Lessons from an atheist

During the last few years, the Neo-Atheism movement has been garnering a lot of media attention. Every now and then, I'll see an interview with Richard Dawkins, who is probably the best known proponent of this new brand of atheism (or, as he puts it, "anti-theism"). I've listened to him debate Christians and others who at least believe in God's existence, and I've yet to really hear a compelling argument from him. To be honest, I can't really say I've heard any argument at all.

Because I want to know what people are saying on the subject, I've done a little bit of research and read up on some of the claims Dawkins makes in his book, The God Delusion. Again, I have not been impressed. Don't get me wrong - I'm not exactly opening myself up to the possibility that God doesn't exist, but I am trying to hear the logic from the other side.

One of my favorite books is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, primarily because he makes a rational, logical argument for Christianity without starting with the Bible. He shows the reasonableness and even the likeliness of Christianity being true by dispelling many of the common rejections to the claims of the Bible and of the historical Christian church. Mere Christianity was compiled from a series of radio addresses Lewis was asked to give after the London bombings of World War II. As such, it's a bit dated. It's also probably a little too philosophical for the average American today. Still, it has been of the most influential books for people struggling with doubts since it was first published.

Lewis' arguments make sense and I can see why many are persuaded by them. But I don't get why Dawkins has gotten so much press. When asked what if he's wrong about God, he simply responds, what if you're wrong? When asked about the repercussions of atheism in society, he again turns the question around, citing the horrors of the Crusades and other wars waged in the name of God. When asked point-blank to explain how something came from nothing, he insists that the onus is on theists to instead prove to him there's a God. Essentially, he won't debate or argue or even provide fundamental support for his own beliefs (or lack thereof). Even the New York Times, in their review of The God Delusion, relented, "Dawkins’s failure to appreciate just how hard philosophical questions about religion can be makes reading it an intellectually frustrating experience."

So what is Dawkins' power? I think I've got it figured out. Listen to him speak. Then, take what he says and replay it in your mind, only replace his condescending smirk and British accent with the voice of Forrest Gump or Keanu Reeves. It turns out he's not saying anything at all. As far as I can tell, the only thing that gives him credibility is that British accent. No doubt it is a wonderful accent, but is it really enough to convince people there's no God?

There is one thing I think I can learn from Richard Dawkins. He consistently cites atrocities performed in the name of God as good reason not to believe in a Divine Being. Even a confirmed anti-theist like Dawkins realizes that if God exists, his followers should reflect his goodness in their love for people. Sometimes the most convincing argument is no argument at all. The Apostle John put it this way: "No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us" (1 John 4:12, ESV).


Sources:

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.

Jim Holt, "Beyond Belief," Sunday Book Review, The New York Times, October 22, 2005 (available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/review/Holt.t.html).

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.