Having recently watched a video of Stephen Fry's view of God, I remember things about Richard Dawkins too, and it's the straw man argument on a cosmic scale. And here are my thoughts on why:
1. The God of the Bible is difficult to understand entirely. It would be similar to having complete knowledge of the whole of science. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and says that his working theory can explain how complexity came from virtually nothing, but that explaining how virtually nothing comes from absolutely nothing is the realm of physicists. And yet atheists, knowing that they do not know every aspect of science, treat Christians as if they should know every aspect of God.
2. Atheists often use the argument of: Well, who created God? This only shows an atheist's ignorance that everything we can see, touch, feel and even think must be created or have an origin. It's a logical deduction from the scientific method, which tests what can be seen and touched, and from psychology, which deals with feelings. However, the concept of something existing outside of time (and space) and therefore is not created is alien to science, which is why the question of who created God? keeps coming up, even though it is a non-question.
3. Since spiritual things are not physical, they cannot be tested using physical means, i.e. science. In other words, if the scientific method could be applied to spiritual things, then it would prove that they are not spiritual, but physical. This is why the scientific method cannot be applied to God, and why questions relating to God are philosophical, not scientific.
4. The evil in the world is mistakenly applied to God. Atheists assume Christians believe there is only one supernatural force at work in the world, and that this must be God. In Stephen Fry's view, all the diseases and 'problem of evil' is attributed to God. But Christians believe that all the evil is the work of Satan (and his demons), who set himself up against God and constantly tried to undermine God.
5. The heavenly realm is completely misunderstood by atheists. They set up the one being and assume that this being made everything else in existence. If an atheist accepts the notion that other spiritual forces may be at work (angels and demons), they believe that these forces must have been created by this supreme being, and thus repeat the error of point 2. Many Christians also believe that the angels were created, which only helps an atheist's argument. However, the Bible makes no mention of angels being created (the notion is only inferred from particular verses which have a different context). Like God, the angels exist outside of time and universal creation: they were not created, or rather, the beginning of their existence is the same as the beginning of God's existence.
6. The way God interacts with humanity is also misunderstood. We don't have a divine right to God's blessing. God is not a genie in a bottle who grants wishes: just because we want something, doesn't mean we are entitled to it (a product of the current society). God works in us to develop our faith, perseverance, moral conduct and our sense of purpose for this life. This is why we can't make a formula for how God answers prayer. Hence any questions which relate to God being inconsistent in answering prayer are misguided.
7. The Old Testament is often used to demonstrate the 'evil nature' of God, especially considering the apparent ethnic cleansing which took place. What seems to be not understood is that 'nations' in those times were much smaller and that when cleansing an ideology, all people supporting it must be exterminated. To pick a modern-day example: how will ISIS be defeated? Only by arresting or killing all of its supporters. To leave any of them living free would only allow for the group to resurrect. Or what about the 'militant atheists' who want religion to be extinct (and its supporters shamed)?
The course of human history has much ethnic cleansing and it is only perspective that dictates whether it is a good or bad thing. It is the 'tolerance' society that says ethnic cleansing is wrong (and remember: militant atheism is inherently intolerant). Most people would be glad to extinguish evil. The underlying discussion people shy away from is which evils we want to extinguish or, rather, which acts we will classify as 'evil'. When the debate reaches this level, it is easy to understand the brutality of the Old Testament: to extinguish idolatry, paganism, sexual misconduct, unethical behaviour, child sacrifice, elitism and so on. The result that the Israelite nation failed in their ethnic cleansing mandate, and their own nation became polluted with idol worship, immorality and elitism.
8. Other attributes of this 'straw man' people like to attack are the notions of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Essentially, it is the assumption that God can do anything He wants to. Some people try to argue that God has the potential to do unethical things (such as lie) but that He chooses not to. Such an argument raises awkward what if...? questions. More importantly, such arguments are reactionary and perpetuate the assumptions. The truth is, God's power has limits: His power is for the benefit of humanity. Such a question as can God create a rock so large that He can't lift it? is a non-question based on the all-powerful assumption which attempts to make God a contradiction.
Atheists usually enter the God discussion with a variation of the following reasoning:
The reality is that the whole premise for the argument is wrong: it's the straw man fallacy. Most of the time, the 'god' atheists don't believe is also a god most Christians don't believe in either.
Dawkins uses the popular quote: isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? Some people try to argue that we should be agnostic about everything unless there is visual or experimental proof of it (Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot argument). The whole problem with this line of argument, again, is that it is a straw man. It says God is like something that is make-believe or myth (fairies) or simply an object with no direct implication on the human race (a teapot).
Such debates often get heated and cause much frustration. And it comes from failing to acknowledge the straw man assumption at the premise. Once the straw man is seen for what it is, the existence of a God who personally interacts with His human creation becomes incredibly hard to deny.
1. The God of the Bible is difficult to understand entirely. It would be similar to having complete knowledge of the whole of science. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and says that his working theory can explain how complexity came from virtually nothing, but that explaining how virtually nothing comes from absolutely nothing is the realm of physicists. And yet atheists, knowing that they do not know every aspect of science, treat Christians as if they should know every aspect of God.
2. Atheists often use the argument of: Well, who created God? This only shows an atheist's ignorance that everything we can see, touch, feel and even think must be created or have an origin. It's a logical deduction from the scientific method, which tests what can be seen and touched, and from psychology, which deals with feelings. However, the concept of something existing outside of time (and space) and therefore is not created is alien to science, which is why the question of who created God? keeps coming up, even though it is a non-question.
3. Since spiritual things are not physical, they cannot be tested using physical means, i.e. science. In other words, if the scientific method could be applied to spiritual things, then it would prove that they are not spiritual, but physical. This is why the scientific method cannot be applied to God, and why questions relating to God are philosophical, not scientific.
4. The evil in the world is mistakenly applied to God. Atheists assume Christians believe there is only one supernatural force at work in the world, and that this must be God. In Stephen Fry's view, all the diseases and 'problem of evil' is attributed to God. But Christians believe that all the evil is the work of Satan (and his demons), who set himself up against God and constantly tried to undermine God.
5. The heavenly realm is completely misunderstood by atheists. They set up the one being and assume that this being made everything else in existence. If an atheist accepts the notion that other spiritual forces may be at work (angels and demons), they believe that these forces must have been created by this supreme being, and thus repeat the error of point 2. Many Christians also believe that the angels were created, which only helps an atheist's argument. However, the Bible makes no mention of angels being created (the notion is only inferred from particular verses which have a different context). Like God, the angels exist outside of time and universal creation: they were not created, or rather, the beginning of their existence is the same as the beginning of God's existence.
6. The way God interacts with humanity is also misunderstood. We don't have a divine right to God's blessing. God is not a genie in a bottle who grants wishes: just because we want something, doesn't mean we are entitled to it (a product of the current society). God works in us to develop our faith, perseverance, moral conduct and our sense of purpose for this life. This is why we can't make a formula for how God answers prayer. Hence any questions which relate to God being inconsistent in answering prayer are misguided.
7. The Old Testament is often used to demonstrate the 'evil nature' of God, especially considering the apparent ethnic cleansing which took place. What seems to be not understood is that 'nations' in those times were much smaller and that when cleansing an ideology, all people supporting it must be exterminated. To pick a modern-day example: how will ISIS be defeated? Only by arresting or killing all of its supporters. To leave any of them living free would only allow for the group to resurrect. Or what about the 'militant atheists' who want religion to be extinct (and its supporters shamed)?
The course of human history has much ethnic cleansing and it is only perspective that dictates whether it is a good or bad thing. It is the 'tolerance' society that says ethnic cleansing is wrong (and remember: militant atheism is inherently intolerant). Most people would be glad to extinguish evil. The underlying discussion people shy away from is which evils we want to extinguish or, rather, which acts we will classify as 'evil'. When the debate reaches this level, it is easy to understand the brutality of the Old Testament: to extinguish idolatry, paganism, sexual misconduct, unethical behaviour, child sacrifice, elitism and so on. The result that the Israelite nation failed in their ethnic cleansing mandate, and their own nation became polluted with idol worship, immorality and elitism.
8. Other attributes of this 'straw man' people like to attack are the notions of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Essentially, it is the assumption that God can do anything He wants to. Some people try to argue that God has the potential to do unethical things (such as lie) but that He chooses not to. Such an argument raises awkward what if...? questions. More importantly, such arguments are reactionary and perpetuate the assumptions. The truth is, God's power has limits: His power is for the benefit of humanity. Such a question as can God create a rock so large that He can't lift it? is a non-question based on the all-powerful assumption which attempts to make God a contradiction.
Atheists usually enter the God discussion with a variation of the following reasoning:
- This is what God is like (or something that has happened in the world).
- Therefore we can make a negative deduction about God.
- And a 'god' like that isn't one worth believing in.
The reality is that the whole premise for the argument is wrong: it's the straw man fallacy. Most of the time, the 'god' atheists don't believe is also a god most Christians don't believe in either.
Dawkins uses the popular quote: isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? Some people try to argue that we should be agnostic about everything unless there is visual or experimental proof of it (Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot argument). The whole problem with this line of argument, again, is that it is a straw man. It says God is like something that is make-believe or myth (fairies) or simply an object with no direct implication on the human race (a teapot).
Such debates often get heated and cause much frustration. And it comes from failing to acknowledge the straw man assumption at the premise. Once the straw man is seen for what it is, the existence of a God who personally interacts with His human creation becomes incredibly hard to deny.
