unbelief. As Robertson observes in his concluding paragraph, ‘In bringing up the argument of the origin of matter abd of the universe you have in fact scored an enormous own goal. Instead of proving that there almost certainly is no God, you have demonstrated that there almost certainly is’.

4. Dawkins engages in fantastical speculation rather than accept the evidence 

Somehow Dawkins has to explain the origin of matter and the conditions for life. To do this he must explain how we get the conditions for evolution. Mathematically the probability that there’s life is infinitesimally small. The fine tuning of the universe is utterly improbable. The suggestion that we just got lucky doesn’t exactly satisfy the criterion of rationality! But then I suppose it’s possible to postulate the multiverse; the notion that there are billions of universes and the odds are that one of them will have the conditions for life. Robertson smells blood and goes for the jugular, ‘You keep telling us that science is about what we can observe, that it is about fact and empirical evidence. The multiverse notion is a ‘sci-fi’ nonsense for which there is no evidence whatsoever. One almost gets the impression that you would accept any theory as long as it did not involve the possibility of there being a God!’ But Dawkins’ speculative theorising reaches its climax with his approval of Deutsch’s proposal that there are a vast number of rapidly growing universes that exist in parallel in which we live different lives!

Conclusion

Robertson brings his letter to a close with two justified observations

a. Dawkins cannot claim to be acting scientifically when he propounds atheism since he has offered no substantive scientific reasons as to why we ought not to believe in God.

b. Dawkins ought to stop misrepresenting his dissenters as those who have settled for a God of the gaps; filling in until science makes the discovery.

He summarises his issue with Dawkins in these words, ‘You like to suggest that your position is a logical one caused by the fact that Darwin has raised your own consciousness and you seem to think that those who do not agree with you are not so highly evolved (at least in consciousness). Your position is the scientific one and you set up the debate so that it is always the forces of reason and science against the blind irrationality of faith. I’m afraid that that just does not square with the facts’.

The fifth letter can be found here.

Dawkins’ basic problem in this chapter is that he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. At least that’s Robertson’s take on things. Here’s a collection of his comments.

‘Your understanding of Christian theology is shockingly bad!’ p53

‘I can hardly believe that a professor at Oxford wrote such a juvenile argument!’ p53

‘You state this argument really badly’ p55.

The fact that you neither understand nor agree with it hardly constitutes a rational argument against it’ p56.

‘You also seem to be having enormous difficulty with this argument’ p56.

‘Furthermore you completely misstate the argument from personal experience’ p57.

‘You also illustrate the truth of the saying that ‘a little learning is a dangerous thing’ p59.

‘In this regard I am astounded at how out of touch you are with modern biblical scholarship’ p60.

These are not minor quibbles! And it’s disastrous to Dawkins’ cause because this is the chapter where he wants to undermin the theistic arguments for God’s existence. If he’s refuting the wrong arguments then it’s an exercise in atheistic futility!

In passing it’s worth saying that Robertson is unpersuaded by Anselm’s Ontological Argument and he says nothing about Aquinas’ proofs. He reckons it’s philosophically neat but hardly conclusive proof of God’s existence.

But what’s got under Robertson’s skin to cause him to point our Dawkins personal intellectual inadequacies in the area of theology?

1. Dawkins misrepresents the Argument from Beauty

Robertson contests that the appreciation and creation of beauty is insufficiently unaccounted for by atheism. It’s not enough to say that our sense of beauty is a chemical reaction. He argues that, ‘Beauty is part of consciousness and it remains one of the great unanswered questions in evolutionary philosophy - where does consciousness come from?’ p55. Robertson puts great store by this argument. He reckons that, ‘the argument from beauty remains one of the most powerful arguments for God’.

2. Dawkins misrepresents the Argument from Personal Experience

This section doesn’t begin promisingly because as Robertson points out ‘personal experience’ appears to be limited to be voices and visions. The vast majority of Christians are not believers because they heard a voice or have seen a vision. They’re believers because as C.S. Lewis put it, ‘I arrived where I now am, not by reflection alone, but by reflection on a particular recurrent experience. I am an empirical theist. I have arrived at God by induction’. Robertson rightly tries to expand what’s included under the rubric of ‘personal experience’ so that it’s not so limited. He broadens the scope of the definition to include answered prayer, being filled with the Spirit, living by the Bible, the sense of the presence of God and so on. And then he concludes with this wonderful sentence, ‘I for one would not argue that I believe in Jesus Christ solely because of any one of them. But the accumulation of these experiences in addition to the truths of the Bible, and the observation of history, creation and society, add up to a very powerful personal apologetic’ p58.

3. Dawkins misrepresents the Argument from the Bible

Robertson will return to this in chapter nine. But he can’t let some of the stuff Dawkins comes out with fly by without having a swing. Dawkins states that ‘there is no good historical evidence that he ever thought he was divine’. What!? As Robertson states, ‘the historical evidence for the claims that Jesus made is quite clear. The Gospels make it explicit. And it was after all the reason he was crucified - because he ‘blasphemed’ by claiming to be God’ p59. And he doesn’t stop there. After taking Dawkins to task for ignorance of the two census solution to Luke’s material he continues, ‘The problem is that you, with all the certainty of the fundamentalist delighting in proving his opponents wrong, seize upon the flimsiest of evidence and, without any further investigation, make sweeping statements that this proves the Bible wrong’ p59. In order to prevent Dawkins making an even bigger fool of himself in the area of New Testament scholarship Robertson encourages him to go and have a word with Alistair McGrath becaue ‘I am sure it would be enormously helpful and prevent you making the kind of gaffes that you pour out here’ p60. The overwhelming view of modern biblical scholarship is how reliable the Gospels are as sources of reliable history. But don’t expect to hear that from Richard Dawkins.

4. Dawkins misrepresents the Argument from Scientists

Dawkins seems to think that Christians use the existence of eminent Christian scientists as sure proof that God exists. He argues that these scientists only continue as believers for social or economic reasons. Robertson points out that Christians do use the existence of eminent Christian scientists to attest that science and Christianity need not necessarily be in conflict with one another but indeed can be complementary ways of understanding the universe.

Conclusion

Robertson concludes with a warning. He argues that the alliance of science and atheism is potentially catastrophic. Without God there’s no way to account for evil and there’s no way to defend against it. But it’s his conluding paragraph that undermines almost everything that Dawkins asserts in this book. Any old idiot can assert that God’s a delusion if they won’t deal with Jesus Christ. Or as Robertson puts it, ‘Let me finish by pointing out that you missed out the most important argument of all for the existence of God - the person and work of Jesus Christ. By far the number one reason I believe and trust in God is becasue of Jesus Christ’ p63. Amen.  

This chapter can be found online here.

Robertson opens with a scathing attack on Dawkins’ atheistic evangelistic approach. Essentially Dawkins thinks that the ‘God Hypothesis’ is a provisional explanation offered by those with an intuitive religious sense to plug the gaps of our knowledge. This worked well for a time. But now we have Darwinian evolutionary theory. This proves that God is a delusion. Those who accept this view have gained a higher consciousness. And so, as Robertson writes,

‘the only thing left to do is write a book which tells people that is the case, and encourages the enlightened to ‘come out’ and organise politically so that the virus of religion and the old ways can never be used again’.

He’s got a point. Chapter two of TGD is a long one. Robertson doesn’t like it. He asserts,

‘It is a rambling incoherent chapter, the worst in your book, and is probably the reason that your book has received such a critical slating.’

Ouch! And I thought that the problem was me! I assumed that I must be stupid not to understand how a chapter entitled the God Hypothesis could spend its time looking at secularism, agnosticism, Thomas Jefferson, the founding fathers, little green men and so on. I was faintly reassured by Robertson’s brutal take on it. He takes issue with Dawkins on the following subject matters

1. Dawkins’ treatment of the ‘God Hypothesis’ is deceitful

In a chapter entitled, The God Hypothesis, you’d have thought that what you’d get is an in depth discussion of the evidence for God. Not in this book. Dawkins doesn’t discuss the ‘God Hypothesis’. He defines it. Then he dismisses it. But he doesn’t deal with it. The definition we’re offered is,

‘There exists a super human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed the unniverse and everthing in it, including us’.

Well, I’d want to say more than that and probably get rid of ’super human’ but I can live with this insofar as it goes. But he dismisses the ‘God Hypothesis’ with this,

‘any creative intelligence of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution’.

Unless I’m very much mistaken that’s an assertion not an argument.

2. Dawkins’ depiction of God is a caricature

Dawkins opens with a vicious attack on the God of the Bible. Except that it’s not. The God he lays into is a convenient caricature. The God that Richard Dawkins doesn’t believe exists is one that most Christians don’t believe in either! How did he get here? Robertson suggests,

‘It is only by a very selective citation out of context, ignoring all the passages and teaching about God, that you could come anywhere near the caricature you propose.’ p46

He also writes,

‘It is your attack on a distorted and perverted version of Christian teaching about God which provides you with the most entertaining smokescreen for your lack of substantial argument on whether God exists in the first place or not.’ p48

3. Dawkins’ assertion that Christians are polytheistic atheists is nonsense

Dawkins makes the clever point that Christians are atheists with regard to the polytheistic gods but that atheists go one God further. It’s neat. But it’s nonsense. It fails to deal with whether it’s sensible for Christians to reject belief in polytheism. Christians are quite prepared to agree that there are myths, false gods and delusions. They just don’t think that this applies to the God of the Bible. Robertson’s illustration is an apt one,

‘Your point has no more validity than a man who announces that a Rolex cannot be real because he once bought a fake watch, or a woman announcing that love does not exist because she once had a bad experience’. p47

4. Dawkins’ dismissal of NOMA is inadequate

NOMA [non overlapping magisteria] is the idea that religion and science are two seperate spheres. It’s an idea that was expounded by Stephen J. Gould when he said,

’science gets the age of rocks, and religion the rock of ages; science studies how the heavens go, religion how you got to heaven.’ p48

Dawkins is unhappy with that. He wants religion to be annihilated. Robertson is also unhappy with that. He wants the possibility of overlap. He argues,

‘There are things that science cannot and possibly never will be able to prove, and there are things that religion does not comment on. Gould’s example is correct - the Bible says nothing about the age of rocks and science can tell us nothing about the Rock of Ages - Jesus Christ. However there are places where the two link. For example, if someone claims a miracle that they have been healed from cancer, then science is able to judge whether or not the cancer has gone.’ p49

5. Dawkins’ mathematical probability has been proven wrong

Dawkins delights to tell us that,

‘even if God’s existence is never proved or disproved with certainty one way or the other, available evidence and reasoning may yield an estimate of probability far from 50 per cent.’ p50 TGD

But according to Robertson he’s got his sums wrong! On 20 November 2006 the Times carried a report suggesting that the mathematical probability of the existence of God was just over 62%. You couldn’t make it up! For no other reason than I get a kick out of saying it Robertson concludes that Dawkins has been ‘hoisted by your own petard’. You may find this useful!

6. Dawkins’ report of the Great Prayer Experiment is irrelevant

In response to Dawkins’ report of the findings of the ‘Great Prayer Experiment’ I want to say ’so what’. If you start with a duff view of prayer you’re going to have some unrealistic expectations and end up with predictably unpersuasive results. And in so doing you’ve established nothing of any substance. And to think that trees were felled for this.

7. Dawkins’ mention of the tooth fairy is utterly misleading

Dawkins implies that the Christian claim that there’s a God should be taken no more seriously than anyone who claims that there’s a tooth fairy. But that’s utterly misleading. As Robertson writes,

‘Do you seriously think that the evidence for the God of the Bible is on the same level as the tooth fairy? You have not, for example, written a book on the Tooth Fairy Delusion. The evidence for God is on a completely different level.’ p51

As he points out,

‘If the only evidence that existed for Jesus Christ was the same as that which exists for the Flying Spaghetti Monster [changing the illustration] then I and millions of others would not believe in him.’ p51

But Dawkins never really deals with Jesus Christ.

Conclusion

Robertson turns the tables in his concluding comments. He agrees with Dawkins’ distinction between the atheistic and theistic view of the universe. But then he compares them. And this is what you end up with,

‘You live in a universe which appears from nowhere, is going nowhere and means nothing’. p52

How awful.

This chapter can be found online here.

This is really a chapter about methodology. At least I think it is.

Robertson accuses Dawkins of six things.

1. Your central thesis is unsubstantiated

Robertson suggests that Dawkins has one unproven central thesis which is surrounded by a number of secondary supporting arguments. His central thesis is that science proves that God does not exist and that belief in him is a delusion. The supporting arguments are the nature of religion, supposed errors in the Bible, hypocrisy in the church and so on. Throughout The Dawkins Letters Robertson attempts to deal with the secondary arguments. But though he hasn’t yet responded to the central thesis neither has Dawkins defended it.

2. Your conditions of proof for God’s existence are unreasonable

Atheists demand that theists prove that God exists. That’s not an entirely unreasonable request! But the conditions they attach are. If your starting presuppositions are first, that there is only the material and that secondly, the only thing that can be called proof is material proof then it’s pretty hard to prove the existence of something non-material! But, as Robertson points out, the assertion that everything is material is an unproven assumption and doesn’t even fit with the observable facts. The theist faces the impossible task of trying to prove the existence of something that atheists presuppose is non-existent. Impasse.

3. Your discussion of tactics is revealing

Robertson accuses Dawkins of failing to prove the assertion that there is no God because everything is material. Dawkins’ failure to do this is masked by his apologetic defence of atheism and his aggressive treatment of detractors. In this Robertson detects something of an ‘in house’ atheistic disagreement about tactics. On the one hand there are the ‘nice’ atheists who want to gently point out the stupidity of theism in order to win people. On the other hand there are the ‘nasty’ atheists who want to aggressively mock the stupidity of theism in order to win the argument. Robertson has some sympathy with Dawkins’ aggressive stance because there’s biblical and divine precedent for addressing and prosecuting unbelief.

4. Your treatment of respect is naive

Dawkins’ main point is that it’s unfair and illogical that just because something is religious it should be treated with kid gloves. At the end of chapter one of The God Delusion he quotes with approval H.L. Mencken who said that,

‘we must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart’. p27 TGD

Robertson agrees that ‘just because someone cites their view as religious does not de facto entitle it to respect’.  It’s all very well for Dawkins to profess to want genuine discussion about the big issues of life. But he’s naive if he fails to recognise that every society has its unquestionned and unquestionable assumptions. There are simply some things that we’re not allowed to debate openly; sexuality for example. What’s striking is that this is especially true of a secular society which is increasingly aggressively censorious of Christian views. It seems as though we’re allowed to hold any view as long as it’s the secular one. This would seem to explain the secularist intolerance of various Christian Unions.

5. Your summary of religious conflict is simplistic

Robertson very ably deals with an old chestnut; the so-called religious conflict. He writes,

‘Whilst I fully agree that religion is sometimes the cause of the most appalling behaviour in people, it is more often the case that religion is the excuse rather than the cause for ethnic divisions and wars.’ p39

In other words he accepts that religious affiliation may be a contributory factor in conflict but most often it is a convenient excuse to express a more deep seated hostility. But he goes further than trying to distance genuine faith from religious conflict. He points out the inconsistency of Dawkins’ poisition. You can’t on the one hand attribute the existence of gods to the delusion of the human imagination and on the other say that the existence of gods is to blame for religious infighting. You can’t say the gods are to blame when you’ve just said that humans invent the gods! Robertson puts it more eloquently,

‘Which is it? Do people invent religions so that they can fight one another, or do religions create peoples who will, because of their religion, hate and fight one another? You can’t have it both ways - unless you are someone who accepts the Bible’s teaching that human beings are inherently selfish and prome towards war, and that they are equally idoloatrous, seeking to create ‘gods’ in their own image - and that the two often come together.’ p40

6. Your appeal for free speech denies responsibility

Dawkins is all for free speech. Good man! But Robertson argues that with this right of open expression comes the requirement to use this privilege responsibly. Dawkins uses it as justification for caricaturing and ridiculing religion instead of dealing with it fairly, telling the truth and encouraging genuine enquiry. Going on the attack, Robertson says,

‘The trouble is that your ridicule, combined with an atheist fundamentalism and the bitterness and irrationality of some of your supporters, leads to persecution and intolerance.’ p41

He evens dares to suggest that this approach is on the same trajectory that led to the intolerance, coercion and vicious tyranny  of Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Kampuchea and Hitler’s Germany. That’s where atheistic secular fundamentalism can lead us. Christianity, on the other hand, has nothing to fear from free and open debate. Persuasion and not coercion through the frank exchange of views is how people will be convinced to become Christians. Christians shouldn’t be yielding political power to impose its views on anyone.

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

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.

Freshly fished from the Amazon is this book by David Robertson. I’d heard really good things about it here and sampled a few bits here.

What will follow is a self indulgent series of posts that essentially summarise the content of each of his chapters. The reason I’m doing this is to hold myself to account. I need to get through the book quickly and understand its contents. What better way than to presume to tell the world [for that read ‘visitors of this blog - family and close friends then…’] what it’s about!

Robertson’s book is essentially a collection of letters written to Professor Dawkins in response to each of the chapters of his book, The God Delusion.

The God Delusion is the latest offering from Britain’s most famous and vociferous atheist. The God Delusion continues to attract far too much attention on both sides of the atlantic. Wonderfully, it’s stirred up some of the finest Christian thinkers to respond at an academic level. However, few layman will have the access or the inclination to interact with this fine and necessary material. If that situation goes unaddressed the false impressions and myths presented and propagated will continue to gain acceptance.

And so, Robertson’s aim is straightforward. He writes,

‘My aim is to rpesent one person’s response to Dawkins and to do so from a wide and personal perspective. My aim is not to convert, nor to insult, nor even to defend. Rather it is to challenge some of the basic myths that Dawkins uses and encourages in his book, in order that you may think and consider these things for yourself’.

Robertson is clear about his own Christian presuppositions, his non-scientific background and his desire to want to interact at a popular and personal level. But he’s also clear that he thinks that Dawkins’ approach is parasitical. He writes,

‘I believe that he [Dawkins] is appealing not to people’s intelligence and knowledge but rather to their ignorance. This series of letters is presenetd to the reader in order to challenge some of the atheistic myths that Dawkins taps into and feeds … I call them atheistic myths because they are beliefs that are widely held or assumed without necessarily having been thought through or evidenced’.

The appetite should be whetted. You could do a lot worse than buy it and read it yourself! Try here.