n the life of every person in this planet, the subject of
“God” has cropped up for discussion or debate. If it falls I to debate, and it is between two believers, arguments tend to be over how one views God, not if “God” exists at all.
But even where there is broad agreement in this, discussions often lead to heated arguments.
For much of our collective history—and even into modern times—arguments over “God” have led to wars or campaigns that devastate whole sections of a religious community, or even whole nations and large areas of our planet.
But if the debate is between a believer and an atheist the acrimony is typically much less. The reason, of course, is that in most cases neither the believer nor the atheist can deliver a “knock-out punch” on the other—so they would just agree to disagree, and leave it at that.
The arguments of a well-reasoning and well-researched atheist typically leave the believer with no real rejoinder but to say, “Well, you keep believing in what you believe, and I will keep worshipping my God.” Indeed, so far as I have seen, believers have not been able to deliver answers that leave even the most discerning of atheists with no wriggle room for good rejoinders…answers that hang them out to dry.
Consider the argument by one of today’s leading atheist, Richard Dawkins: his piece de resistance. It is an argument that appears to deliver a “knock-out punch” to believers…at least one that roundly satisfies his many readers.
x
His argument-in-chief would have certainly stumped a visiting Muslim Imam in my secondary school days when the imam was invited or allowed to address an assembly of our mostly Christian students.
One of the students asked a question that was in just about all our minds—though somewhat half-articulated. “But Sir, how can you be sure that there is any God at all? ”
The expression on the Imam suddenly changed. He began to vigorously undo one of the pins that held together the cuff of his shirt. For a moment I thought he was going to then roll up his sleeves, descend from the stage, and beat the living daylights out of the impudent student who dared disrespect God with such an irreverent question.
To my relief he simply waved the cuff link in the air for all to see, and then asked. “Who made this pin? Did it make itself?” The murmur amongst the students basically affirmed the obvious answer that someone, of course, made that pin.
It did not—and cannot—make itself. “So, if a mere pin only consisting of gold—a metal—overlaid with small crystals on top did not make itself, how can an intelligent person like yourself have come out of nowhere?”
The sheepish grin on the student told us that he was now thinking that perhaps he was not quite so intelligent after all.
But if Richard Dawkins had been there, he would have asked the Imam the following questions, which I paraphrase.
If we are confronted with an “unbelievably improbable”
complexity (i.e. one that appears to be beyond mere chance, such as Life) and our only answer to that complexity is that
“a Designer was responsible for it”, it merely raises another question: who, then, designed the Designer?
In short, if we reduce a complex problem to its basic parts, and still we are perplexed as to how the elements came to be, so we introduce a complex solution—a Designer—
as the answer, aren’t we going against the grain of logic?
xi
Introduction Is there a “God”?
Of course, common sense dictates that you build a complex thing from less complex components, and not the other way round. This basic and almost infallible-seeming argument has practically built Dawkins’ successful career as an atheist and author of note. But is his “logic” here really infallible?
We will look at that question in more detail.
What we must first apprise ourselves of is how the raging question of evolution versus creationism is playing out in the education systems of the world. The approach of most western countries is a rather quixotic mixture of Christian belief and an atheistic outlook. And so, by extension, is that of many other countries in the world informed, guided and led by the western education curricula. Where this contrast is most dramatically played out in the open is in the United States of America.
At the Federal government level the two systems—atheism (or secularism) and Christianity—lie in often uncomfortable juxtaposition. On one hand the very President of the United States is sworn into office through an oath whose solemnity is premised on the bible. He places his hand on a copy and swears by it to uphold the constitution of the Union.
On the other hand the education system upheld by the very same US government teaches the Theory of Evolution as a core outlook in its classrooms. And evolution, it cannot be denied, goes against the grain of what Genesis teaches in the Old Testament of the bible. Evolution says that Life and all the species of plant and animal evolved through an auto-process that very gradually built them from simple forms and elements into the complex organic forms we see.
However, Genesis Chapter One and Two teaches that God literally “spoke” the universe into being “at the beginning”
and everything on Earth came up suddenly and complete in every way through a series of utterances God made. That, at least, is how it comes out through translation. In the original xii
text, “said” refers more to a “formed intention” that is given impetus, rather than the mere vocalizing of words.
Although some argue that Charles Darwin himself did not specifically advocate for atheism, his first pioneering book On the Origins of Species certainly laid the groundwork for atheism to take root. The book looked at the interconnection of species and tied their present body forms, behaviors and how they survive to “evolving through the need to survive”
whereby a species survives because it adapts itself well to the environment. In this book we look at whether that outlook is logically and empirically solid or not.
So, in essence, we have two main approaches. Atheists says that all the life-forms we see gradually evolved, whereas believers in God aver that an all-powerful being they call
“God” created all things exactly as they are—complete in every way—with no evolution at all.
But an overlooked fact we address in this book is that though their outlooks are seemingly divergent, when we drill down into the bases of their outlooks we find that atheists and believers in God all believe in the very same thing. It is only that they call by different names the process of building life-forms, and they talk at cross-purposes.
Ultimately, once everything is put in its proper place and they recognize where and why they are so different and yet so the same, they must then ultimately decide whether they are “Synthesists” or they are “Analysts”. This, ultimately, is where the burning questions lies. It is what we should all be concerned with at our stage of advancement… whether we designate ourselves “Atheist” or “Creationist”. Through this book, these divisive tags will be rendered obsolete.
This done, we will all be debating at a much higher level and can more profitably seek to understand not only where we come from but where we are going…
xiii