Book Review: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

It seems funny (to me at least) that my first book review turns out to be on something so contrary to my beliefs as The God Delusion. I was originally inspired to pick up this book because of a review written by Tim Challies, and because I read that review while I was in the library and it was easy to get. I’d also had a few heated conversations with atheists and thought reading this would earn me a bit of respect in their eyes, the equivalent of people who say they only respect opinions from Christians who’ve read right through the Bible.Anyway, I found it quite an interesting read, had a few laughs but mostly didn’t enjoy reading something so vehemently attacking what I hold to be true. I’m most definitely still a Christian, which means that, for me, the book didn’t work out its stated intention: that “religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”This book is attacking religion in general, but I suspect that Dawkins mostly sees the worst side of religion, both because that’s what he wants to see and because it is often the more angry religious people who over-react in their response to him. What I’m trying to say is that the religion Dawkins is attacking tends to encompass all the worst qualities of religion, and so I actually agree with a lot of things he says of them. For example, he criticises those who create a sharp definition between the realm of science and that of religion, and disagrees that parents should teach their children what to think, at the expense of how to think. Dawkins devotes a lot of space to attacking the many evil things done in the name of religion, a criticism I would agree with.The main thesis of the book is that “however statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable.” Thus, in the words of Dawkins himself: “what matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn’t) but whether his existence is probable.” His arguments then seek to demonstrate that God’s existence is highly improbable, to the point of being absurd. In this I believe Dawkins fails, primarily because he does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the origins of the universe.He argues well for Darwinian natural selection, using the analogy of a crane to explain how complex organisms can come from simple forms. He juxtaposes this with the ‘skyhook’ reasoning of theism, he says “[skyhooks] do no bona fide explanatory work and demand more explanation than they provide. Cranes are explanatory devices that actually do explain. Natural selection is the champion crane of all time. It has lifted life from primeval simplicity to the dizzy heights of complexity, beauty and apparent design that dazzle us today.” Dawkins adamantly and effectively argues that natural selection is not ‘blind chance’ and as a result I have resolved not to attack it on those grounds, however I found the main problem with his argument is not natural selection but his defence of how the world and the universe came to be.In explaining the how the many mind-numbingly precise variables for a life friendly world and universe came to be tuned so exactly, Dawkins draws heavily on the anthropic principle. In a nutshell this says there are lots of stars, so chances are one of them (ours!) must possess all the necessary qualities to support life. In the same token, he postulates that there are many universes and so at least one must consist of exactly the right physical constants and matter. This is where, I believe, Dawkins’ argument is weakest, for two main reasons.As Tim Challies observes, the anthropic principle (especially the planetary version) rests primarily on luck. I was surprised that Dawkins himself used the word, though he quickly defends this, stating that the anthropic principle hugely reduces the odds. Even if we grant that the chance of a life friendly planet occurring is within acceptable odds, it is still precisely that, chance. I personally would be unsatisfied with an explanation that rested so heavily on luck as the catalyst for all life.Another, bigger problem I have with Dawkins’ explanation comes from the cosmological version of the anthropic principle. Dawkins gives no real evidence for why there would be multiple universes, instead the whole section sounds very speculative and unsubstantial. Moreover, it seems counter-intuitive to me (admittedly not a theoretical physicist) that science, which only observes things in our universe, can make assertions about the existence of things outside our universe. Anyway, he defends this view as being better than the God hypothesis by saying: “the multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. But if each one of those universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable. The very opposite has to be said of any kind of intelligence.” However the fact is, there is something, and Dawkins doesn’t attempt to explain why there is something as opposed to nothing. So although that thing may be very simple, there is simply no crane or anything to get it there. It seems to me like trying to multiply zero with something to get one, it simply can’t work. To use Dawkins’ terminology, it is still massively improbable that even simple things could exist without anything to get them there. In this sense I think it is just as improbable that ‘simple’ universes could exist as it is improbable that God exists. In other words, if you can multiply something with zero to get one, you can multiply something with zero to get one million. I hope that makes sense.Apart from this there is a lot of rhetoric which I won’t respond to. He tries to explain how religion originated (as a mis-fire of some useful evolutionary change), argues that we don’t need God, the Bible or religion to be moral, and devotes a whole chapter to how raising children to be religious is a form of child abuse. If you want a fuller summary of the book I’m sure there’s somewhere else on the internet where you can go, because that’s all I’m going to do.Perhaps one of the main reasons I found this book interesting is because it caused me to think how the battle for truth is happening on a worldwide scale. I find it easy to get bogged down and concerned only with the questions and problems of people I know, forgetting that there are global trends in the way people think. This book caused me to think how I can make an impact on a larger scale than simply the people I deal with on a daily basis. In that regard I enjoyed this book.In closing I will say, at the risk of sounding religious and unscientific, I thank God that I have found Him to be fully satisfying not just to my intellect, but also to my heart and soul. I think Tim Challies’ words are fitting: “[the Christian and the atheist] both have faith. But the Christian has hope.”

Time and How to Use it

I’ve been thinking recently about time, and how best to use it. More specifically I’m trying to think how to slot Bible time into my day. I know it seems particularly spiritual to do the early morning deal, but I seriously struggle with consistency when I try to take that avenue. That said, I struggle with consistency no matter what.Now when I say ‘Bible time’ I mean time to actually study it as opposed to brushing over a chapter or two. I mean devoting at least half an hour (though preferably more) to sitting at my desk and poring over the Word. Anyone can quickly read a chapter before bed and then go to sleep without having a clue what they just read (I speak from experience).I understand that early in the morning is when there are the least distractions, and when you can pray the loudest without people hearing you. But my biggest problem is that, as a student in a hall, it is very hard to get to bed before 10, and often I don’t go to bed until after 11. Hence I sometimes fail to get up early, and often when I do get up I find I simply can’t keep my mind focussed on what I’m reading. Moreover, without sleep the rest of my day is affected, and I can’t do other things either.Eight seems to be the magic number when it comes to sleep. Admittedly I haven’t done much research on this, but everything I have read seems to say I should be getting at least that, otherwise I start accruing ‘sleep debt.’ Now I’ve been thinking recently that perhaps this is actually the way God designed us (gasp!). An implication of this is that we can actually achieve all that God wants us to in 16 hours a day. It's easy for me to say this, being a student and all, but I think there's still some truth in it. I have no idea what it would be like to be the CEO of a major business, or the pastor of some major church, balancing meeting and helping people with preparing sermons and (for some) writing books, I imagine they very rarely get the magic eight hours. But I can't help wondering if there is a way that we can achieve everything God demands of us while still keeping healthy sleep habits.I need to be careful here, because this can’t be an absolute thing. Indeed Paul commends himself to the Corinthians giving “sleepless nights” as one of his credentials. I’m not saying we should never get less than eight hours sleep a night, just that it shouldn’t be the norm. I think there is some evidence for this in Psalm 127:2.Note that I’m not saying we should be loving sleep. Proverbs has some pretty strong words to say about that here and here. And a quick search brought up this verse from Isaiah. I am most emphatically not supporting a love of sleep, I am saying we should be trying to use the remaining 16 hours of our day in the most productive way possible.For me this means I won't observe early mornings as devoutly as I once did. I will try and get to bed earlier to have beneficial morning Bible times, but if I have a legitimate reason for staying up late I will sleep in a bit to compensate (thankfully as a student I have a lot of other time to study the Bible).I know I haven’t fully fleshed this out, but it's getting late and I need sleep. maybe I'll add more later, maybe I won't. In the meantime I’d be interested to hear if anyone can think of anything I missed, or has some more verses that shed light on the subject.Oh and in my defence, I think the times given at the bottom of each post is for somewhere else...because it certainly isn't 3 in the morning in humble New Zealand.

Walking for Jesus (or rather a cause kind of related to Jesus)

Yesterday I gave a brief description of the ‘commitment walk’ that happened today. As it turns out it was a pretty big event, and you can view what was said about it on the news here. I indeed went along, and quite enjoyed it. I got asked to be one of those guys in the hot fluoro vests helping people cross the road, so that’s what I did. As such I wasn’t one of the ‘cookie-hander-outerers’ talking to bemused bystanders, and my observations come from that somewhat removed perspective.By the way…I called this post what it is because the “Walking for Jesus” doesn’t actually describe what we did. Although it was mostly Christians doing it, it wasn’t explicitly parading for ‘Jesus’ as such. I think the website does the best job of explaining what it was.The walk today has got me excited about living for, and fighting for noble causes. Let me explain. As we were walking home from playing pool last night I asked my friend what he thought of the walk. He replied, pretty bluntly, that he thought nothing would or could change the drinking culture down here. Similarly, after watching the news clip in a TV lounge with a bunch of others, the guy next to me turned and said “you know you can't change the culture, don’t you?” These sentiments, and others like it, sound exactly like what great men like William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King Jr. must have encountered. And it is this that gets me excited.I have thought a lot about what problems there are in this age that must be fought against or for. I find the story of William Wilberforce (especially now it’s in movie form) particularly inspiring and challenging. Inspiring because he achieved so much, that has impacted all subsequent history. And challenging because he had to struggle and toil against such opposition, and because he was fighting something accepted as ‘normal’ (much like the drinking culture in Dunedin!). In this ‘bring the love’ campaign, I think I have found a cause worth toiling, straining and suffering for.This is a long term initiative, and I’m stoked to be here right at the start of it. I often think, when reading war stories or biographies of great men, how noble it is to stand for something worthy. I like how Jonathon Edwards has been described: “he was not only God's kindling for the Great Awakening, but also its most penetrating analyst and critic.” That is what I would love to be for this campaign, one who passionately supports and facilitates God’s work, but also critiques and refines it, according to God’s word. It was the many energising and exciting thoughts along this line that I enjoyed most about today.Being where I was, I didn’t get to hear many of the resident’s responses to the walk. I can’t say what the impact of the walk was on the community, I just hope there are a few people along Castle and Hyde St going to bed tonight wondering why a bunch of Christians would turn up to give them cookies.

Walking for Jesus (and the Ensuing Inner Battle)

If you’re a New Zealander, chances are you heard all about the Castle St riots that happened here in Dunedin a few weeks back. You’ve probably seen the images of gazillions of crazed student revelling around couch fires and the police in all their riot gear giving them the smack-down.For all the sad stuff that happened, however, the madness of the Undie 500 weekend served as the catalyst for motivating a group of churches in Dunedin to start a unified campaign to counter the drinking culture so prevalent in Dunedin. They call it ‘Bring the Love’ and say: “We intend to demonstrate practical love to those who are caught in the tide of the drinking culture. We can and we will offer an alternative to the reckless abandon that dominates the social lives of so many.”What has inspired me to write this post is that tomorrow afternoon ‘Bring the Love’ is doing a ‘commitment walk’ down the more notorious streets of Dunedin, praying and cleaning up as they go. In their own words, “This walk…is not a “march”, or declaration of anger at what has happened, but rather an opportunity to show that there are many who care about the residents of our town.”I will be there. I think it is great that the churches in Dunedin are taking responsibility and showing the initiative in bringing positive change to society. I want to show my support for the church, and get behind what my leaders are doing. This walk won’t achieve much in the grand scheme of things, it is mainly to get us noticed. But I want to say I support what they are doing.For all this though, I’m freaking out! This walk is fairly harmless as far as evangelism goes. I won’t be getting into awkward conversations with strangers and leading them to repentance, let alone standing and preaching from a soap-box or anything. I’ll just be walking, and praying, and picking up rubbish with a (hopefully) large group of other Christians. Yet for some reason I find it so hard to associate myself with a cause so obviously 'christian' without twinges of shame. I hate being scared, I hate being put outside my comfort zone, but when I read biographies of great men I am confronted every time with the fact that they fought and struggled against opposition. Needless to say, it seems to me that it is not noble to live only in the realm of earthly comfort.I have many intellectual questions about how to go about evangelism, which I won’t bring up here, but I do find it too easy to rationalise not doing anything. I’m not saying we shouldn’t think critically about what the church is doing in the community, but it is bad if that stops us doing something. In this I am always challenged by Bryan Chapell’s sermon, simply called “Say Something: Why Christians should share their faith” (downloadable here).Anyway I don’t have much more to say. No doubt I’ll write in here tomorrow about how the walk went, hopefully with more stimulating, better organised and 'christian' thoughts than a rant about why I don’t want to do it.

Book Review: Deluded by Dawkins? by Andrew Wilson

A friend of mine very kindly bought me this book while I was reading The God Delusion. To tell the truth I didn’t think much of it when I first saw it, given that it looked like one of those weird tract-book things and had nothing by way of a biography of the author. In the preface, Wilson says that he wrote this book while working at a church as an article for its website. This was, to the cynic within me, not compelling evidence to take him seriously.I was pleasantly surprised on reading it, however, to find it an articulate, well thought out and relevant response to the infamous God Delusion. It was also nice and short (I read it in a couple of hours) which I quite liked, seeing as I’m such a slow reader. Though Wilson may not be a scientist, his arguments command respect and clearly show that he has thought and read extensively on this subject.One of the most interesting aspects to this book, I found, is Wilson’s frequent references to the resurrection of Christ. He mentions it first in his introduction, making the observation that “the most definitive argument that Christians have used since AD30, the resurrection of Jesus, is not even discussed [in The God Delusion].” I missed this when I read Dawkins’ book, but Deluded by Dawkins makes a good case for why such an omission is a great shortfall in a book attacking Christianity. In a later section Wilson again expresses this point, using an analogy I quite enjoyed:“From the earliest days of the church, the resurrection was central to Christian belief and practice. To make fun of the ontological argument while ignoring the resurrection, and to think that one has thereby removed the basis for belief in God, is to chase the mice out of the sitting-room, and thus announce that the house is free of animals, while there is an elephant grinning on the sofa.”I found it refreshing to read that this truth, which is so central to my beliefs, is also one of its greatest proofs.Given that Andrew Wilson is more of a church-man than a science-man, it makes sense that his critique of Dawkins’ treatment of scripture will be especially substantial. This is indeed the case, and he has devoted the longest chapter of the book to the subject. He categorically and effectively addresses the more significant problems in Dawkins’ book, correcting where he misreads, misapplies or outright fabricates parts of the Bible. Andrew Wilson fleshes out the context of some of Dawkins’ damning verses, and does so in a fair and objective manner which lends him far more credibility than the rhetoric laden equivalent in The God Delusion.Wilson’s use of scripture is a common theme throughout this book, a quality I appreciate. Though his frequent allusions to biblical passages may not add much to his arguments, I find it gives the impression that the Bible applies to all of life, and that a biblical worldview is relevant in any situation. Certainly this book is a good example of writing that holds the Bible to be inspired, yet is still rational and reasonable, a position Dawkins’ seems to ignore.At the beginning of the book, Andrew Wilson summarises Dawkins’ main arguments and propositions in a table, stating next to them whether he thinks it is agreeable, disagreeable, irrelevant or unsubstantiated. It turns out there are only eight aspects which Wilson disagrees with, and these he groups under the four categories of anti-supernaturalism, logic, scripture and improbability. These form the basis for the structure of the book, and herein lies the book’s biggest problem. Wilson expressly states: “it is still my categorisation, not Dawkins’, and I have over-simplified significantly to provide [the table].” Thus it seems that the book only attacks those things the author disagrees with in a self-confessedly over-simplified table. This means that the book does not specifically address the majority of Dawkins’ claims, and thus some readers may be left with questions outstanding after this book. However I think this problem is relatively minor, and does little to detract from the overall impact of the book.Another review of Deluded by Dawkins says “Wilson goes out of his way to be fair to Dawkins,” however I would not quite put it that way. For the most part his writing does sound objective and polite, however he does on occasion indulge in the same cynical humour so characteristic of Dawkins’ book. Often this takes the form of a parody of Dawkins’ own joke used against him. I actually found this added to the book, just as I appreciated the humour in The God Delusion.Overall, I enjoyed reading this book, and found it helpful in clarifying some of the questions I had about The God Delusion, as well as resolving problems I didn’t notice. It is well written and understandable to amateur scientists such as myself, while still effectively refuting many of Dawkins’ main arguments. I probably wouldn’t have bought it for myself, however having read it I am immensely thankful to the friend that gave it to me. It is a worthy resource to have, especially by those often confronted by Dawkins fans.By the way, I still plan on reading The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath and his wife, but until then I cannot comment on similarities and differences between the two responses.

William Cowper is pretty much the man

Hear the just law, the judgement of the skies!He that hates truth shall be the dupe of lies.And he that will be cheated to the last,Delusions, strong as hell, shall bind him fast.But if the wanderer his mistake discern,Judge his own ways, and sigh for a return,Bewildered once, must he bewail his lossFor ever and for ever? No - the Cross!There and there only, (though the deist rave,And atheist, if earth bear so base a slave)There and there only, is the power to save.There no delusive hope invites despair,No mockery meets you, no deception there,The spells and charms that blinded you before,All vanish there, and fascinate no more.I am no preacher, let this hint suffice,The Cross once seen is death to every vice:Else He that hung there suffered all his pain,Bled, groaned, and agonized, and died in vain.From William Cowper, The Progress of Error.This is kind of what I tried to say with The Shape of Reality, but put far more eloquently

How to Offer Away Your Heart

I’ve been on a camp this weekend with a bunch of people from the Elim church I go to down here. I have very much enjoyed it, especially having the chance to get to know people better. I also feel I learnt a lot about the vision for the student ministry here which has me excited about the future.For all the many good things that happened, however, it did get me questioning a number of things. Basically I find Pentecostal worship funny, and awkward, and awkward because I find it funny, and generally just not that spiritually uplifting. Anyway, I have a couple of specific things to say.A phrase I heard a lot over the weekend was “offer your heart to God” or something to that effect. We sang the song “This is my desire” a few times, the chorus including: “Lord I give you my heart/ I give you my soul, I live for you alone.” A constant emphasis on this kind of ‘me-offering-everything-to-God’ thinking makes me feel awkward. I don’t want to outright slam it, because there is some kind of theological backing to it in verses like Romans 12:1, however there is another level that makes me uneasy.The context in which it is so often said seems to imply that in offering our hearts and souls to God, we are offering something of value. It is as if we expect God to turn around and say “thank you so much for offering me that, I really needed it,” as if we are doing him a favour. Instead I think we come to God with hearts tainted by sin, and so in saying ‘here’s my heart’ we are offering something offensive to God. The amazing thing is that he still accepts it, forgives us, gives us a pure heart and enjoys our praises. But observe the difference because it is crucial, in ‘offering your heart’ because you are thinking you are doing God a favour, you rob God of his glory and claim some for yourself. In offering yourself because you recognise how in need of a saviour you are, you declare God as the only benefactor, and hence bring him all the glory. I don’t think I need to say which is a more God-honouring form of praise.I also get sick of people speaking about 'hearing from God' (in the still small voice variety) in a way that makes it seem like it is the norm, or worse, the only way to hear from God. What annoys me is that it implicitly belittles the Bible as a way God speaks to his people. I know most of those people would never say the Bible isn't God's word, but it seems that they would far rather God speak individually to them in their head than take the time to study the Word to find the gold within it. This is obviously an overly simplified and harsh analysis, but I think there's something valid in it.I've written way more than I intended to, but before I close I must say the last thing I want to do is make it seem like a bad camp. I appreciated the effort the various speakers put into their talks, and learnt a lot from them. A lot of good stuff happened and I do love it how God chooses to dwell and work among us. But I think we've still got a lot of things to improve.

Hitch-hiking, Natural Goodness and the Sovereignty of God

Yesterday I made it safely back to Dunedin after hitch-hiking down from Hamilton. It was a fun experience and I met some great people, and learnt a lot from them.Hitch-hiking always gets me thinking weird thoughts about time, God and predestination. A typical example is wondering if, had I been standing in a different spot, the same person would have picked me up. And what would have happened if I had been there slightly earlier, or slightly later. I often get the impression that it can’t just be coincidence that these people happen to be driving past at that exact moment. Everything worked out so perfectly that it definitely felt like God was orchestrating the whole thing. I won’t write much in the form of rational reasoning for this, but I will just say that it is immensely comforting to know there is a God who is working all things for the good of those who love him (Romans 8:28).My trip down also got me thinking about the natural ‘goodness’ of humans. Contrary to what most people think, hitch-hiking brings you into contact with some of the most amazingly hospitable people. In particular, I was most impressed with one man’s positive outlook on life. His philosophy on life, one of trusting in the good of people and trying to pass on the ‘goodness’ to others seemed very attractive to me.That said, I hold to a theology (which I trust is biblical) that says without God’s grace, the human will is totally corrupted by sin, and is unable to do anything pleasing in God’s sight. Just writing it like that seems so heartless and makes me kind of understand why people have such a low view of Christianity. However, I find the big picture, one where God intervenes to bring man to himself purely because of his arbitrary mercy and love, to be a beautiful, all-encompassing worldview. This view, in my opinion, explains the darker side of reality better than my optimist friend’s philosophy, however leaves me wondering how to fit in the many good, altruistic acts done by unbelievers.As it stands, I would explain goodness in unbelievers by saying God’s grace acts to restrain us from carrying out a lot of our more evil inclinations, and that it is only because of God’s hand that our society doesn’t completely deteriorate and self-destruct. This view, however, seems so morbid and negative, and certainly not ‘nice’ in our culture. But I think it only seems gloomy and negative if you hold that the best thing for us is our own glorification. Essentially my view makes humans totally unworthy of any praise, but God becomes more beautiful precisely because of our sinfulness. Furthermore, I would argue that the best thing for us is to enjoy God’s beauty, and so this worldview is actually very good and precious to me!

Book Review: The Dawkins Delusion

It feels like my life has been dominated by Richard Dawkins lately! I kind of wish some of the authors I’ve been reading had chosen more imaginative titles, because I get myself muddled when talking a lot about The God Delusion, Deluded by Dawkins and The Dawkins Delusion.Anyway, I enjoyed reading this short book. Unlike Deluded by Dawkins, this book has fairly comprehensive biographies of Alister McGrath and his wife Joanna, and I was particularly impressed with Alister’s background as a molecular biophysicist. That, and Michael Ruse’s endorsement: “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why,” gave me high expectations of the book. Though the book was co-authored by Alister and his wife, I will refer to it as ‘Alister’s book’ for simplicity, and because it is acknowledged that Alister wrote most of it.McGraths’ style is a lot more balanced and rational than Dawkins’, which admittedly isn’t very hard. Where Dawkins uses a lot of analogy and rhetoric to deliver his points, McGrath cites scientific evidence and appeal to reasoned argument. I liked how he points out a number of specific cases where Dawkins’ has used inadequate evidence and insufficient research, as opposed to simply tackling the larger trends in his thinking.In terms of content, probably the most helpful thing would be to compare and contrast how The Dawkins Delusion, relates to Deluded by Dawkins. One of my greatest fears when turning to this book was that it would simply be repeating most things said by Andrew Wilson in his book. Fortunately, while having a number of similarities, there are many distinct differences making each book a worthwhile read in its own right.Both books, understandably, devote a decent portion specially to giving reasons why faith in a deity is rational. They argue against what Andrew Wilson calls ‘anti-supernaturalism,’ a dominant theme in The God Delusion. In Wilson’s book this topic is given its own chapter. In The Dawkins Delusion it is an implicit theme running through most of the book, but comes through most clearly in the section ‘Has Science Disproved God?’ McGrath, who evidently mixes more in academic circles, backs his arguments with support from a wide range of contemporary scientists and philosophers (from both religious and atheistic camps). This causes his book to have a more credible feel than Deluded by Dawkins, where Wilson relies more on philosophical reasoning, while still giving evidence from a number of historical authors.Deluded by Dawkins deals only with those arguments in The God Delusion that specifically aim to disprove God (or rather, show He is extremely improbable). The Dawkins Delusion, on the other hand, responds in greater depth to Dawkins’ supporting arguments. McGrath gives only a brief mention and rebuttal of Dawkins’ argument from improbability, where Andrew Wilson devotes an entire chapter to it. Conversely Deluded by Dawkins hardly touches the question of morality and religion, while The Dawkins Delusion dwells on the subject in some length. The same is true for the origins of religion. In each of these areas McGrath systematically addresses Dawkins’ claims, and articulately demonstrate how his “crude stereotypes, vastly oversimplified binary oppositions, straw men and hostility toward religion” do nothing for his cause. I appreciate how he presents his audience with a portrait of the views of the scientific community as a whole, observing that Dawkins’ book is as intellectually repulsive to reasonable atheists as it is to religious observers.I did, however, found the structure of the book a little vague. It is comprised of four main chapters, titled ‘Deluded About God?’ ‘Has Science Disproved God?’ ‘What are the origins of Religion?’ and ‘Is religion Evil?’ however I sometimes wondered how the content related to the title. McGrath gives no systematic reason for writing to these topics, however that does little to detract from the content within them.Another criticism I have of the book is that it makes a number of broad sweeping generalisations about Dawkins’ ideas. These are especially evident in the opening paragraphs of each chapter, where the author could be accused of over-simplifying the issues and hence attacking a straw man. This criticism soon falters in light of the body of each section, however, in that the quality of their response clearly reveals the depth of analysis that went into the book. Nevertheless, it seems disrespectful to Dawkins (who admittedly shows very little respect to theists) to present his basic argument in such condescending terms.On the whole, however, The Dawkins Delusion is a great book, and does a very good job at rebutting most of Dawkins’ arguments. As noted above, there are a few key differences between this and Deluded by Dawkins, and I would recommend them to different people based on their specific questions about The God Delusion. In general, however, I found McGrath’s book to be a more comprehensive and well informed response than Andrew Wilson’s equivalent. It is a fitting answer to Dawkins from one who is absolutely qualified to do so. I said early on that I had high expectations of this book, thankfully I wasn’t let down, and found it refreshing to read something that so intelligently defended my beliefs.

War and Morality

I find it fascinating and sad, when reading accounts of war, to see how the moral standards of people change when the arm of civil law is withdrawn. The aptly named book: True War Stories presents an amazing amount of contrast when it came to this. On the one hand there are many stories of selfless acts of heroism and courage, where men give their lives to help their fellows. Sadly, however, the majority show that the context of war brings out the very worst of human nature. As to the former, the book includes an eyewitness account of Christmas in the trenches, 1914, where both sides met in a truly remarkable display of benevolence. In stark contrast, however, is this description of the chaos at the fall of Berlin:The cellars, which were completely blacked out, now became the scene of an incredible spectacle. The starving people flung themselves like beasts over one another, shouting, pushing and struggling to lay their hands on whatever they could....In order not to be trampled down themselves the Russians fired at random into the crowds with machine-pistols, killing several.I cannot remember how I extricated myself from this screaming, shouting chaos; all I remember is that even here in this utter confusion, Russian soldiers were raping women in one of the corners.I found the testimony of Rudolf Hoss, the commandant of Auschwitz, to be particularly moving:I had to appear cold and indifferent to events that must have wrung the heart of anyone possessed of human feelings. I might not even look away when afraid lest my natural emotion got the upper hand. I had to watch coldly, while the mothers with laughing or crying children went into the gas-chambers....I had to go on with this process of exterminations. I had to continue this mass murder and coldly to watch it, without regard for the doubts that were seething deep inside me.I had to observe every happening with a cold indifference. Even those petty incidents that others might not notice I found hard to forget. In Auschwitz I truly had no reason to complain that I was bored.If I was deeply affected by some incident, I found it impossible to go back to my home and my family. I would mount my horse and ride, until I had chased the terrible picture away. Often at night, I would walk through the stables and seek relief among my beloved animals.I often wonder what I would do if I were put in situations like those mentioned, and others like them. It is easy to say I would never commit such atrocities, but the scary thing is that the people doing them would probably say the same if they were in my shoes. That is, soldiers in peace-time are generally still respectable citizens, and most would never consider themselves capable of such evil.A recent and relevant case study is the prison at Guantanamo Bay. I don’t know much about what’s going on there (who does?) but what I have seen is overwhelmingly sad. Are we to say that the guards have always been sadistic, malignant people? No. I think a more realistic explanation is that they are otherwise upright citizens who have been removed from the bounds of law, and have abused that freedom.It seems to me that the general trend is that whenever we humans are put in situations where there is no system to direct our actions, we turn all evil. Because of this I am forced to conclude that our natural inclinations are towards sin. This seems strangely similar to what I read in the Bible:For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other (from Galatians 5) You would be forgiven for thinking this is a somewhat morbid post, and on one level it is. But on another level, our utter depravity serves to make God’s grace infinitely more amazing. I’ll leave you to think about that.As a disclaimer I will mention that I know I haven't done justice to the weighty issues I've brought up here. This post is simply to give an indication of where my thoughts on the book led me, without going into depth about the theology of it all.

The Shape of Reality

I wrote this poem nearly two weeks ago, while I was reading "The God Delusion" and got somewhat disillusioned about how to find truth. I find it annoying how it is so easy to make everything fit what you want to know. I don't really know what else to say about this poem, I just hope it speaks for itself:Sitting here, alone with my thoughts,Truth and lies my mind distorts.O reality! So sweet yet so elusive,I thirst and pant for something conclusive.In love, her words fall on eager earsThat twist and warp to quell my fears,Yet so quick am I to turn and cryWhen her love they fail to imply.Someone tell me just what to think!Her words cause my soul to rise or sink.In faith, there is so much to confuse,Arguments many, none willing to loose.Of justice and mercy, glory and grace,The ultimate truth, can anyone trace?All this long life my feeble mindWill struggle and toil, this goal to find.In the call to share, calamity reigns,Told “go and speak,” my mind deigns.Fear of man, though low and faithlessWeakens my knees at the wall called ‘witness’.O Treacherous mind! That under noble bannerExits the fray in disreputable manner.In science, pride puffs up and destroys,Objectivity tainted by scientist’s ploys.Truth? Ha! I laugh at the notion.Their heart is the root of their devotion.They are the ones who make evidence speakThe words that they so desperately seek.Where do I look? To whom do I turn?To find deep truth, and reality learn.Reason’s reach is still too short,The heart will too readily distort,O a mind needs some solid ground,I thank God that this I have found!‘Midst waves of reason and rhetoricThis one truth stands solid as brick,The cross on which Christ was crucified,The holy place where my saviour died.This is the spring, with love overflowing,My heart and mind rejoice at knowing.‘Evidence!’ you cry, ‘I need evidence!’But to your mind it’s of no consequence.You can twist, warp, buckle and bendAnything seen or said to your desired end,Your mind is governed by your heart,Affections’ a force you cannot depart.The cross, my friend, is the shape of reality,If you can come with true humilityYou’ll find a God who fully satisfiesThe heart and mind’s anguished cries.

A Call to Fight Lust

I wrote this poem about a month ago, before I started this blog, but I think it's still good, and has some good stuff to say. I know it's long, but hopefully interesting enough to make you read it.‘Tis a strange thingTo look at the sky, and sing.And in that same blue skyFind the strength to mortifyLust that in a man pervades;Every thought of his invades.Lust’s a strong, yet vanquished foeFor on the cross, Christ’s blood did flow.Today I stood, by God’s graceAnd spat in lust’s ugly face.The battle raged within my mindBut Christ’s love I longed to find.Come, my brothers, fight this lustBut not simply because we must.‘Tis a vice that brings a man so lowThat the joy of God he cannot know,A life consumed by this sinDecays away, from within.O what sad and wretched fateTo have a soul that cannot love nor hate,But is driven by this base desire,To a soul, lust is the pyreOn which burns love, peace and joy,It corrodes the soul of every boy.The mind of one so deceivedTo think this lust can be relievedWill never live to see contentment,But will always be delinquent.O stupid man, foolish and blind!You’ve let this lust control your mind.I know! I know the powerOf the drive to spoil this flower,I know the pain of fighting and losing,Of having the chance, yet not choosingA pure mind, a blameless lifeAnd thus living in deep strife.This page is stained with tears of failure,I’ve been ashamed of my behaviour,So these words aren’t without a heartInstead with love they do depart.I have been tempted to despond,But I have seen the prize beyond.There is yet hope for your eyesNo longer swayed by lust’s guise,You can see past skin, to the soulAnd hence view girls with control.Men, can you not see?This is true nobility!But if this goal seems far too highAnd from the depths you sigh,Though your heart be black and carnalThe Lord has spoken words eternal:“God shows his great love for usBy sending Christ to die for us”[1]Ah sweet music to my ears!Distils and breaks down all my fears.While we still being dead in sinGod lifted us to be with him.Mercy so great, and so sublimeBrings freedom from this sinful grime.So now we stand, blameless in his sightHe listens to our desperate plight,We men stand and cry as one“Lord please help us overcomeThe lust that threatens to devour,Our appetite for you to sour.”Walk the road, my brothers, my friendsWalk in the mercy that He sends.Look always to the cross of Christ,The power of it will sufficeTo give you strength to turn those eyesAnd see through all the devil’s lies.O look ahead to see the gainOf life free from bondage and pain,With pure eyes, real beauty to seeGiving women their due dignity,To relate to them as to a sisterUse all our actions to uplift her.Young men, crave, seek and long for theseGifts of surpassing great themes.For th’ soul to see beauty impregnatedIn this world that God createdMust be worth a lifetime’s fightSo strive for this with all your might!The road is long, the way is hardBut above all, your mind you must guard.Do not give in to fleeting temptationBut strive only for God’s ovation,Only there can satisfaction be found,For indeed God’s beauty will astound.‘Tis indeed a strange thingTo look at the sky and sing,Yet when breathing brings euphoriaAll ones being sings soli deo gloria.Ah the happy life of one who’s free,Possesses riches none can see.So, men, stand to your feetThe eyes of God, earnestly seek.This word from one brother to anotherExhorts you to God’s love discover,By throwing off this vile thingKnown as ‘the man’s sin’Licentiousness, lechery,It hurts your soul eternally,Do not dare to euphemiseThis evil fled from by the wise,Instead seek joy, seek life, seek hope,To a pure man, they aren’t remote.O but God deserves the final clause,In all of this, he is our causeTo fight, to pant, to thirst and toil,Knowing through it all, that he is loyal.He’s our might, our strength, our swordSo in our vict’ry we crown him Lord.[1] Romans 5:8 (NLT)

Book Review: True War Stories

The sub-title of this book pretty well sums up what it is: “A new selection of over 50 unforgettable accounts of the horror and heroism of war.” I’ve already forgotten a few of them, so I would dispute the ‘unforgettable’ bit, but otherwise it has it about right. I was attracted to this book largely because it is composed of many stand-alone accounts of war, which meant I could read it off-and-on at my leisure. That and the fact that it is war stories, and I’m a boy who likes pretending I’m a soldier.AhemOverall I found it had a good range of different stories, highlighting many aspects of war. As the sub-title stated, it depicted war in its most glorious and most gory moments, a balance I appreciated. I bought the book wanting a resource that would give me a glimpse into as many facets of conflict as possible. In this I wasn’t disappointed. On a superficial level it covers all three of the armed forces, with stories from airmen, infantry and naval crews. In a more general sense, it includes accounts written by retreating forces, captive and escaping soldiers, hospitalised wounded and, of course, attacking legions. Because of this it is a relatively comprehensive snapshot of what happens in wartime, and I would recommend it to people looking for such a resource.Some of the stories are not for the faint-hearted. The editor, Jon Lewis, was not afraid to include stories of abhorrent acts of torture on POW’s and chronicles the darker side of what men at war are capable of. A particularly heart-rending chapter comes from the pen of Rudolf Hoss, the commandant of Auschwitz, describing some of the atrocities he oversaw and his personal response to them. It makes for compelling reading, but readers must be warned that there are some pretty vivid descriptions of what goes down.While this is true, there are a number of cases where the opposite is true. That is, the description tends to be too concerned with facts, places and actions that it lacks the spirit of the event. This is especially the case with those accounts written by historians. While being informative, these sections failed to give me much insight into what the lives of soldiers are like, which was a large reason why I got the book.I much preferred the accounts from recent wars (that is, the First World War or later) and so a criticism I have is that it included too many chapters on more classical conflicts. I find it easier to imagine and relate to narrations of modern warfare, and so I found the older stories quite dry in comparison. This is purely my opinion though, and really it didn’t detract too much from the book.I found the book especially beneficial for a few reasons. Firstly, hearing tales of people in such extreme circumstances caused me to appreciate what I have a lot more. Having read that book, I view my prosperity completely differently. It is too easy to get into thinking what we in the west have is normal, and so it was healthy to read about what it cost others to get it. Secondly, I guess it stirred something John-Eldridge-like in me. I know I’ve raved about it a bit lately, but reading war stories makes me think it really is good for a man to fight for something. I just get the impression that the people in all these stories possess something that we, with our cushy lifestyles, lack. I refer to John Eldridge’s book ‘Wild at Heart’ not because I agree with everything in it, but because I think he’s on the mark in that it isn’t good for a man to live only a standard life of earning money to own a good house and car, he needs to live for something more. Another reason I appreciated this book is because I was fascinated by how the moral standards of people changed when the arm of civil law was removed. There’s probably enough in that to have another post on its own (which I plan to write) so I won’t talk much more about it here.This isn't a very spiritual book, so if you're looking for a book that will sit on your shelf and make you look good to other Christians, this isn't it (and I'd recommend you think about why you buy books). Nor would I recommend this book to those who, like me, really only want war stories from the last century. While it does deal frequently with these, I'm sure there are better books out there. However if you are looking for a book that gives a fairly good picture of what war is like from a personal perspective, this compendium does a fairly decent job.