Hello,
Richard Dawkins is the new Messiah of the Atheists. 'The God Delusion' his book published in 2006 is considered his masterpiece where he argues the Existence of God and then debates morality and religion.
Atheists gloat over the fact that the book sold over 1.5 million copies and was on several best seller lists. Amazon.com where the book was mostly sold registered a jump of 50% in sales of religious and non religious books after the publication of 'The God Delusion'. An astonishing aside is that the 'Bible' is said to have registered a growth of 120% during the same period.
Several responses have since been made to Richard Dawkins and I am attaching below two simple letters written by youngsters that appear in the
thechristianworldview.comThe two main issues addressed is the 'existence of God' and 'Morality and Religion'. The replies in simple understandable English is impressive. Just go through it.
Dear Dr. Dawkins,
I hope this letter finds you in good health. I have taken the time to write to you in order to question you on your stance regarding absolute truth and the origins/workings of the universe. I am fully aware of your worldview and your belief that God is non-existent, but I ask you to consider the following arguments for His existence. In my opinion, there are two basic categories that need to be addressed in order to discuss the existence of some kind of god: absolute, knowable truth and the origin, precision, and moral standards of creation.
It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything. All we are able to do is to look at the evidence and come to a logical conclusion. Even if all arguments for the nonexistence of God failed, that would still not prove the impossibility of a sound argument for the nonexistence of God. Since this is true, so is the reverse. If all the arguments for the existence of God failed, that would not prove the impossibility of a sound argument for the existence of God. Therefore, it is more productive for me to outline why I believe the following to be true.
Let us begin with an accepted universal constant: gravity. Imagine I didn’t believe in a gravitational force and I jumped off the Empire State building. Would my sincere unbelief keep me from falling to the unforgiving pavement? Of course not. This illustrates why scientific knowledge cannot be a collection of subjective opinions. Rather, it is a collection of explanations about objective reality that is based on observed or predicted phenomena. In addition, the explanation must be verified repeatedly to confirm that it correctly models reality. As we become more skilled at scientific observation, our scientific knowledge changes rapidly and the new theories that are formed are either verified or falsified. You’ll notice, however, that the absolute reality that is being modeled has never changed. The scientific method assumes an absolute reality, against which, theories can be verified. It is incomprehensible that these things could come about on their own because of their complex nature and mathematical order. Therefore, such precision would require nothing less than a sovereign Creator.
However, scientists, such as yourself, subscribe to a theory that claims the universe exploded into being out of nothing. Logically, nature itself could not have been responsible for the creation of the universe because by definition of the word “nothing,” natural law, or nature, didn’t exist before the creation of the universe! Continuing along this line of thought, if creation wasn’t by a “natural” cause, then it must have been a supernatural cause. This cause must be: immaterial, timeless, powerful and space-less because these things did not exist before the creation of the universe. Furthermore, this miraculous creation exploded into being in a precise, orderly state. For instance, if Earth’s position was slightly different from its current position or its axial tilt was off, or the Earth’s rotation wasn’t twenty-four hours, we wouldn’t exist. These are just a few samples of information which I am certain you are already aware of. In fact, in your own book “A Blind Watchmaker” you admit that in a simple amoeba there is enough DNA information to fill one-thousand sets of encyclopedias. In light of this information, I am reminded of a quote from Frank Turek: “To believe that the amoeba happened by accident is like saying the Library of Congress resulted from an explosion in a printing shop!”
It is also imperative that I address a common issue between atheists and theists called morality. Christopher Hitchens is famous for challenging theists to name a moral action that a theist would do that an atheist could not perform. This, however, is an irrelevant question. The question is not can you do something moral but are you justified in your “moral” action. In other words, because you don’t believe in absolute truth, morality is relative. This being the case, I could walk up to you, kick you, and walk away because it would be no different than shaking your hand. So why would you choose to do anything that wasn’t in your best interest? There is an obvious flaw in the atheist’s logic because no atheist lives this way!
It is because of the inconsistency of the atheist’s worldview that I chose two categories of arguments: absolute, knowable truth and the origin, precision, and moral standards of creation. When approaching the evidence from a logical, reasonable perspective, one cannot deny that this immaterial, timeless, powerful, space-less creating force whose universe is precisely suited for human life sounds an awful lot like the God of the Bible.
Your friend,
Kevin Bibelhausen
Open Letter: Professor Dawkins by Sally Nelson
Dear Professor Dawkins,
In both your book, The God Delusion, and in television interviews, you have repeatedly argued that there is no evidence supporting religion and, in turn, God. You have accused Christianity of being a “belief without evidence” or a “blind faith” that is not based upon reason. In actuality, manifold evidence and logically sound reasoning supports faith and the existence of God.
Creation points to the existence of God. As Psalms 19:1 says, “The heavens proclaim the glory of God; the skies proclaim the works of His hands.” The world declares the existence of God, but many reject Him. The origin of the world and of life poses a difficult question for those who deny God. The world obviously had a beginning point. There is not enough energy for stars to exist for more than a quadrillion years.
Therefore, the world cannot have been around forever. Somehow, the world had to begin. Either the world created itself or there was a creator. For the world to have created itself, it would have had to immense have power before it actually existed. The world would have had to create a complex molecule, such as DNA or RNA, with perfect functionality, before the world even existed. The concept is equivocal to the idea of throwing random parts together and producing a supercomputer. It defies all rules of logic. How could a random process create life? Dr. Walter L. Bradly, Ph.D., who is currently serving as a Professor of Engineering at Baylor University, stated, “If we took all of the carbon in the universe, converted it into amino acids, and allowed it to chemically react at the maximum permissible rate of 1013 interactions per second for five billion years, the probability of making a single functioning protein increases to only 1/1060. For this reason, chance explanations for the origin of life have been rejected.” The second possibility, that the world had a creator, makes not only more logical sense but evidence also supports the possibility. The complex beauty and elegance of the natural world proclaims the existence of God.
Moral law points to a creator. In most societies, it is unacceptable to do certain things, such as lying, stealing, and infidelity in marriage. Even the earliest civilizations, from the Mesopotamians to the Minoans, had standards of right and wrong. How could mankind have such a foundational moral law without someone to instill that internal compass? As C.S. Lewis said, “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.” God has given us a standard of morality that transcends culture.
Darwinian supporters have responded to the argument of moral law stating that morality is a sort of Darwinian impulse, similar to sexual instinct. You and others like you have argued that mankind has a standard of morality as we have evolved into the knowledge that certain behaviors adversely affect mankind. Therefore, we feel moral instinct to avoid those behaviors. The distinction between right and wrong is not merely an instinct. If it was an instinct, it would not conflict with other desires that would benefit humankind. For example, a woman is unable to fulfill her husband’s sexual desires because of medical issues. Her husband feels the desire for sexual satisfaction and procreation outside of the boundaries of his marriage. Something inside him, though, tells him that such behavior is wrong.
This “moral instinct”, when looking through the lens of Darwinian Theory, conflicts with the impulse to procreate and further the species. Morality, if evolved to hinder behavior that could destroy the species, would not conflict with the instinct to procreate. Morality conflicts with the Darwinian instinct to advance the human species. For example, some have taken the “instinct” to further the human species to the extreme of removing humans viewed as “unfit” to live. If morality was evolved to aid the human species, there would be no moral qualms about removing “unfit” humans. We can conclude that some outer force instilled moral law in mankind. God has given us a conscience and a way to distinguish right from wrong. This is yet another arrow pointing towards God.
The impossibility of evolution, the elegance of creation, and moral law imprinted on man’s heart all point to the existence of God. Christianity is not a blind faith. It is a faith that is based upon profound evidence and logic. As you have said many times before, truth is wonderful and uplifting and I hope you will look for it. I do realize that it is impossible to prove God to those who refuse to believe or to those who refuse to listen with an open mind.
I can’t touch God, Professor Dawkins, but I can point you to Him.
God bless,
Sally Nelson
It is not surprising the Richard Dawkins debates the 'Existence of God', what is surprising that he has the same age old mishmash of arguments.
While Atheists say that God is lie that has entered our conscience because of the continuous hammering they try to do the same thing themselves. Trying to hammer in their idea without adequate proof.
Best wishes and may god bless you.
Manoj
Posts
