My Thoughts from the Dawkins Interview

Typical FOX “Spin”… I expected nothing less from that network that plays “The Jesus Role” in its news, then blasphemes at every turn in the cartoon shows that make up the base of their entertainment.

First of all, my thoughts on the interview. The main thing I noticed was the cordial behavior of both men, something not generally applicable to either one’s personality. Bill happens to be a jerk in person, and Dawkins in his writings. It was refreshing to see both men being so polite.

Dawkins seems to have an inability to tolerate perceived intellectual sloveliness. If he’s right, it doesn’t matter so much, but it doesn’t help to get his point across. I don’t think he is nearly so brash in his books, however. In this interview, I would have actually preferred he use the ‘arrogant British atheist’ approach- maybe he would have been able to get some points in over O’Reilly. Sam Harris is much better at being polite-yet-firm, both times he was on O’Reilly’s show he got his points across very clearly.

One of the more intelligent things Bill said was in response to the statement “We’re working on it” by Professor Dawkins in reference to how everything got here. He said, “When you get it, then maybe I’ll listen.” It’s not a profound statement, but it does demonstrate that both parties are making tentative decisions about the origin of the universe based on their particular worldview.

O’Reilly really didn’t let Dawkins make his point here, and in fairness Dawkins did give him the ammunition for that. The point is that gaps in our knowledge don’t constitute evidence for God, or evidence for anything. What O’Reilly, and many theists, won’t accept is a “We don’t know” answer from science. If we don’t know how it happened, obviously God did it.
I would dispute that both parties are making tentative decisions. Dawkins and I are making tentative decisions. Most theists are not- you have only to look at comments made by Matt, The Daily Way, or Ben on here to see that.

also think that it’s worth noting that Bill never claimed that the crimes committed by atheists proved that atheism wasn’t true, he was simply disagreeing with Dawkins’ allegation that religion has been a “bane” on society. Obviously, neither one has much of an argument there, as equally heinous things have been done in the name of faith and atheism for the duration of civilization. It simply proves nothing, and I believe that both men should realize that (if they don’t already).

I like the way Harris makes the argument about religion’s “evils” better than Dawkins. It isn’t about which has committed more crimes. Harris’ point is that because our society is dominated by moderate theism, it is taboo to question others’ religious beliefs. This isn’t really a problem when you’re talking about those who are willing to live and let live. But when you truly believe the claims your doctrines make about the nature of the world, aren’t you going to follow them? The justifications the Muslim fundamentalists use for oppressing women and killing infidels really are in the Koran. The justifications Christian fundamentalists use for bombing abortion clinics or murdering gay men really are in the Bible. And it is taboo in our society to question a person’s belief in these texts. People question, and in fact denounce, the horrible actions committed in the name of these doctrines, but they won’t question the doctrines themselves. So the moderates are left in the uncomfortable position of having to denounce evil actions while accepting the Truths from which these actions are quite easily derived. If we take it as a given that God exists, your religion is the only one that describes Him correctly, and anyone who does not believe as you do is doomed to eternal damnation, doesn’t it logically follow that nearly any means is justified in making sure your neighbor gets that message?

First, let me say a sincere thanks to George for the discussion at the original post. It was civil and intelligent. It has sharpened my thinking.

…doesn’t it logically follow that nearly any means is justified in making sure your neighbor gets that message?

I don’t think it does. Anyone who kills gays, bombs abortion clinics, etc is in clear violation of what the Bible teaches and is NOT a Christian in a Biblical sense. I agree, that one can find a contorted justification for most anything in the Bible. But, that is a result of an incorrect hermeneutic and a twisted mind, not a reflection of what the Bible teaches.

the God that we serve actually commanded that people kill homosexuals.

Exodus 33:19 “…and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.”

There is how you answer that. An OT answer to an OT question.
NT verification needed???

Romans 9:15 “For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”

Ok, first let’s establish some theological framework (thanks, Sam):

1. God is creator, therefore, has certain rights over his creation
2. His good purpose for the universe is that it, and everyone in it, would reflect him
3. The moral law in the Bible is a reflection of his own character, and we are commanded to be like him by obeying it. This is not changed from the Old Testament to the New.
4. To break the law (to sin) is, therefore, a violation of our fundamental purpose in being created, and God is not outside his goodness to punish as he deems fit.
5. As creator, one of God’s rights is to set penalties for breaking his law. This should not surprise us: if my car does not work, I will ultimately get rid of it. This is my right as owner of the car, and is not a violation for me to think that way. Therefore, God is righteous and good to punish us for sin.
6. We have all broken God’s law. Therefore, it would be “fair” and “good” of God for him to destroy us all. The fact that he has not done so is proof of God’s mercy.
7. The Gospel means that God has provided a way to cross this divide, to give us access to God.

All these laws you mention can be rightly understood within this overall matrix.

Your response will likely be, “So then I would be just before God to go stone a homosexual?”

No you wouldn’t. Because of number 7. Jesus’ atonement at the cross takes the punishment for sin and puts it squarely on His shoulders. The right to judge and punish isn’t ours.

This ultimately leads to another, more complicated theological paradox: God’s imminence (closeness, intimacy) and His transcendence (holiness, otherness, unfathomability); as well as His Providence (control over everything) and man’s free will. Theologians have been locking horns over those two ideas for a long time.

No you wouldn’t. Because of number 7. Jesus’ atonement at the cross takes the punishment for sin and puts it squarely on His shoulders. The right to judge and punish isn’t ours.

What about those who act not to punish, but because they believe it is the only way to spread their gospel, or to prevent what they perceive as egregious sin?

Ok, then let’s approach it from a different angle. Instead of explaining it from a theology/doctrine perspective, I’ll tackle it from the hermeneutic one.

There are 3 kinds of law in the OT:
- the ceremonial law
- the moral law
- the social law

The ceremonial law is the system of sacrifices, fulfilled by Christ, no longer to be practiced. (sacrificing animals, etc)

The social law was given specifically to govern ancient Israel. Thus they apply to us as examples of God’s standards, not as direct commands.

The moral law still in force today as it was then.

So, the homosexual thing is in the social law. The moral law part is that homosexuality is wrong. That means we don’t stone homosexuals, we condemn homosexuality. We offer grace to sinners.

Would it be easy for a young Christian, not having read the entire Bible (much less drawn the 7 theological conclusions you have), to justify, quite easily, the killing of a homosexual?

It would also be equally easy to read a handful of scriptures about grace and come to the conclusion that sin doesn’t matter. Both conclusions would be wrong whether the person is a young Christian or not.

I think it’s also obvious that anyone using scripture to justify killing a homosexual is standing on very thin ice. This person didn’t arrive at this conclusion because of scripture. This person (or people) came to their conclusion because they READ INTO the Bible what they wanted it to say, or they are being taught a false teaching and have never bothered to check it out themselves (this is the impression I get from the Westboro Baptist church stuff that I have seen).

George,

“”"Dawkins and I are making tentative decisions. Most theists are not- you have only to look at comments made by Matt, The Daily Way, or Ben on here to see that.”"”

It never ceases to entertain me how atheists (in general) always put on an air of objectivity - as exemplified by the “we’re willing to wait for a better answer from science” line. All good scientists are willing to wait for a better answer from science to a logical extent - but to hold out beyond all possible reason is just nonsense. I.e. still holding out on the origin of biocomplexity - it is about as bad as “oh, we still think relativity is crap, because we’re waiting for a better answer from science.” There comes a point when it isn’t a matter of objectively waiting for a better answer - it’s nothing more than a subjective rejection of reality.

Theists too, of course, often are guilty of using ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that appears “unexplainable by science” to defend the existence/handiwork of God. This is entirely absurd - the explanability of phenomena is where the support for a logical Deity actually lies.

Nathan,

“”"Finally, Bill’s assertion that Hitler and Stalin had “no moral basis” doesn’t prove all that much to me. I may have misunderstood him, but I believe Dawkins actually agreed that these men had no moral basis, but Bill did little, if anything, to show that moralitly must come from religion. There are plenty of examples of men with the utmost moral foundation, yet still commit horrible crimes. I don’t really buy that one.”"”

1st) it’s spelled “morality” not “moralitly” (sorry, had to point that out).

Morality does have to come from religion. The point here is that it can come from a “common” theism (Islam, Christianity), or a less common theism (like the homo-theism that George calls Atheism). In any case, it is based on a subjective faith - in the case of Islam, based on the Koran, in the case of Christianity, based on the Bible, and in the case of most Atheists, the Origin of Species.

Many people seem to make the error of assuming that “morality” corresponds to some generally Christian-like basis of behavioral restrictions. All cultures have morality, from the Darwinian-driven slaughter camps to the Huitzilopochtli driven human sacrificial alters of the Aztecs.

The question is which model is most beneficial to society.

-Matthew

Yeah, and the fact that Matthew spelled “Huitzilopochtli” correctly is doubly embarrassing.

He he… I probably shouldn’t have pointed out the spelling error, I am worst of all when it comes to those!!!