July 2009
A review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
The goal of this book is to win people to the atheist view. This is given explicitly in the preface, introduction, and is the driving force of the book. Dawkins states that atheistic presence is not sufficiently felt in society. This lack of presence makes the political and social persecution of atheists stronger. He argues in the first chapter that many famous people throughout time were probably atheists but unable to fully express their views for fear of reprisals. Implicit is the sentiment that others are in the same place today.
In the second chapter, Dawkins claims that theists are much more likely to be certain of their views than atheists. While this may seem like a reasonable inference, it could be biased by the fact that one typically encounters many more theists than atheists. It would be nice for Dawkins to show some statistical data to back up this statement, which feels more ad hominem than philosophical. Also, it should be remembered that the beliefs of certain famous people or the certainty of one's beliefs do not bear on the truth or non-truth of those beliefs. Dawkins is attacking the credibility of believing in God.
Dawkins rejects the separation of science and religion, outlined in the NOMA position. Certainly some religious beliefs are testable (e.g. resurrection) but some are not directly so (e.g. existence of a non-physical being). What Dawkins does not mention is that science is entered into with certain philosophical presuppositions, which influence both one's starting point and one's conclusions. These presuppositions are usually reasonable but are unable to be tested by science, such as the existence of cause and effect, or the idea that our sense data correlates to actual reality. In experiments, scientists look for what their presuppositions suggest they look for. Hence to claim that science is our sole guide or final authority is ludicrous as even it is embarked on only after many non-scientific philosophies are faithfully accepted. For the compatibility of scientific presuppositions and Christianity see Love God with All Your Mind by Moreland or There is a God by Flew.
No direct argument for atheism is given until chapter three. Here Dawkins "refutes" Thomas Aquinas' proofs from the thirteenth century and Anselm's ontological argument from 1078 AD. Using the classic fallacy of the straw man argument, Dawkins fights positions that are hardly the most advanced or recent points for theism. The twentieth century has had many theists whose well written arguments could have been used instead (for some see my review of Does God Exist? by Moreland and Neilsen). The first three proofs are lumped together and waved aside with his claim that God cannot be a sufficient terminator for an infinite regress. Instead, he claims it is "more parsimonious to conjure up, say, 'a big bang singularity', or some other physical concept as yet unknown" (Dawkins 78). Why is conjuring up some unknown naturalistic explanation more straightforward or efficient? It is only so in conjunction with a presuppositional bias towards naturalism. Dawkins is clear that, in his mind, no other alternative can be considered. He says, "what expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot? ... If science cannot answer some ultimate question, what makes anybody think that religion can?" (56). Any naturalistic explanation is better because atheism is assumed to be true. However, naturalistic atheism provides no terminator point. For reasons discussed later, Dawkins does not stop at the big bang, which is the only testable limit backwards that science can offer unless we break the space-time barrier. With multiverse theory or the universe expand-crunch theory, one does not have an answer to the unmoved mover or the beginning of things. Dawkins must hand wave because atheism offers no believable answer. This is a rather large gap in atheism, and it is merely assumed it will be filled.
Dawkins also describes the teleological argument, ignoring more robust versions. He states that both the teleological and the arguments from design are completely destroyed by evolution. We find throughout the book that this is his mainstay. In his mind, evolution is what renders belief in God completely farcical. However, the truth, or non-truth, of evolution is more significant to the atheist who currently needs it for a reasonable partial explanation of life. It is not the only deciding factor, nor does it bear as directly for or against the theist as we will see below. Other convincing arguments for the existence of God are not discussed. For instance, the idea that presence of information betrays intelligence (e.g. DNA in biology), the archaeological confirmations of the Bible, the question of how a consciousness could rise out of matter, and an explanation of predictive prophecy may be cited by theists. The fine-tuning argument and the existence of morals are discussed elsewhere but could stand to be mentioned in this chapter also.
Most of the early points are more scorn than arguments. He jokes about Anselm's argument and suggests that it fails by claiming existence is not a positive attribute1. The refutation of personal experience by the reasoning that some religious people are crazy, therefore all religious people are crazy, is a fallacy of generalizations. Despite the contradiction involved, some atheists claim that the only way they will believe is if God visits them personally, yet they deny that such personal experience has any value. Dawkins only claims the second having already discounted the first. He is distrustful of any experience of spirituality but has great faith in his experiences of science.
In his argument from scripture, his facts and interpretations are inaccurate. The Bible was not written long after Jesus' lifetime. It was written during the life span of eyewitnesses to those events who could confirm or deny the contents of the gospels. Importantly, it is also during the time in which the claimed authors lived. He ignores modern scholarship here (see Inspiration and Canonicity by Harris, Survey of Old Testament by Archer, The Case for Christ by Strobel). The documentary evidence for the Bible is stunningly good compared to any other ancient book on earth (see "How Can Anyone Be Certain of the Bible's Meaning?"). Dawkins' objection to it being passed like a game of Chinese Whispers, also known as telephone, is refuted by his own discussion later that messages transmitted in known languages, in writing, are examples of digital transmission and almost always faithfully transmitted even in the tests he describes in chapter five. This cannot be said of the "gnostic gospels" which are not related to the New Testament in authorship or theology. They were written much later, in the third century, and of pagan, not Jewish, philosophy. Nor were they ever accepted by early Christians. See the secular works, particularly Cities of God, by professor Rodney Stark.
As for supposed contradictions in the text, the difference of Jesus' linage in Matthew and Luke comes from one genealogy being maternal and the other being paternal. He was a son of Mary by blood and Joseph by adoption. Both are important to note as Messiah was prophesied to come from David. Jesus is David's descendant by blood from Mary's family. Yet he also is of the kingly line, which he inherits legally through his adoption. To make this more complicated, God had promised one Israeli king that no son of his would sit on the throne (Jeremiah 22:30) yet promised David a descendant who would reign forever (2 Samuel 7:12-13). The virgin birth resolves the dilemma as Jesus is a descendant of David yet not a descendant of the other. He has the rights of a king by inheritance.
It is misleading to readers to mention the argument that Jesus may have not existed (97). Dawkins himself later mentions supporting the Atheists for Jesus movement. This theory is hard to take seriously given secular references to Jesus by hostile historians of his day and the emergence of the Christian movement.
The multiverse theory mentioned earlier is fleshed out in chapter four. Questions immediately arise when discussing such an entity, such as, 'where did the multiverse come from?' and 'is it eternal?'. The fact that the multiverse is unable to be observed being, by definition, outside space-time does not seem to cause issues for many naturalists. Is this because it helps one maintain presuppositions a bit further? Something will have to be taken brute force and it is more rational to take a terminator that is capable of causing all others than an unobserved multiverse, which raises more questions than it answers. We should keep in mind that this has other collaborating factors. Life's other questions: 'why does nature follow natural law?', 'why are humans moral?' and 'why does the core of this morality stay consistent over time?', 'why does religion exist?', 'how do you account for personal experience?', 'how could the Bible predict the change of empires, Jesus' life on earth, the reformation of Israel, and the advance of technology by hundreds or thousands of years?' all attribute to one's answer to existence. One's worldview should conform coherent answers to all of these questions. Should we see evidence of God in other areas, our conclusion in the area of causation is reinforced. While evolution could certainly be true (see my review of The Language of God by Collins), it cannot answer many of the above questions. Evolution certainly does not answer cosmological origins as something must exist and change for natural selection to act upon it. Nor does it answer why the law of natural selection is obeyed or where it came from. The anthropic principle is not an alternative explanation to the design hypothesis unless a naturalist interpretation for its existence can be accepted. Otherwise we throw up our hands and say "lucky for us this insanely improbable situation is where we find ourselves". Repeating that evolutionary explanations of existence must be the case, because we are here thinking about it, would be assuming the conclusion. Why are we here thinking about it? Did something arrange for this to be so? Scientific methods can explain part of how we got here but not why.
In chapter five, Dawkins goes over some interesting theories on the roots of religions. It should be noted that there is no biblical support for Mary's ascension and little support for the transubstantiation of the communion items (179). Nor does dualism require one to interpret illnesses as demons. Even the New Testament is ahead of its time in distinguishing diseases caused by illness from those by malevolent forces2. These points are mentioned as they are being used to undermine the credibility of Christianity. The notable decline of Christian beliefs in the intellectual world has also been caused by a shifting theory on what constitutes knowledge, something unfortunately advanced by some Christians as well (see Knowing Christ Today by Dallas Willard). Once spiritual things are presumed to be opinions and not facts, it is little wonder that those who quest for knowledge have little interest in them. Hopefully, this misunderstanding will diminish in the future. From a theist perspective, the ubiquity of religion is not surprising given humanity has a spiritual nature, a personal God exists, and that God desires a relationship with humans.
As Dawkins extends his Chinese Whispers illustration, he undermines his argument against scripture in chapter three. "Written language is also self-normalizing because the squiggle on paper, no matter how much they may differ in detail, are all drawn from a finite alphabet" (196). Written means are the perfect way of communicating, with minimal corruption, a message throughout time. This is exactly what happened with the Bible. He again presents a straw man of biblical faith defining it as "belief without evidence" (199). None of the theists cited in this paper hold that view of faith. Why does the biblical God constantly refer to history if faith has no basis in evidence, calling us to remember what He did? Why does the Bible call attention to predictive prophesy (Isaiah 41:21-32, Isaiah 44:6-7) or tell us to consider the created world (Romans 1:20) if evidence is pointless? Belief without evidence is not a Christian mandate. Blind belief can be held in a variety of worldviews, whether they contain belief in the non-physical or not.
It is evident that designed religions exist and humanity has the capability to invent spiritual stories. What makes atheism differ from Dawkins' meme argument on religion? Could not it be another spiritual position invented by man? Yet another philosophical belief system, which is teachable in history and competing with others? How atheism differs from Christianity is only relevant in the degree in which each thought system is objectively true or false. Just because some religions are man-made does not mean that all are, and atheism would be no less immune. What matters is how well each worldview conforms to reality. If the "memetic theory of religion" is true, then atheism is also merely a set of jostling memes in the minds of atheists (199).
In discussing, "Why are we good?" in chapter six, Dawkins illustrates four reasons for evolution-based morality: genetic kinship, tit for tat, reputation building, and buying power or friends. We do things to help our family because our genes survive through them and we do things when we know others will reward our actions. What is difficult for these theories is why we think it is right to do good even if, or sometimes especially if, it is done in secret. Also, why is it right to help others in distant places who will never help us? Dawkins states that these altruisms, generosities, empathies, and pities were formed at a time when we only had access to close kin and they made evolutionary sense. Now they "are misfirings, Darwinian mistakes: blessed, precious mistakes" (221). These mistakes have no real meaning from a naturalistic standpoint, we only think they do. Just because they cheer us does not make them good. In evolutionary morality these useless urges will be edited out as unnecessary over time. It is contradictory to think they should be celebrated. Doing so betrays another source of morality (or confused thinking). With God we know that humility is moral because God was willing to be humble. We know that doing right even when getting nothing in return is moral because God certainly gets nothing He needs in return from us. Theistic-based morality makes more sense for all areas of morality.
Similarly, theists may have another answer for Dawkins' comment "surely, if we get our morality from religion, they should differ" (225). It is true there is a stunning similarity in morality across cultures and time (despite the extreme diversity of religious ideas). We get our morality from God and He says He has built it into who we are (Romans 1:19; 2:14-15). This is most commonly referred to as a conscience and general revelation. General revelation refers to the theological idea that certain aspects of God can be determined by all people without direct revelation in the form of scripture, visions, or audible sound. This is typically done by reason and observation of the physical universe. All people have a conscience regardless of their exposure to religious ideas and all can see general revelation regardless of time or place in history. This explains the commonality in many moral principles. It should be noted that love is also a motivator for moral behavior, not just fear of punishment. We are kind to friends, family, and God because we love them. One may also be committed to moral behavior because one thinks such actions have the most positive consequences. While guilt may cause moral behavior, so too can love and commitment to what is best.
Much of what upsets Dawkins about the "Good Book" in chapter seven stems from the problem of evil. See my paper "Is God Evil?" for some theistic answers. It is strange that people of all sorts point the finger at God for natural disasters. Jesus himself refutes this view3. We do not need to reject the historical accuracy or meaning of the Bible to be against this simplistic thinking. Similarly, following characters in the Bible is not a simplistic process either. The Bible presents humanity well, both our heroic and disturbed nature. Even the greatest figures, besides Jesus, in the Bible were imperfect like us, and it pulls no punches in describing their depravity. We should be careful to use the instructional parts of the Bible to inform us when to follow in the descriptive parts. Just because it relates a story of murder does not mean it is instructing one to murder. For the particular story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac and other human sacrifice passages, see the specifics of "Is God Evil?". It is an important detail that murder is not actually carried out in Abraham's case and that God never told Jephthah to make the oath or fulfill it. When reading the Bible, like any other book, one should read it as a whole.
Dawkins' understanding of the "love thy neighbor" theology is seriously misinformed. While promotion of "in-group" and hostility of "out-group" makes lots of sense from an evolutionary standpoint, this is not the point of the biblical message. In the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus teaches that loving your neighbor includes those not of your tribe, race, or religion as the Samaritans and Jews hated each other on all of these points. Jesus' command, "go and do the same" is a clear instruction for others to emulate this example (Luke 10:37). Jesus said repeatedly to "love your enemies" and Paul affirmed the same (Matthew 5:44, Romans 12:20 respectively). These principles require loving the "out-groups", even hostile ones. This does not fit with survival evolutionary thinking. Dawkins' later claim that understanding we share a common humanity is "deeply unbiblical" is quite wrong and a false contradiction (271). Theism does not require a rejection of the biological commonality of humanity, nor is this required even if evolution is rejected. The Bible itself teaches that all humanity descended from Adam and has claimed the biological union of humanity since the beginning. Racism has, at different times, distorted this message, but this is not the same as the contradiction stated by Dawkins.
Even a theist can agree with much of Dawkins' discussion on the transitioning nature of the moral Zeitgeist or consensus. There always seems to be a fluid mix of moral ideas that changes throughout history to certain degrees. However, it is foolish to ignore the impact of religious teaching on the formation of this consensus. Even, atheism has inherited the morality of the religious past. "Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity, ... human rights, and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love"4 (Willard 66). Christians led the anti-slave sentiment common today, based on New Testament equality doctrine. The sentiment that all people deserve medical care was likewise influenced by Christian mercy and charity. A vast number of hospitals were founded by Christian organizations. Religious groups are typically the first and last in disaster-hit and poor areas. Religious ideas even backed the civil rights movements Dawkins mentions via the famous figures Martin Luther King Jr. (Christian), Malcolm X (Muslim), and Gandhi (Hindu). For more on the social revolution that Christianity caused, see The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark.
The spirit of the age does change, but it is not always friendly, nor always helpful. Are we not trying to change the ecological sentiments of our day? Would not our forefathers have cringed at the environmental destruction we are causing? Plenty of greedy, selfish, murderous, and immoral principles are mixed in with our Zeitgeist. The true morality is outside of it, one that we continually try to get the Zeitgeist to conform to. We are trying to return to the ideas of caring for the earth common to Native American thinking and found in Genesis (2:15). If morality is based on the morals of the times then moral reformers, like the "individual leaders who, ahead of their time, stand up and persuade the rest of us to move on with them" are immoral (Dawkins 271). By definition reformers are outside the current norm, yet these reformers are recognized as good, helpful, and moral. We must be using a standard outside the Zeitgeist to make this assessment. If we are not, yet cast judgment on previous generations, then we are being supremely hypocritical in doing so, saying their actions were wrong when they were following their Zeitgeist and we are right in following ours. If one accepts that all actions conforming to norms are permissible, one must accept all the horrible things that were done in the past in "true belief", a hopeless position.
In light of the importance of conforming to reality, chapter eight continues the topic of moral absolutism. Dawkins' rejection of moral absolutism is confusing, and problematic, given his embrace of absolute truth (286). Dawkins claims that atheism is true for all people (e.g. there is no God nor has one ever existed) but that "fortunately, however, morals do not have to be absolute" (232). If atheism is the only true worldview, it should lead to suggestions for the best way to live in accordance with that reality. Many atheists, including Dawkins, assert moral commands and register moral outrages (e.g. the "appalling" story of Abraham, 243; "scandalized" at Inca ceremonial sacrifice being thought of as multiculturalism, 317). Why would morals be relative? They are not, nor does Dawkins act as if they are, despite his assertion. Objective truth will lead to objective morals. If reality is a certain way, then certain things will be best for us. In chapter six, his example of looting in Canada is a good one for what happens when humanity is left to its own devices (228). Like the Bible says, though we know right and wrong we do not always obey it (Romans 1:21, 7:21). It is clear that humanity needs an objective mediator and that we are morally absolutist in our application of outrage to others. Further, it is contradictory to be angry over outrages of the past given the cultural consensus theory of morality. How could one be angry over the shift of the Zeitgeist from the Inca to today? Their cultural consensus told them to kill a child. Given the consensus theory of morality, they did the right thing. Given the absolutist position that child sacrifice is wrong, they did the wrong thing. Which seems more reasonable?
Dawkins' gives a humorous mention of The Onion and how his friends had to convince him that Ann Coulter was not an Onion joke (288). She, like the Pharisees of old, has a fundamental misunderstanding of Jesus. He clearly says, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight for me" (John 18:36). This is after he clearly told his servants not to fight (John 18:11). Fundamentalists like Coulter ignore the teachings of their Lord and instead follow their own self-righteous desires. These people demonstrate the evil of conforming to the wrong absolutist morals, not the evil of conforming to correct ones. Why do we not hate the organizations like the Red Cross who compassionately impose their Western medicine on people all over the world? Because we know that it is correct, in an absolutist way, to vaccinate people against disease because objectively that is how infection is prevented. It does not matter what the native population believes. Objective truth leads to objective morals. This can be a great good.
Sexuality is an area where people want freedom. It is an intensely personal and pleasurable area and we do not want interference in either regard. We feel no one should have a say in sexuality yet we impose a say on others. Whoever feels that there should be no limit to any sexual practice will likely change their mind when confronted with rape, bestiality, castration, pedophilia, or snuff films. Accepting complete freedom from sexual morals is to deny the immorality of all of those things. Yet most of us believe such practices are immoral and that sexual anarchy is wrong. But where do we draw the line and by whose authority? Why is it wrong? A common response is that these practices go against the will of one of the participants. First, one is assuming the existence of free will, problematic for naturalistic determinism, and the foundational right to respect it. But secondly, what about children, the mentally handicapped, and those who are vulnerable and can be persuaded to be willing? Should children, the disabled, and women of poverty be allowed to go their own way? Often one cites the fact that a more knowledgeable entity should make rules to protect them for what is best for them and provide care for them (e.g. parents, government, society). God feels the same way. Only He says that even consenting adults do not always know what is best for them either, not having infinite knowledge and being carried away by their passions. There is an internal contradiction where one allows society to choose what is best for the vulnerable but not God. Is it our fear that we can easily hide from government but we can hardly hide from God? Or that we can feel justified arguing with family but not with God? This contradiction is likely held because we seek control in our own hands. Once we see the reasonableness of God's position, we should consider what he says even in sexuality.
In chapter eight, Dawkins relates a sad story of Kurt Wise. It should be noted that the young earth theory has been rejected by many biblical readers well before modern science, from the first century onward. Some notable rejectors are Josephus, Irenaeus, Origen, Basil, Augustine, and Aquinas (Ross 141). "The significance of this list lies not only in the prominence of these individuals as biblical scholars... but also in that their scriptural views cannot be said to have been shaped to accommodate secular opinion" (141). Modern physical, geological, and anthropological evidence was not found until the nineteenth century. No date is given for how old the earth is in the Bible. In general, one should seek to harmonize the Bible and science, keeping in mind that science changes and some passages have multiple interpretive theories. The least likely explanations should be thrown out, unless the evidence is so speculative as to warrant waiting for more information. While it may be possible that a central tenant of Christianity could be found to be wrong and the whole Bible chucked, in general it is sensible to throw out no more of science or interpretation than needed. One should be open to the fact that you may have got a part wrong. An example of changing scientific views would be the shift from the steady state to the big bang theories of origins. An example of changing interpretations could be that the injunction on women teaching was a local cultural one not a global refrain from all woman teachers everywhere. The young earth interpretation is an inferred one by some Christians. "One unfortunate result of the outspokenness of creationists holding the young earth position is that most people now assume that all who believe God created the universe must subscribe to the young earth view... Because of the implausibility of such a position, many reject the Bible out of hand without seriously investigating its message or even reading for themselves the relevant passages" (144). Science is a needed check on the credibility of spiritual beliefs. If we cannot trust what we can check, why trust what we cannot. On the other hand, not only has the evidence of science pointed to differing conclusions in the past but it must be checked against the most reasonable, not the least, position before it is used to reject a whole religion. To silence the critics who claim that science can be falsified while religion cannot, Christianity, at least, is falsifiable. Paul himself gives the criterion, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain... if we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied" (1 Corinthians 15:14,19). The resurrection of Jesus is falsifiable as is many other archaeological and historical details. Should this evidence be false, Christianity should be rejected.
In chapter nine, Dawkins argues that religion abuses children by not allowing them to make their own choices. He expresses the thoughts of many when he says it is "presumptuousness whereby religious people know, without evidence, that the faith of their birth is the one true faith" (Dawkins 314). To accept any worldview without consideration is simpleminded and foolish. It is far better to study many faiths and worldviews and make a reasonable decision. To quote a modern Christian, "knowledge is a basis for belief, the very best basis"5 (Willard 19). But the difficulty of uncritical belief is inherent in being raised in any worldview, including atheism. My wife was raised atheist and attacked Christians repeatedly despite knowing nothing of the Bible. It is not only those who believe in supernatural worldviews who fall into this trap. Even a theist should agree that considering the evidence is important. This is why the number of Christian apologetics books is immense. Believers should want others, and themselves, to consider reasons.
The New Testament would agree that baptizing a young child without their knowledge is unfounded "conversion" practice. John 1:12-13 says, "As many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in his name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God". True conversion to Christianity is done by a decision to believe in Jesus' offered gift. It cannot be accomplished by where you were born, or who taught you, or the will of another. Remembering this teaching would have saved a lot of terrible deeds throughout history, though arguably many instances were more a political matter than a religious one. Belief in God is to be a thoughtful decision despite those who have been deluded to the contrary by greed, ignorance, pride, or hatred. While children have the right to decide for themselves, and they will do so, how do we bring them up until then? We absorb a worldview constantly and automatically by what we are taught, see, and read. Children will be taught some worldview, actively or passively. So it should be the one we believe to be true. It is on us to thoughtfully investigate what we teach first.
The last chapter, ten, discusses imaginary friends. Dawkins believes that God could be a childhood symptom that has been pushed further into our adult years. He argues that this is no longer necessary and science can now fill the hole of consolation and inspiration in our lives. He argues that science helps us understand and imagine things that we never would have thought of (given our evolved background). It is true that the world is very strange. While science can help one grasp the size and magnitude of the natural world, it cannot inspire us in a relational way like a relational being can. All of the wonders of the scientific method, discovery, and imagination can be done with theistic belief. Why wouldn't one seek to explore and understand what God has made and given? Yet, only relational beings can share and explore the relational aspect of our world. And a Supreme Relational Being could share, explore, and open our eyes beyond the physical world. One can benefit in the knowledge that this joy will be shared personally with others eternally.
Notes
1. This is debatable given the goodness of the attribute but better a real cake than an imaginary one I say. Dawkins is more serious about the proof claiming God is a non-necessary or non-existent being. I would object to premise 3, "the greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement" (Dawkins 83). An infinite God could create a world of maximum goodness for which no greater goodness could be done, despite any handicap. A less powerful being could still create no more good a world. Does the less powerful being "achieve" more? This argument seems to fail at infinite extremes. God is capable of such extremes.
2. One example of the distinction is Matthew 4:24: "News about [Jesus] spread all over Syria, and the people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them". Note that demon-possession is just one ailment in a long list. Not all diseases are demon influenced.
3. Note Jesus' comments in Luke 13:4-5, "Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them - do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no!". While God has affected nature at select times in the past, the view that all natural events are directly caused by him is more spiritist than Christian. The overzealous reading in of his will to natural events is commonly a confusion between Old Testament and New Testament covenants and often more in line with one's personal vengeance than divine.
4. Quoting Jürgen Habermas from Time of Transitions (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006).
5. Willard also argues "an act of faith in the biblical tradition is always undertaken in an environment of knowledge and is inseparable from it" (20). While belief, which he defines as a tendency to act, can be in more than what we know and could even be false (e.g. we can choose to believe things we do not know and even to believe things we know to be wrong). It is generally in line with what we know. I believe in gravity because I know everything falls towards the earth given the lack of other forces acting upon it. I act in this belief when I am wary near cliffs. Belief can extend further than knowledge in areas which are reasonable. I believe my friend will pay me back for the movie tickets because I know he has done so many times in the past.
References
Archer, Gleason. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Moody Press, 1994.
Collins, Francis. The Language of God. Free Press, 2006.
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin, 2006.
Flew, Antony. There is a God. HarperOne, 2007.
Harris, R. Laird. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Zondervan, 1969
Moreland, J. P and Dallas Willard. Love God With All Your Mind. NavPress Publishing Group, 1997.
Ross, Hugh. The Fingerprint of God. Promise Publishing Co., 1991.
Stark, Rodney. Cities of God. HarperOne, 2006.
Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity. Princeton University Press, 1996.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Zondervan, 1998.
Willard, Dallas. Knowing Christ Today. HarperOne, 2009.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Emily Morris and James Rochford for their insightful thoughts and grammatical aid.
