How Do You Explain That God Does Not Exist?

How do you explain that God does not exist? In his absurd answer, atheist John W. Loftus begins with absurdity.





I want to thank Marcus McElhaney for this information.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Atheism, John Loftus

British Driver Refuses to Drive the “Godless Bus”

J. P. van de Giessen has informed me that the Dutch paper Reformatorisch Dagblad is reporting that a Christian bus driver from the city of Southampton last weekend refused to drive a bus carrying the advertisement promoting atheism. The bus carrying the promotion has been called “The Godless Bus.”

According to the Dutch newspaper, the driver said that when he first saw the slogan, he was shocked and appalled. So, he felt that he could not drive the bus. When his bosses said they had no other bus available, he went home. The bus company has promised him that he could drive a bus without the atheist message.

It seems that in a secular society like the one in Great Britain, some Christians have made a decision to stand for their faith.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Atheism, Atheists, God

“So Help Me God”: Atheists Lost Their Case

The Washington Post is reporting that a federal judge has cleared the way for government officials and ministers to pray and make references to God during the swearing-in of President-elect Barack Obama on Tuesday.

According to the Post,

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton refused to grant an injunction preventing such references in a lawsuit brought by a group of atheists. The atheists had argued that the use of prayer and the words “so help me God” by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. while administering the oath of office violated their Constitutional rights. Walton ruled that he did not have the power to prevent Obama from making such references or inviting ministers on stage to offer prayers.

The group of atheists, led by Californian Michael A. Newdow, sued Roberts, several officials in charge of inaugural festivities, the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery and megachurch pastor Rick Warren.

They filed the complaint in U.S. District Court. Newdow failed in similar lawsuits to remove prayer from President Bush’s swearing-in ceremonies in 2001 and 2005.

Roberts will administer the oath of office to Obama at the Jan. 20 ceremony. Warren and Lowery are scheduled to deliver the invocation and benediction, respectively.

Newdow and others urged Walton to prevent Roberst from using the phrase "so help me God” in the inaugural oath. They said those words have no place in the Constitution and had been used only “intermittantly” in the oath until 1933 with President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s inauguration. They called the use of “so help me God” an “unauthorized alteration” by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who administers the oath.

The decision of the court reflects the sentiment of the majority of the American people.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Atheism, Atheists, God,

The Atheist Bus and the God Question

The Christian Science Monitor has published an interesting article on The Atheist Bus Campaign going on in Britain.

The Atheist Bus Campaign is the first effort at mass marketing atheism in Britain. The sign was placed on more than 800 British buses with the slogan: “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

When The Atheist Bus Campaign was organized, Richard Dawkins, the leading British atheist and author of The God Delusion predicted that Christians would be offended by the campaign. He said: “They have to take offense, it is the only weapons they’ve got. They’ve got no arguments.”

But, according to the article in The Christian Science Monitor, the response by most Christian leaders was not what the atheist community expected.

“Religious institutes, church pastors, and divinity school professors have not treated the ads with Old Testament wrath, but with a relatively open mind and even embrace of so important an issue,” the article said.

The article gives the reaction of several religious leaders in London:

“The campaign will be a good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life,” says the Rev. Jenny Ellis, Spirituality and Discipleship Officer of Britain’s Methodist church.

“Many people simply never think about God or religion as a serious question, and if this prods them a little bit, then that’s great,” says the Rev. Stephen Wang, of the Westminster diocese of the Roman Catholic church.

The article also mentioned Karl Barth and his endorsement of Feuerbach’s book:

The Lutheran Karl Barth, a leading 20th-century European theologian, wrote the forward to the English language version of Ludwig Andreas von Feuerbach’s prominent atheist critique, “The Essence of Christianity.” Barth wasn’t worried about the atheism, says Herman Waetjen, professor emeritus of New Testament studies at the San Francisco Theological Seminary, because Barth felt Feuerbach exposed many fault lines, mistakes, social and collective projections, and other falsifications of Christianity that had arisen around the 19th-century church.

I agree with both Rev. Ellis and Rev. Wang: People in Britain are thinking and talking about God.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Atheism, Atheists, God, Karl Barth

There Probably Is a God

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent for The Times of London has a very interesting post in her blog in which she reports that Clifford Longley, former Religious Affairs Correspondent of The Times, is complaining to the Advertising Standards Authority about the atheist bus.

In his complaint, Longley wrote:

'The statement “There’s probably no God”, as currently seen on the side of London buses, is untrue and dishonest, in so far as the word “probably” completely fails to reflect the true state of the scientific argument. In fact it would be honest and true to say the opposite - “There probably is a God.” A fair reading of the material below could lead to no other conclusion.

To read Clifford Longley’s complaint in full, visit Ruth Gledhill’s blog and read his statement. Both theists and atheists need to read the arguments Longley presents. After you finish reading his statement, you will have to say: “There Probably Is a God.”

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Atheism, God, Clifford Longley, Science, Theism

Betting on the Existence of God

The British are betting on the existence of God. Odds for the existence of God have dropped from 33-1 to a mere 4-1.

The Reason for the drop? Atheist Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion.

Richard Dawkins is now proclaiming that “probably” there is no God.

According to Ruth Gledhill, the Religion Correspondent for the Times Online, “The ‘probably’ confirms belief that Dawkins’ atheism contains a kernel of doubt that could in itself be proof of the existence of God.”

Atheist Richard Dawkins seems to be moving toward God. It is possible that one of these days Richard Dawkins may become the new Antony Flew.

To read about Antony Flew’s journey from atheism to theism read the following posts:

Antony Flew: There Is A God

An Interview with Antony Flew

From Atheism to Theism: A Journey Toward God

The Big Bang Theory and the Existence of God

The Origin of Life and the Existence of God

The Laws of Nature and the Existence of God

I wonder what would take to drop the odds from 4-1 to 2-1.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Antony Flew, Atheism, God, Theism, Richard Dawkins

The Laws of Nature and the Existence of God

This is the fourth post evaluating Antony Flew’s journey toward God. I recommend that you read my first post, "From Atheism to Theism: A Journey Toward God," before you read this post. The second post was titled “The Origin of Life and the Existence of God.” The third post was titled “The Big Bang Theory and the Existence of God.” I will conclude my review of Antony Flew’s book There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007) with a postscript in which I will address the issues raised by an article published in the New York Times Magazine in which the author is critical of the way Flew's book was written.

In my last two posts I presented the reasons Antony Flew changed his mind and came to accept that there is a God.

The first reason Flew presented for changing his mind came out of a question that became the basis for his journey back to God. Flew asked: “How did life as a phenomenon originate from nonlife?” That question led him to evaluate recent works on the origin of life and to his amazement, he discovered that the evidence “pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence” (p. 74).

The second reason that made Flew embark on his pilgrimage toward theism was the issue “that philosophers handed over to cosmologists: How did the universe, by which we mean all that is physical, come into existence?” This issue led Flew to a reformulation of the old cosmological argument for the existence of God.

The third reason that led Flew to re-evaluate his views on atheism was the constancy of the laws of nature. Flew asked: “How did the laws of nature come to be?” By laws of nature Flew means the regularity and symmetry that exist in the universe. He wrote: “The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal and ‘tied together.’” This, according to Flew (p. 96), is the question scientists from Newton to Einstein have been asking and their answer was one and the same: it was “the Mind of God.” Or, as Stephen Hawkins said in his book, A Brief History of Time, the day human beings discover the reason the universe exists that will be their greatest accomplishment, for then they will know “the mind of God.”

This question is in a sense, a reformulation of the classical argument from design for the existence of God. The argument from design states that the apparent order in nature requires the existence of a Designer. Although Hume, Kant, and Flew himself have done much to discredit the argument from design, Flew said (p. 95) that “when correctly formulated, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God.”

Summing up his views about God and his creation, Flew summarized his views as follows (p. 88):

“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originated in a divine Source.”

Flew said that his acknowledgment of the existence of God was not a paradigm shift but of his acceptance of the Socratic principle that “we must follow the argument wherever it leads.”

Several developments in modern science have contributed to Flew’s reversal of attitude toward God. According to Flew (p. 88-89), science makes three important contributions to the declarations of the existence of God. The first declaration is “the fact that nature obeys laws.” The second is the origin of life and the existence of “intelligently organized and purpose driven beings.” Third, Flew wrote, is “the very existence of nature.”

Flew argues with Dawkins about whether Einstein believed in God. Flew quotes Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world . . . I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”

Flew states that scientists use the laws of nature without ever asking where these laws come from. In fact, they accept as an act of faith that the laws of nature will be consistent and that they are able to understand them.

These laws are not made by the scientists but are present in the universe. According to Flew (p. 108), these laws “are written in a cosmic code that scientists must crack in order to reveal the message.” This message is nature’s message or God’s message but it is not a message created by human beings.

Thus, according to Flew, the regularity of the laws of the universe demands the existence of God for it is God who created these laws and imposed symmetry and regularity in the universe.

Flew concludes (p. 112) that those scientist who point to God in order to explain the regularity of the laws of nature “propound a vision of reality that emerges from the conceptual heart of modern science and imposes itself on the rational mind. It is a vision that I personally find compelling and irrefutable.”

The book contains two appendices. The first appendix, “‘The New Atheism’: A Critical Appraisal of Dawkins, Dennett, Wolpert, Harris, and Stenger,” was written by Roy Abraham Varghese, the co-author of the book. This appendix is a critical assessment of the arguments presented in recent books in defense of atheism.

The second appendix is titled “The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright.” In this appendix Flew and Wright have a dialogue about Jesus, his existence, his incarnation, and his resurrection. Wright’s presentation is a clear and forceful exposition of the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

I enjoyed reading the book. Those who read it will understand how a famous atheist changed his mind.

Reference:

Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Tags: Antony Flew, Atheism, God, Theism

The Big Bang Theory and the Existence of God

This is the third post evaluating Antony Flew's journey toward God. I recommend that you read my first post, "From Atheism to Theism: A Journey Toward God," before you read this post. The second post was titled “The Origin of Life and the Existence of God.”

Antony Flew was known as one of the most articulate atheists of the twentieth century. His books and articles influenced a generation of atheists who today still use the argument he developed in his book The Presumption of Atheism. That argument states that, in a discussion between a believer and an atheist, atheism should be the default position and that the burden of proof rests with those who believe in God.

In May 2004, Flew made a public announcement that he had changed his mind and had come to the conclusion that he was no longer an atheist. The reason Flew changed his mind was because recent scientific discoveries made in the latter part of the twentieth century tend to affirm the existence of God.

In my last post I presented the first reason Antony Flew changed his mind and came to accept that there is a God.

The first reason Flew presented for changing his mind came out of a question that became the basis for his journey back to God. Flew asked: “How did life as a phenomenon originate from nonlife?” That question led him to evaluate recent works on the origin of life and to his amazement, he discovered that the evidence “pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence” (p. 74).

Another question that made him embark on his pilgrimage toward theism was the issue “that philosophers handed over to cosmologists: How did the universe, by which we mean all that is physical, come into existence?”

The answer that Flew provides is a reformulation of the old cosmological argument for the existence of God.

Those who deny the cosmological argument affirm that anything than can be known about the origin of life, the nature of the universe, and the laws of nature can be known without admitting the possibility of the existence of a transcendent reality beyond human understanding.

Flew himself was highly involved in attacking the cosmological argument. He even agreed and supported David Hume’s critique of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. However, Flew said (p. 135) that “most of my discussions were carried on independent of developments in modern cosmology. In fact, my two main antitheological books were written long before either the development of the big-bang cosmology or the introduction of the fine-tuning argument from physical constants.”


The cosmology that came out of the big bang theory made an impact on Flew’s understanding of the creation of the universe. With the development of the big bang cosmology in the early 1980s, Flew realized that cosmologists were providing “a scientific proof of what St. Thomas Aquinas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning” (p. 135).

The more Flew thought about the implications of the big bang the more he began to realize that the words of Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” were true (by the way, this is the only biblical text quoted in Flew’s book). As an atheist, Flew believed the universe did not have a beginning and as long as he believed that, there was no reason to ask what caused the universe to come into being.

However, the development of the big bang cosmology changed the situation. Flew wrote: “If the universe had a beginning [with the big bang], it became entirely sensible, almost inevitable, to ask what produced this beginning.”

Flew’s discovery of God has come through an understanding of the structure of the universe. This structure, according to Flew, is a map that leads to the discovery of the Divine. He wrote (p. 155): “I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being.”

Many Christians reject the big bang theory. For instance, Jason Lisle, writing in Answers Magazine said that the big bang theory is based on naturalism. He wrote:

Since the philosophy of naturalism does not allow for anything beyond nature, a naturalist would insist that the universe was created by the kinds of processes currently operating within it. The big bang is based on this critical assumption; that is, the big bang model attempts to describe the formation of the entire universe by processes currently operating within the universe. Stars, planets, and galaxies are all said to have formed "naturalistically"-by the laws of nature currently in operation today.

The big bang theory, however, had a different impact on Flew because the theory suggested that the universe had a beginning and if the universe had a beginning then the next question was what or who produced the big bang.

Flew predicted that in trying to explain the big bang, atheists would say that what produced the big bang was beyond human understanding. On the other hand, Flew said that believers would “welcome the big-bang cosmology as tending to confirm their prior belief that ‘in the beginning’ the universe was created by God” (p. 136).

The big bang theory shows that the universe had a beginning. A universe without a beginning is a universe without God. Those who affirm that the universe was eternal do not need a God to create it. But, since the universe began with the big bang 14 billion years ago, then what produced the big bang that caused the universe to come into existence? Since space, matter, and time are part of the created order, then the cause for the big bang must be immaterial, it must not be limited by space, and it must not be bound in time.

Because Flew was faithful to the Socratic principle of following the evidence wherever it may lead, it is clear that the cosmology that came out of the big bang theory and the existence of a fine tuned universe set him on a journey that eventually led him to accept the existence of God.

Reference:

Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Antony Flew, Atheism,

The Origin of Life and the Existence of God

This is the second post evaluating Antony Flew’s journey toward God. I recommend that you read my first post, “From Atheism to Theism: A Journey Toward God,” before you read this post. The first post has been updated in light of Charles Halton’s comment. In his comment, Charles included a link to an article published in the New York Times Magazine in which the author is critical of the way Flew’s book was written. Visit my post and read Charles’ comment. I will address the charges made by the author of that article in a postscript after I finish my review of Flew’s book.

When Antony Flew changed his mind and declared that he now accepted the existence of God, the atheist world reacted with anger and disdain. As one of the endorsers of his book wrote: “When Antony Flew, in the spirit of free-thinking, followed the evidence where he thought it led, namely, to theism, he was roundly denounced by supposed free-thinkers in the severest of terms. He had, it seemed, committed the unpardonable sin.”

Now, Flew has written a book, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007), in which he recounts his journey from atheism to theism. However, the negative reaction to his book is expected to be fierce, primarily by those who deny the existence of God. As another endorser of the book wrote: “His colleagues in the church of fundamentalist atheism will be scandalized by his story, but believers will be greatly encouraged, and earnest seekers will find much in Flew’s journey to illuminate their own path toward the truth.”

Before he turned to theism, Flew wrote many books and articles that reflected his anti-theism belief, including God and Philosophy and The Presumption of Atheism. One of his most influential works was his lecture “Theology and Falsification” in which he said that any religious statement can be made significant by the many qualifications made concerning that statement.

In The Presumption of Atheism, Flew established a principle that is still used by atheists today. This principle states that in any discussion about the existence of God, the burden of proof rests on those who are defending the reality of God and that atheism should be the default position in the discussion.

Flew gives three reasons he abandoned atheism and accepted the reality of the existence of God. The most amazing thing is that Flew became aware of the existence of God not because he read the Bible or he went to church. According to Flew, he became convinced of the existence of God because of the implications of recent scientific discoveries.

His statement contradicts what atheists proclaim with vigor, that is, that science proves conclusively that God does not exist. Flew’s statement also goes contrary to the popular view among some Christians that science and faith are mutually exclusive.

The first reason Flew presented for changing his mind was that “recent work on the origin of life pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence” (p. 74). One question that became the basis for his journey back to God was “How did life as a phenomenon originate from nonlife?” According to Flew (pp. 90-91), “the origin of life cannot be explained if you start with matter alone.” This declaration was made at a symposium in May 2004 in New York. In that symposium Flew declared that he believed in the existence of God because recent studies reveal that the complex DNA arrangements required to produce life demand that a creative Intelligence be involved.

When Flew was asked if studies on the origin of life pointed to a creative Intelligence, he answered (p. 75):

Yes, I now think it does . . . almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.

One idea that has been presented to defend the possibility that life can arise by change is what is called “the monkey theorem.” This view says if a large number of monkeys are put together in front a computer keyboard and type randomly, given enough time, the monkeys eventually will compose a Shakespearean sonnet. Or, as the Wikipedia puts it:

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a particular chosen text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

Flew wrote in his book (pp. 75-78) that Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli scientist and the author of The Science of God, has presented a point-by-point refutation of the “monkey theorem.”



According to Schroeder, an experiment was conducted by the British National Council of Arts in which six monkeys were placed in front of a computer and allowed to type randomly. After one month the monkeys typed fifty pages but did not produce a single word.

Schroeder observed that in English there are two one-letter words: “I” and “a.” An “I” or an “a” is a word if there is a space before and after the word. After calculating the number of letters and characters in the keyboard, Schroeder concluded that the likelihood for a monkey to write a one-letter word is 1 chance out of 27,000.

Schroeder then applied the same principle to a Shakespearean sonnet. The sonnet “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” has 488 letters in the sonnet. Since there are 26 letters in the alphabet, then the likelihood of writing the 488 letters of the sonnet in its proper order is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times. The result would be the number 10 to the 690th power. The number is so immensely large that it could never be reached.

When this number is compared with the millions of arrangements that are needed to produce life, the possibility that life arose by chance is minimal. Flew then concluded (p. 78): “If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.”

Of course, Flew was highly criticized for his views. Richard Dawkins said that Flew was appealing to a “god of the gaps.” Flew, however, presents a good defense of his position (pp. 123-132). In defending his view, Flew quotes physiologist George Wald who said that “we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance” (p. 131). And then Flew concludes:

The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such “end-directed, self-replicating” life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind.

To that I say: Amen!

Reference:

Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Antony Flew, Atheism, God, Theism

From Atheism to Theism: A Journey Toward God

While I was away relaxing in my “traveler’s lodging place,” I had the opportunity to read Antony Flew’s latest book, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007). The book is a personal account of how Flew, an atheist for more than fifty years, came to accept the fact that God exists.

On May 2004, at a symposium at New York University, Antony Flew, one of the better known atheists of the twentieth century, surprised the atheist world by announcing that, after much study and reflection, he has now come to accept the existence of God.

The news of Flew’s change of mind caught many people by surprise since he had spent most of his life defending atheism and writing books and articles debunking the religious arguments for the existence of God. As a philosopher, Flew had accepted the Socratic principle of following the evidence wherever it may lead. Faithful to this principle, Flew announced that recent developments in science has led him to the conclusion that the evidence affirms the existence of God.

Antony Flew was born into a Christian family. His father was a minister in the Wesleyan Methodist Church and taught New Testament at the Methodist theological college in Cambridge. Flew attended Kingswood School, a school founded by John Wesley dedicated to the education of the sons of Methodist pastors. Flew began his studies at Kingswood as a believer and by the time he graduated, he was an atheist.

Many factors contributed to Flew’s journey toward atheism. In his book, There Is a God, Flew wrote (p. 13):

“I have said in some of my later atheist writings that I reached the conclusion about the nonexistence of God much too quickly, much too easily, and for what later seemed to me wrong reasons.”

One of the reasons that led Flew to embrace atheism at the age of fifteen was the problem of evil. Flew gave two reasons why the problem of evil affirms the nonexistence of God:

1. The problem of evil was a decisive disproof of the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God.

2. The “free will defense” did not relieve the Creator of responsibility for the manifest ills of creation.

Later on in his academic life, Flew called these two reasons “juvenile insistencies.”

Many atheists point to the problem of evil in the world as one evidence to deny the existence of God. Flew is aware that evil and suffering are real. Flew deals with both. He wrote (p. 156):

“Certainly, the existence of evil and suffering must be faced. However, philosophically speaking, that is a separate issue from the question of God’s existence. From the existence of nature, we arrive at the ground of its existence. Nature may have its imperfections, but this says nothing as to whether it had an ultimate Source. Thus, the existence of God does not depend on the existence of warranted or unwarranted evil.”

Three scientific issues contributed to Flew’s pilgrimage back to theism. Flew formulates these three issues in the form of questions (p. 91):

1. How did the laws of nature come to be?
2. How did life as a phenomenon originate from nonlife?
3. How did the universe, by which we mean all that is physical, come into existence?

In the next few days, I will be examining how Flew deals with these three questions. His pilgrimage toward theism and his search of the evidence for God’s existence will become a challenge for those who still affirm that there is no God. I will be examining Flew’s quest with the following posts:

1. The Origin of Life and the Existence of God.

2. The Big Bang Theory and the Existence of God.

3. The Laws of Nature and the Existence of God.

The three posts will present a brief overview of how Flew tries to answer the three questions that lingered in his mind even when he was defending atheism. In the end, these posts will be an invitation to readers to read the book and join Flew in his journey toward God.

Reference:

Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007.

UPDATE

After you finish reading this post, read Charles Halton’s comment and follow the link he provides to an article published in the New York Times Magazine in which the author is critical of the way Flew’s book was written. In light of Charles’ comment and the charges made by the author of the article, I have decided to write a postscript after I finish my review of Flew’s book and address the charges made in the article.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Next Post: The Origin of Life and the Existence of God

Tags: Antony Flew, Atheism, God, Theism

Antony Flew: There Is A God

Antony Flew’s book, There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, has received the 2008 Christianity Today Book Award for the best book in the area of Apologetics/Evangelism.

This is how the blurb for the book reads:

In one of the biggest religion news stories of the new millennium, the Associated Press announced that Professor Antony Flew, the world's leading atheist, now believes in God.

Flew is a pioneer for modern atheism. His famous paper, Theology and Falsification, was first presented at a meeting of the Oxford Socratic Club chaired by C. S. Lewis and went on to become the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last five decades. Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He now believes that such evidence exists, and There Is a God chronicles his journey from staunch atheism to believer.

For the first time, this book will present a detailed and fascinating account of Flew's riveting decision to revoke his previous beliefs and argue for the existence of God. Ever since Flew's announcement, there has been great debate among atheists and believers alike about what exactly this "conversion" means. There Is a God will finally put this debate to rest.

This is a story of a brilliant mind and reasoned thinker, and where his lifelong intellectual pursuit eventually led him: belief in God as designer.

Flew’s book is in my reading list. As soon as I finish reading the book, I will write a post on my reaction to Flew’s conversion experience.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Antony Flew, Atheism, Conversion

Richard Dawkins: How I Changed My Mind

In an article published in Townhall.com, Dinesh D’Souza asked a very interesting question: “Are Atheists Cultural Christians?” The reason for D’Souza’s question is because of an statement made by the famous atheist Richard Dawkins that he was a cultural Christian. The following is an excerpt from D’Souza’s article:

Asked by a British member of Parliament if he is one of those atheists who wants to get rid of Christian symbols especially during the Christmas season, atheist Richard Dawkins replied that he is not. Dawkins said that he himself sings Christmas carols and that he considers himself a “cultural Christian.” Just as many Jews regard themselves as Jewish, defend Jewish interests and cherish Jewish culture while not participating in Jewish religious rituals, Dawkins says that he respects the fact that the history and traditions of the West are shaped by Christianity. Dawkins says he's not one of those who wants to purge the West of its Christian traditions. The main threat to Christian symbols, Dawkins argues, does not come from atheists like him but rather from Muslims and members of other faiths.

In response to Dawkins’ statement, D’Souza wrote:

Now this is quite remarkable. In The God Delusion, Dawkins portrayed the Christian God as a wicked, avaricious, capricious, genocidal maniac. Dawkins even blasted Jesus for such offenses as speaking harshly to his mother. Yet if the Jewish and Christian God was such a monster, what sense does it make for Dawkins to embrace the cultural influence of that deity?

Good question. I believe that one of the answers to D’Souza’s question may reflect where Dawkins is in his scale of atheism. In my review of Dawkins’ book, I wrote:

Even Dawkins may inadvertently have left a very small crack in the wall for himself, a very faint burning light that some day may be as bright as the midday sun. And that dimly lit light is found in his own words.

Dawkins develops a spectrum of probabilities about the existence of God. In this spectrum, there are seven levels of probability concerning the issue whether God exists. At one extreme is Level 1, where strong theists are. Those who are on Level 1 believe 100% that God exists. On the other extreme, Level 7 is where the strong atheists are. A strong atheist is the one who says for a fact that there is no God.

Dawkins places himself at Level 6. Those who are on Level 6 say that there is a very low probability that God exists. Those on Level 6 are the people who say they cannot know for sure but think that maybe God does not exist.

Ah! Level 6 may reflect a faint light that is still alive in the hearts of atheists. That very low probability that God exists may be the sign of a faintly burning wick that is still burning. It is that crack in the wall that may allow the water of a mighty river to flow through. This is what happened with Antony Flew, the famous British philosopher and atheist, who at the end of his life abandoned his atheistic beliefs and embraced theism.

In his book, Dawkins never said that God exists, but he also said that it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. Thus, it is possible that, for Dawkins, Level 6 may be the sign that a faintly burning wick is still burning, but so faint that it is about to be put out. If it is so, let us then remember the reassuring words of the prophet about the work of the Servant: “He will not let a faintly burning wick be put out” (Isaiah 42:3).

After all those debates with Christians around the world, it is just possible that Dawkins came to the realization that the God of the Old and New Testaments is not that evil God so despised in atheist propaganda.

D’Souza’s article makes a good proposal for Dawkins and his new faith. D’Souza concludes his article by hoping that “perhaps eventually Dawkins will even reissue his book: Overcoming My Delusions: Confessions of a Cultural Christian.”

I hope so.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Atheism, Cultural Christian, Dinesh D’Souza, Richard Dawkins

A Pyramid for Christmas

The Racine Post is reporting that atheists have placed a pyramid near a Nativity Scene to protest the promotion of religion in a public place. The pyramid contains several quotes that oppose or criticize religion. The following is an excerpt of the news release that appeared in The Racine Post:

There are, as any cursory drive around town will prove, scores of beautiful churches in Racine. The phone book lists more than 150.

The seasonal symbol of their belief sitting in Monument Square for a week now -- the Nativity scene recalling the birth of Christ more than 2,000 years ago -- has been joined by an 8-ft. tall, white-painted plywood pyramid, the work of fewer than a dozen Racine atheists.

"This country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state," said Al Sorenson, 70, who built the pyramid. "The Nativity Scene is a violation that doesn't belong on public property; it's an ancient superstition, based on a myth."

The pyramid's four sides each have a quote opposing the practice of religion. One side says, "There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the dark ages."

Another side says: "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." That quote, from Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, which was signed by President John Adams and ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate, has been a point of contention regarding the proper interpretation of the doctrine of separation of church and state.

The protest reflects the desire of atheists to remove religion from the public arena. The effort to use the words “Xmas” and “Xians” instead of Christmas and Christians is an evidence that a small minority of Americans is trying to eliminate mentioning of the name of Christ in public and impose their views on the majority of people who are religious and believe in God.

It is at this time that we should remember the words of the Apostle Paul: “ Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:9-11).

Merry Christmas

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Atheism, Christmas, Nativity Scene, Pyramid

A Faith That Wrestles With Contradictions

The Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, the President of Chicago Theological Seminary, has a good review of Christopher Hitchens' book God is Not Great. For those who are not familiar with Hitchens’ book, Hitchens is an atheist who has written a work attacking all religions, especially Christianity.

The following is an excerpt of Thistlethwaite’s review of the book. Dealing with Hitchens’ approach to biblical interpretation, she wrote:

The chapters in God is Not Great on biblical interpretation, “Revelation: The Nightmare of the ‘Old’ Testament” and “The ‘New’ Testament Exceeds the Evil of the ‘Old’ One,” are so ham-handedly literalist as to make a fundamentalist blush. I looked in the index to be sure I hadn’t missed any encounter with modern biblical scholarship. I looked for some reference to the mind-searching biblical interpretation of “Marcus Borg,” but found instead only an index reference to “Klaus Barbie.” I looked for some engagement with the depth of scholarship and breath of biblical interpretation of “John Dominic Crossan”, but found in the index only a reference to “Crusades.” Feminist theology? Forget it.

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have a very simplistic approach to religion. Although they use scientific language to describe and evaluate religion, they fail to understand the kind of “faith that wrestles with the contradictions and genuine mysteries of human life,” as Thistlethwaite wrote.

Read Thistlethwaite’s review by clicking here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Atheism, Christopher Hitchens, Faith

Atheism and the Culture of Denial

In my interview with Jim West posted on July 1, 2007, Jim asked me a question about biblical interpretation. In my reply, I said that believers are better interpreters of the biblical text than atheists because atheists approach the Bible with false assumptions. Some of these false assumptions are that there is no God, that the Bible is only myth, that there is no revelation, and others.

In reply to my statement in that interview, Chris Hallquist published a blog in which he addresses my statement and also criticizes a response I wrote to Duane Smith, who had written his own post responding to my interview with Jim West. Hallquist’s post was also published in God is for Suckers, a blog dedicated to “making fun of believers everywhere.”

Hallquist believes that atheists can interpret the Bible as well as believers because anyone can examine an ancient text such as the Illiad [sic] “without believing everything it says.” The problem is that Hallquist already begins with the false assumption that the Iliad and the Bible are identical in purpose and message. They are not! The intent and message of the two books are completely different. The only similarity between both books is that they are literary works of individuals who lived hundreds of years ago.

Atheists and Christians have two different world-views and this alone influences the way they approach the Bible. Atheists can read and interpret the Bible from a historical, sociological, linguistic, or mythological perspective. Christians, on the other hand, read the Bible from a historical, sociological, linguistic perspective, but also from the perspective of faith and religion. For instance,

1. Atheists can study the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, but they cannot love God with all their heart, soul and strength.

2. Atheists can study the word hesed from a philological perspective, but they cannot experience divine hesed.

3. Atheists can write many books and articles about Christ, but they cannot say: “Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20).

4. Atheists can write about Christians and Christianity, but they cannot understand fully what it means to be saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8).

These are facts that atheists fail to understand. Atheists deny the existence of God and the claims of Christianity. Believers approach the Bible from the perspective of faith, thus, there must be a difference in the way believers and atheists interpret the Bible, since atheists do not have faith in the God of the Bible. Because atheists deny the possibility of faith, they are not willing to accept any view espoused by Christians. Because Christians believe in God, they are not willing to accept the claims of atheism. This, then, leaves both group at an impasse.

In his post, Hallquist uses “the outsider test” to evaluate my comments. According to Hallquist, “the outsider test” is “a phrase coined by John Loftus for the idea that religious believers ought to be willing to examine their beliefs from the point of view of an outsider.”

Hallquist applies the outsider test to Christianity; I would like to apply the outsider test to atheism.

1. The Test of History. Judaism and Christianity claim a historical basis for their faith. Judaism says there is a God because of the work of God in the history of ancient Israel. Christianity says there is a God because of the existence of a historical Jesus. Atheism does not have any historical claim to prove that there is no God. Atheists only have their own statement that says there is no God. Since atheists do not have history on their side, they deny the historicity of events in Judaism and Christianity.

2. The Test of Witnesses. Judaism and Christianity believe there is a God because they believe the words of witnesses who saw God at work. The people in Israel claimed they heard the voice of God. Christianity claims that after the resurrection, Jesus “appeared to more than five hundred people at the same time” (1 Corinthians 15:6). It is possible to say that these people were delusional or that they were unreliable witnesses but atheism does not have one witness who was there to say that there was no God. Since atheism does not have one single witness who has seen the evidence that there is no God, they reject the reliability of the biblical witnesses and deny the validity of their testimony.

3. The Test of Written Records. Judaism and Christianity claim that God exists because they have ancient written records that report the work of God in their history. Atheism has no written records that can prove that God does not exist, therefore they deny the claims of the written records of Judaism and Christianity.

The fact is, atheism cannot prove anything. Atheism cannot prove that God does not exist. Even Richard Dawkins acknowledged this truth. In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins developed a spectrum of probabilities about the existence of God. He said that there are seven levels of probability concerning the issue whether God exists. At one extreme is Level 1, where strong theists are. Those who are on Level 1 believe 100% that God exists. On the other extreme, Level 7 is where the strong atheists are. A strong atheist is the one who says for a fact that there is no God.

Dawkins says there are very few people at level 7. Dawkins places himself at Level 6. Those who are on Level 6 say that there is a very low probability that God exists. Those on Level 6 are the people who say they cannot know for sure but think that maybe God does not exist.

Since atheists cannot prove that there is no God, they place the burden of proof on Christians; it is the responsibility of Christians to prove that God exists. Since atheism cannot prove their claim that there is no God, they deny the existence of God, they deny the claims of the Bible, they deny the possibility of revelation, they deny divine intervention, they deny the reality of faith. Atheism is based on a culture of denial. In order for atheism to exist, atheists must deny anything and everything Christianity stands for. The truth is, atheism stands on the shoulders of Christianity to tell the world “there is no God.”

When asked to prove that there is no God, atheists point to errors and contradictions in the Bible, as if the faith of Christianity is based on who wrote Genesis, or how many days it took to create the universe, or how many officers Solomon had, or even how old Jehoiachin was when he began to reign.

Atheists also mention suffering, evil, wars, violence, diseases, hunger, poverty, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters to prove that there is no God. But these tragedies are not evidence that there is no God. These tragedies do exist. There are many reasons that cause some of these tragedies to afflict human beings; many of these tragedies are hard for us to fully understand. When Christians try to offer an explanation for these events, no explanation is good enough because atheists have already convinced themselves that these events are evidence that God does not exist or if he does, that God is not good or that God is powerless.

Atheists advance their cause by ridiculing others. “God is for Suckers” is their motto. Their writings are only “rants on the evils and stupidity of belief.” Their purpose is “making fun of believers everywhere.” Their goal is to discredit “the big invisible daddy in the sky.”

The ridicule present in the writings of atheists shows that there is no dignity in their argument. Atheism is a cause infused with a culture of denial. Atheism does not have anything positive to say; they only advance their cause by denying the claims of others. The day atheism can show me better proof that there is no God, I may be willing to listen.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Other posts of this topic:

The Answer Atheists Can't Provide

Atheists and the Bible

The God Delusion: A Preview

Tags: Atheism, Atheists, Christianity, Faith, Religion

The Answer Atheists Can't Provide

In an article published in the Washington Post titled “What Atheists Can't Answer,” Michael Gerson asks this questions: “If the atheists are right, what would be the effect on human morality?” His article deals what the issue of what would happen to our world if “God were dethroned as the arbiter of moral truth.”

Gerson wrote:

“How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.”

“Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma.”

According to Gerson,

“America's Founders embraced public neutrality on matters of religion, but they were not indifferent to the existence of religious faith. George Washington warned against the ‘supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” The Founders generally believed that the virtues necessary for self-government -- self-sacrifice, honesty, public spirit -- were strengthened by religious beliefs and institutions.”

Gerson concludes:

“Atheists and theists seem to agree that human beings have an innate desire for morality and purpose. For the theist, this is perfectly understandable: We long for love, harmony and sympathy because we are intended by a Creator to find them. In a world without God, however, this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature -- imprinted by evolution, but destined for disappointment, just as we are destined for oblivion, on a planet that will be consumed by fire before the sun grows dim and cold.”

Read the article by clicking here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Atheism, God, Theism

Einstein and Faith

Time.com has published an excerpt of the book Einstein by Walter Isaacson. The book will be published Simon & Schuster, Inc. This excerpt of the book deals with Einstein’s view of God and his perspective on religion. What follows is a small portion taken from the excerpt:

To what extent are you influenced by Christianity? "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

You accept the historical existence of Jesus? "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Do you believe in God? "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

Next week I will write a post dealing with Einstein’s view of God. My post will be based on the information Isaacson provides on Einstein’s religious views.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Atheism, Einstein, Faith, Religion

The God Delusion: A Preview

When my younger son James asked me what I wanted for Christmas, I had no hesitation. I told my son: “I want The God Delusion for Christmas.” So, since Christmas, I have been reading Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Even though I do not agree with much of what Dawkins writes, his book is very provocative.

Now, if you are returning from the Moon or from Mars, you probably have never heard of The God Delusion. This is the most vitriolic and probably one of the most intellectual attacks on religion in general and Christianity in particular. The book is also an attack on the notion of God, the Bible, the supernatural, and anything and everything that has to do with matters of faith and religion.

Richard Dawkins is an apostle of atheism who despises the God of the Old Testament. In fact, in a lecture in Virginia, he said that his aim was to offend the God of the Bible. He is an evangelist for his cause, one who preaches a gospel devoid of God, and one who is unapologetic for his sustained criticism of Christianity.

The purpose of Dawkins’s book, in addition to prove that there is no God, is to make converts for atheism. The “Preface” of his book is an invitation for believers and doubters, for seekers and those in between to join the cause of atheism. An in-print prototype of the televangelist for atheism, Dawkins gives an altar call at the end of every sermon (or chapter, as he calls them). His message can be very convincing to people who are unable to argue with his evidence, as H. Allen Orr has convincingly demonstrated in a review of the book.

As I read Dawkins’ book, I was struck by his hatred of the God of Abraham. Over and over again he accuses the God of the Bible with words that clearly reflect his negative obsession with God. In a future post, I will return to Dawkins’ view of the God of the Old Testament.

I was also struck by Dawkins’ refusal to admit that theologians have anything to contribute to the discussion about the existence of God. His ridicule of faith, religion, God, and the supernatural precludes any possibility of dialogue, or intelligent discussion. In his mind, he knows he is right and it is up to theologians and others to prove he is wrong.

There are several issues raised by Dawkins that deserves the attention of people of faith. In a future post I will address Dawkins’ view of the God of the Old Testament. Now, however, I just want to mention two things that came to my mind as I read the book.

1. God’s Friends

A superficial reading of Dawkins’ book tends to confirm that old saying: “At times, God’s worst enemies are his friends.” To support his view that the church and religion cause evil, suffering, and oppression in the world, Dawkins uses the scandals, the fights, and the dirty laundry of Christianity, past and present. And he has plenty of ammunition to use against the church.

Dawkins mentions names, issues, fights, and divisions that have plagued the church throughout the ages. He lists the atrocities, the injustices, the oppressions, and the evils perpetrated by the church in the past. He talks about evangelists and televangelists and their call to give until it hurts. He discusses the church and its fights over doctrinal issues and the suppression of dissenting views. You name the problem, Dawkins talks about it.

It is at times like this that believers must be reminded once again that the world is watching their words and their works. Fair or not, believers’ lives and believers’ work can be used against God and his cause. As Paul wrote, the lives of Christians are open letters, read and known by all (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:1-2 NLT).

Jesus told his disciples: “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). When Christians fail to be the light of the world (Matthew 5:14), people cannot see God in them.

God himself had already warned Israel of the danger of not living by divine standards. The prophet Joel wrote that because of the people’s violation of the demands of the covenant, Israel would become an object of mockery and their name would become a proverb for unbelieving people who would mock God and say “Where is the God of Israel?” (Joel 2:17).

As long as Christians give ammunition to people like Dawkins, he will use it in order to shoot down and kill people of faith. Despite his arsenal, he will not be able to kill God and his church. Better people than Dawkins have tried and failed. I am sure that one hundred years from now very few people will know who Richard Dawkins was.

2. The Loophole

Reading The God Delusion reminded me of the writings of Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899). In his days, Ingersoll was called “The Great Agnostic,” and “The Great Atheist.” Ingersoll was a great orator and his speeches mesmerized many people. He was a prolific writer who specialized in proving that the Bible was wrong and that the church and religion were evil.

Ingersoll ridiculed the notion that there was a God or that there is life after death. He rejected the supernatural, the reality of faith, the possibility of prayer, and denied that the Bible is a record of God’s revelation to human beings.

Ingersoll used in his speeches some of the same tactics Dawkins uses in his book. While many of Dawkins’ attacks against Christianity are based on his scientific background, Ingersoll’s attacks were based on the discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible. Ingersoll also used church behavior and church fights over doctrinal matters as the basis for his attacks on Christianity.

One of his memorable speeches was the eulogy spoken at the time of the death of his brother, E. C. Ingersoll. It is here that we can see Robert Ingersoll’s wish for the existence of a God. His words are a request for someone who can answer prayer and provide hope after death. Speaking about the death of his brother, Ingersoll wrote:

Life is a narrow vale between the cold and barren peaks of two eternities. We strive in vain to look beyond the heights. We cry aloud, and the only answer is the echo of a wailing cry. From the voiceless lips of the unreplying dead there comes no word; but in the night of death hope sees a star and listening love can hear the rustle of a wing. He who sleeps here, when dying, mistaking the approach of death for the return of health, whispered with his latest breath, “I am better now.” Let us believe, in spite of doubts and dogmas and tears and fears, that these dear words are true of all the countless dead.

It is in those words, in the night of death hope sees a star that we see a crack in the wall of atheism, the faint light that begins to shine in the dark heart of an atheist, the evidence that an unspoken hope is present. The expression, the peaks of two eternities, may reflect the awareness that there is life here and life beyond. The expression We cry aloud, and the only answer is the echo of a wailing cry may reflect the struggle atheists encounter when confronted with the reality of death and the end of existence. But Ingersoll’s words, Let us believe, in spite of doubts and dogmas may be the loophole he was looking for to give him a ray of hope that he would see his brother again.

Ingersoll’s words remind me of the anecdote about the lawyer, a famous atheist, who was sick and about to die. On his death bed, the man asked for a Bible. When an acquaintance saw him reading the Bible, he asked: “Aren’t you an atheist?” “Yes”, the man replied, “but I am looking for a loophole.”

Even Dawkins may inadvertently have left a very small crack in the wall for himself, a very faint burning light that some day may be as bright as the midday sun. And that dimly lit light is found in his own words.

Dawkins develops a spectrum of probabilities about the existence of God. In this spectrum, there are seven levels of probability concerning the issue whether God exists. At one extreme is Level 1, where strong theists are. Those who are on Level 1 believe 100% that God exists. On the other extreme, Level 7 is where the strong atheists are. A strong atheist is the one who says for a fact that there is no God.

Dawkins places himself at Level 6. Those who are on Level 6 say that there is a very low probability that God exists. Those on Level 6 are the people who say they cannot know for sure but think that maybe God does not exist.

Ah! Level 6 may reflect a faint light that is still alive in the hearts of atheists. That very low probability that God exists may be the sign of a faintly burning wick that is still burning. It is that crack in the wall that may allow the water of a mighty river to flow through. This is what happened with Antony Flew, the famous British philosopher and atheist, who at the end of his life abandoned his atheistic beliefs and embraced theism.

Even Dawkins himself has to admit that there are few people on Level 7. The reason? Maybe, when people are faced with the reality of their mortality, people have to consider seriously that life may not end at death. It is when one is confronted with the night of death, as Ingersoll was, that one hopes to see a star, a faint light that begins to shine in the darkness of a dark heart.

In his book, Dawkins never said that God exists, but he also said that it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. Thus, it is possible that, for Dawkins, Level 6 may be the sign that a faintly burning wick is still burning, but so faint that it is about to be put out. If it is so, let us then remember the reassuring words of the prophet about the work of the Servant: “He will not let a faintly burning wick be put out” (Isaiah 42:3).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Note: Chris Heard has been writing a chapter-by-chapter review of The God Delusion. To read Chris’ reviews, visit Higgaion.

Tags: God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, Antony Flew, Robert Ingersoll, Atheism