God delusion or faithless cynicism

Friday, November 23, 2007 T: 22 51

Out of curiosity, I bought a book by Richard Dawkins titled The God Delusion, hoping to understand the mind of an atheist. It’s not a few hours ago that I finally completed the book, with thoughts tossed around my mind like a whirlwind, now expressed somehow in words.

I used to think that atheists are hopeless absolutists who rejected any glimmer of living happily after death. I could not contemplate why they couldn’t just believe something and at the very least have a lifeline to cling to. But now I realize it makes sense to say that God chooses his followers. Faith is a gift. People can’t simply pick a religion to believe for the sake of it. If they don’t, they don’t. You can’t expect an atheist to have faith in something because to do so would be simply self-deception. I thought I chose to believe in Christ because it is the most logical of all religion, and thus grants me the highest chance of entering paradise. But if I were at all logical, would I even believe in anything? To have faith in a being that has never appear to you save for in an all-time bestseller seems to be completely illogical indeed.

I see what ignites Dawkin’s passion for this topic. He could very well just sit back and continue in research instead of engaging in such a controversial issue and ended up getting cursed by probably the majority of the world. Because when one sees the crusades, the genocides, the death rituals, the terrorists’ attack, one can’t help but wonder if the world will be a better place without religion. It could be argued that of course the instigators did not commit such atrocities for religious purposes, but the people who committed the acts, the followers thought that they were all doing it for a greater cause, for martyrdom. Countries can only achieve peace when governments allow freedom of religion, of thought and faith. But can Christians accept a multi-religion society? I don’t suppose Muslims could as well. But we all compromise in order to live in the same land, achieving a certain degree of peace. When people understand that different people will choose different things because people are just different, we get something more than mutual tolerance in society, and this is mutual acceptance. But what if the world is free from religion? Will the world be a better place?

Is the sinfulness of Man no more than a result of animal survival instinct? Just like organisms compete for resources to survive, we resort to methods which are regarded as dishonest and bad. If so, is the knowledge of goodness only attainable from the Bible, sacred texts and instructions? Dawkins pointed out the idea of the changing moral Zeitgeist, that over time people can become better, more moral and ethical. Our laws now even serve to protect non-sentient creatures, to protect everyone from the victims to the criminals. Maybe our human ability to reflect allow us to imagine the possible pain that others may fell, to put ourselves in others’ shoes, and thus stops us from hurting others because we don’t want to be hurt too. Defenders of faith point us to the growing divorce rate, the fact that people sleep with one another, the acceptance of homosexuality as proof of the world’s decreasing morality. But look, these acts, who do they hurt?

Is Man’s obsession with a higher power just a solution to answer his own questions, to fill the gap in the path towards comprehending the world that he lives in, to remove the certain void and emptiness we feel in our hearts when things surpasses our understanding? Is it because of the hopeful thinking of life after death? Do we think about all this because we have a higher degree of consciousness, the awareness of self which convinces us that we can’t just disappear like that? Is it really general revelation which makes us think that there is a God out there who watches over us, or our ability to reflect causes us to search for meaning and purpose in life and the supernatural God seems to be a very convenient way of answering that. Or maybe there is a God and a Hades so that we can blame something when things go wrong, so that we can do something (e.g. praying) when things go haywire?

Am I a Christian because I’m simply brought up in a Christian family? It is argued of course that growing up in a Christian family doesn’t mean that I’m a follower of Christ. Still, it meant that from young, this version of truth is what that is drilled into me. Do I really have much of a choice? Do children given much of a choice in choosing what to recognize as truth?

It is quite amusing when I read about the prayer experiment in the book. There were 2 dying patients. One has a group of people praying for him. The other does not. They both passed away anyway. What is the function of prayer in religion, to today’s culture? Is our kneeling in supplication really more than some blind hope that things could turn out all right, more than an act we turn to because we really can do nothing else! Can things change because of prayers? As a Christian, I heard people praying for good grades, for finding things, for wealth, for happiness. Will God answer them? After all, it makes sense that no one can be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. If you can see the future, you can’t change the things that lead to it. If you can change the present, it means the future that you have seen is not correct anymore. Or once again, am I supposed to accept that it is possible just that I lack the wisdom to see it, like what I’m doing with free will and god’s sovereignty?

It would seem that across all religions there are always scholars to defend critics, to justify whatever flaws that others have suggested. This is true of the Koran, of the Bible. When scientists discover that the world is not made in 7 days, when fossils of dinosaurs were discovered, when Darwin came up with his theory of evolution, the religious world must have been thrown into a frantic desperation to find answers.

Martin Luther wrote:

‘When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.

And so are we suppose to accept that science and religions just don’t mix, because we are just too foolish to comprehend the mysteries of this world? And if Luke wrote his letter with historical events so that there is reliability, why not the Old Testament is written more factually so that there is more reliability and truth as well? Never mind that the Bible is compiled by a bunch of people at the Council of Nicea, why is that there are contradictions within it? Why are genealogies of Jesus different in Matthew and Luke? I found some answers on the web, answers which do make sense, but I can’t help but wonder there would be so much increased credibility should they be the same. The same thing goes for the discoveries of the empty tomb. Accounts differ. Am I just supposed to regard such minor details as unimportant and insignificant because the main story lies in Jesus’s death and resurrection?

To deny the existence of God however requires the acceptance that life actually existed in this planet because of sheer luck and fortune, a one in a billion chance. That’s because for life to exist, everything must be just right. And when I say everything, I mean things even as minute as electrons. Air composition must be just right. There must be sufficient but not excessive light. And so the question is can I bear to believe that this work of perfection, the world, is simply the result of chance, and humans exist – I exist – being extremely complex because of chance as well based on Darwin’s theory of evolution? And thus the creationist argues that a supreme designer must exist. Then who design Him? Again, we have no answer. The only process known by us for simple things to become complex is Darwin’s theory of evolution. Is the existence of God more probable than Darwinism?

What makes us human? What made us different from the other animals inhabiting the same planet? Perhaps we are organisms that are not just interested in the ‘what’ question, but also the ‘why’ question. Man is not just interested in how to survive and live, but in the reason and purpose for his existence as well. For some, like Darwin and Einstein, this can be found by being at the fore front of science, to expand the slit in the burka that blinds us from understanding how things work, to catch a glimpse of the many wonders and mysteries of life. For others who view the thought that life exists simply due to sheer chance as absurd, they may find meaning and purposes in the supernatural God, and would even give their lives for Him. But what if like material pursuit, the fascination of science and in the indulgence in religion and the existence of a higher being is nothing more than a chasing after the wind too. Maybe Charles Deveaux in Heroes is right. At the end of the day, all that matters is love, clique-sounding it may be. Scientists could comprehend the mechanics of life, but fail to understand their own children, to be there for them to shape their lives and nurture them into the people they would want them to be. Missionaries travel forward far and wide to tell the good news to others, yet leaving their own family with nothing except for the Holy Word. Yet in a way, they have all found their reason to live. And because of that, who are we to tell them to change? I can stress no further in the importance in believing that everyone has different preferences, and thus entitled to a right to have their own meaning of life, as long as this doesn’t involve hurting others. Dawkins can highlight the extremist acts that some religious fanatics resorted to, and hence condemns religion. But let us not forget that researches can too swoop to drastic measures, including using animal and even human test subjects for cruel and inhuman experiments, all for what they would call the ‘glory of science’! Has Morrie stumbled on the truth, that there is no more to life than living happily, contented, giving selflessly to family and friends?

Sometimes, it seems ironic that I have read a significant number of Christian books, spent countless hours thinking about theological theories only to realize that I seem not closer to the truth that I once was. Friends tell me that perhaps I think too much. Do I? Because when all die, does all this really matter?

I guess I would still call myself a Christian, believe in the Cross. To Richard Dawkins, I may be just an atheist in disguise. To my friends who show me that doubting is not equivalent to not having faith, they may feel I’m still sitting on the chair. The quest for answers to the meaning and purpose of life will never cease. For people who are flexible, they will find that their world view never seems to stop changing. But nonetheless, it’s the process which perhaps allows us to understand ourselves a little better.