The problem with the atheists

“Anybody could be wrong. We could all be wrong, about the flying spaghetti monster, the pink unicorn and the flying teapot.”
Memorable words from Professor Richard Dawkins when asked “What if you’re wrong?” during one of his lectures about the existence of God.
His answer starts with the relegation of God to the realm of nonsense concepts which he then equates with mythologically cultural gods such as Zeus, Wotan, Thor and, of course, the Great JuJu up the mountain and the Great JuJu at the bottom of the sea. Although amusing in some ways, this reply is quite scathing because it reduces the beliefs of entire ancient civilisations to nothing more than ignorant sociological structures based on foolish thinking.
What makes it sound even more badly thought out is the fact that all of the gods Dawkins mentions are finite deities. Which means they would need to be created. By their restricted nature, none of them would be capable of creating the Universe. None of them can be considered almighty and unlimited in capability. They simply take their place in the pantheonic hierarchy. It could be argued that this is simply sleight of hand by Dawkins because it’s rather like trying to imbue a roadside puddle with the same credentials as all the mighty oceans of the world just because both are wet.
The fact is that the girl in the audience was asking what if Richard Dawkins was wrong about the omnipotent God. As mentioned above, Prof Dawkins immediately derogates him to nothing more than a myth. Clever. But not that clever.
Mythical gods have been around for a long time. Polytheism was rife in old testament days. So much so that when the God of Israel gave his commandments to the people through Moses he stated that it was wrong to put any gods before him. No graven images, no false gods.
“ You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in the heavens above, on the earth below, or in the waters beneath. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God.”
One of the gods to whom the people used to give worship was Baal. In 1 Kings we find that the people have turned to him during a period of drought. The man of God, otherwise known as Elijah, in conversation with the prophets of Baal, instructed them to choose a bull, slaughter it and build an altar. Elijah would do the same. Whoever’s god consumed the sacrifice first would be the one to whom the people would turn their hearts.
So the prophets of Baal began their ritualistic dance but the sacrifice remained. Elijah even taunted them suggesting that Baal might be asleep or out of town. This only worsened things and the followers of Baal began (as was their custom) to cut themselves with knifes and lances until they were covered in blood. Still, the sacrifice remained.
Elijah, knowing exactly what he was doing, rebuilt the altar of the Lord, cut up the bull, laid it on the wood and instructed that everything was to be drenched. Three times. It was so wet that the trench he dug was full of water too.
Then Elijah called on the name of the Lord: “O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that You are God in Israel and that I am Your servant and have done all these things at Your command. Answer me, O LORD! Answer me, so that this people will know that You, the LORD, are God, and that You have turned their hearts back again.”
The God of Israel didn’t keep the man of God waiting and the fire fell. It fell so violently that it consumed the sacrifice, the wood, the stones, the dust and every single drop of water in the trench.
This is our God. This is the one we worship. This is why it can sometimes be very difficult when we see our faith mocked. And it begs the question: Why are there so many bright people who reject God and who seem so intent on diminishing him to the realm of invention?
Ricky Gervais, another celebrity atheist, regularly trots out a familiar chestnut which he uses to present ‘evidence’ that repudiates the reality of an all-powerful creator God. He’ll say that out of the 3000 gods he doesn’t believe in, the Christian is only a person who believes in 2999 fewer than him. However, we have to confront the fact that Gervais is only referring to a manufactured figure here and that he never actually mentions his source. In all likelihood he’s probably underestimating the number of gods in which he doesn’t believe because it's actually estimated that there have been around 18,000 worshiped since the genesis of man.
But the salient point is that Gervais’s gods are also minor in every respect.
So, from a point of ridicule, the atheists can’t actually have an argument where they even mention other gods because these are not comparable to the Christian God. They are neither infinite nor eternal. They are simply mythical and superstitious created personalities – rather like Baal: figments of the imagination.
The fact is, atheists don't actually have a dog in the fight. What happened in 1 Kings with the priests of Baal was that
Elijah pretty much asked them what if they were wrong. In the only way they
knew how, they then went on to demonstrate the authenticity of their god, and
failed miserably. Dawkins is doing the same thing. However, the Elijahs of this
world simply point to the obvious which is that you can’t get solid matter from
nothing. The existence of time and space in a created realm should be sufficient to prove
the existence of a Creator. Moreover, God goes way beyond this and fills the
Universe with unnumerable worlds. It is a fact that there is intelligent design
behind creation. For all Dawkins’s protestations even he will admit that the
precision necessary to create life on earth does present a compelling argument.
After all, it’s not just our existence, it’s also the existence of the richness
of everything else which is necessary to make life sustainable – including all
consuming fires. And it’s not like God has made everything unfathomably
difficult to figure out. Nor has he made it impossible for us to draw the conclusion that all study of science should lead us to a greater understanding of who he is.
Nevertheless, they still appear to flounder to explain how, with or without God, nothing, eternity and infinity are possible. Scientists have actually tried in vain to create nothing but in doing so only end up creating something.
The least they can do is admit that they don’t know. But for
some reason the existence of God is denied vehemently by so many. David Mitchell,
the English actor, comedian and writer – when asked whether he believes in God
- simply states that he is suspicious of the distain for people who find belief
in God a comfort in their lives and the sort of desperation in some atheists to
tear that comfort away from them. In fact, it’s because of this very visible
distain that Mitchel says he is more likely to side with belief as he considers the often antagonistically viscious atheistic argument compelling evidence for the possibility that there might actually be something in it.
He has a point but let's not forget that he's an entertainer who completely negates the necessity for tough love and will always seek his popularity. Which means he'll skim over important aspects of faith such as the hardships of the apostolic calling and the necessary sacrifice inherent in God's love and our love for God. In the case of Christianity it's the fact that real, genuine Christianity is powerful and not for the faint of heart. It makes men of boys and strong women from girls. It is exacting and the mills of God do indeed grind slowly. They also grind exceedingly fine. Authentic Christians have been refined and sifted. There is certainly comfort in that but it can often feel like a harsh process so - should Mitchell experience the reality of discipleship - he (like many others) may not find it as comfortable as he imagines.
Dawkins too is unable to see this but he could at least try to sympathise with those who profess a belief in God. After all, many follow the way and yet blindly believe. They’ve never seen Jesus, they’ve never heard the voice of God. They may never have had one single spiritual or religious experience in their entire lives. But they keep believing. Jesus says that they are blessed. He also says that people are known by their fruits. Although Dawkins is polite and well-spoken there is very little avuncular kindness or empathy in him. Only a distain and desperation to try and disprove the existence of God by saying that only science can prove anything and that everything can be known through it. Even Professor Brian Cox is liberal minded enough to go beyond the known and into the realms of the philosophical don’t knows when he states that there’s so much we have yet to find out.
Of one thing we can be sure though, local gods don’t work anymore because most of them are tied to the earth. They’re supernatural deities born out of a need to worship something more powerful than we can ever be. So – as mentioned earlier - this is where the atheists cleverly place the God of the Israelites. And when on stage or a televised interview, the likes of Gervais and Dawkins skate over the big questions and slip away to receive their handsome cheques. Let’s not forget that talk-show hosts aren't paid to drill down into their guests. There’s also big money in celebrity atheism. There’s book revenue, after dinner speech money and talk show fees. All of which amount to spadefulls of cash. If you wish to listen to Dawkins banging on about the non-existence of God then it’ll cost you $100,000 dollars just for dinner. Ricky Gervais made history when he reportedly earned £1.41 million for just one single stand-up performance. His popularity means he earned 3 million just for presenting the Golden Globes.
In direct contrast we see that Jesus didn’t charge anything for barbecued fish on the beach nor did he levy a fee for his talks. Our Lord was empathetic and the people came to see him because he loved them, healed them and spoke at length about God with compassion.
By their fruits shall you know them.
Which brings us to us. Can we have sympathy – even empathy – for Dawkins?
Of course!
As an evolutionary biologist he has to deal with creationists who really do think that God made the entire Universe in 6 days. There are those who believe the earth is flat and those who believe in reincarnation. Some people are absolutely certain that Jesus is the incarnate God whereas others flatly deny that he is divine in any way. Even though around 84 percent of the global population define themselves as religious, there is so much diversity it actually means it’s simply not possible for everyone to be right. It’s rather like asking people about their driving ability. Research shows that most people, when questioned, regard themselves as ‘average’. However, the fact is, you can’t have a nation of average drivers. And so it is with religion: there are Hindus, Jews, Christian fundamentalists, Buddhists, witches, warlocks, bible belt theologians and folk dancing weirdos. Which means that there will be quite a few people who are, to put it simply, wrong. Nevertheless, it looks like Dawkins has completely thrown the baby out with the murky bathwater.
So could it possibly be that that he and his ilk: the very talented Ricky Gervais,
the extremely knowlegeable Lawrence Krauss, the gifted Carl Sagan and Christopher Hitchens (both of whom sadly met an untimely end at 62), the treasured Stephen Fry are all just men who have simply struggled to see the hand of God at work
in his Universe? If so then this is very surprising considering they are all particularly
clever individuals.
Richard Dawkins’s response to the young lady who asked him
what if he’s wrong was based on the central tenant that he believes she’d been
culturally influenced. If so, then surely this is all that’s happened to the atheists. Dawkins is just another example of a capable individual who's been swept along in the wake of the secular belief that God does not exist and therefore certainly did not create the Universe. And yet they are at a total loss to explain it themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg









