God’s Not Dead, Chapter 1 – Delusion of Disbelief (pt6)
DELUSION OF DISBELIEF
The author states that Richard Dawkins is irrational in asserting that a designed universe would demand the question “Who designed the Designer?”Ironically, considering this very book was written to use God as an explanation for the universe, Mr. Broocks states:
The truth is you don’t have to have an explanation for every explanation.
Continuing, the author presents an outlandish story to use as evidence of his reason to believe in an unseen being.
If you were walking through the woods and found a turtle on top of a fence post, you could rationally conclude that it didn’t get there by itself. Someone put it there. Even if you didn’t have an explanation for who did it, you would be reasonable in assuming that time and chance wouldn’t eventually place a turtle on a fence post.
While technically this argument is correct it doesn’t actually correlate to the discussion about a god. We all know about turtles and their abilities and, yes, a person (most likely, but possibly another animal or some rare occurrence during a storm) would have placed that turtle on the fence post. With this story the author also inaccurately portrays evolution.
The comment “time and chance wouldn’t eventually place a turtle on a fence post” is directed at the process of evolution. It seems some people believe that evolution produced the diversity of life seen today at one time in visible distinct steps from a single cell to the human being. If you believe this I urge you to do even just the slightest bit of research and find out that is not the way evolution is presented.
Recently there has been a lot of talk about the reasoning behind the higher numbers of believers in the lower classes. The author, unknowingly of course, presents a great reasoning for just such a circumstance.
Sigmund Freud spoke of religious belief as a wish-fulfillment, the desire to have some “father-figure in the sky” who can straighten things out for us and talk to us when we are lonely.
David Aikman, a former senior correspondent for Time and author of The Delusion of Disbelief, put atheism in the same category as religion, saying, “atheism is itself a delusion,” the ultimate wish-fulfillment.
This is an outrageous claim. Atheism is first and foremost the disbelief in a single claim, the claim that god exists. Second, the atheist is promised no afterlife, no eternal life, no “god of the gaps” to answer every question. The atheist is accountable to themselves and to everyone in this life. This is the basis for our moral standards. Continuing on to morals the author says:
No God – no accountability. No God – no real morals.
Obviously this is in direct conflict to what atheists actually believe as I’ve stated above. Continuing with the fallacious arguments, the author makes the mistake of the ad populam fallacy in stating:
Think about it; more than 90 percent of the planet believes God exists. To maintain that those who believe in God are deluded means atheists believe the majority of the world is under some kind of mass delusion.
At one point a few hundred years ago the majority of the population of the world believed the Earth to be flat. Does the fact that they were the majority mean they were right? No, it doesn’t. Majority has no bearing on truth. The Christian movement was, at one time, the minority in the world. Were the majority (Islam or Jewish likely) right when they were the majority or is it only now that Christianity is the majority?
The next part of this sub-section is basically the author shifting the burden of proof from the believer to the nonbeliever. The author then asks the question:
How much proof is enough proof to convince you that God is real?
After presenting this question the author ridicules Richard Dawkins’ answer. The answer that he quotes was more of an exaggerated funny answer and a better response has been given by many people. An all-powerful god would know exactly what evidence would be suitable for each individual. This answer is scoffed at but it is true and fully answers the question.
The author goes on to say:
The truth is, if your mind is made up about what you don’t believe and wont believe, then no amount of evidence will convince you. You will dismiss the most devastating testimony against your position.
This just isn’t true. It is true that you can not listen to or think about the evidence against your position; this is called cognitive dissonance. Continuing with the problematic arguments…
I have been challenged repeatedly on university campuses: “You’re going to have to prove to me that God exists and Christianity is true.” My response: “If I do, will you believe in Him and follow Christ?” When they say no I respond, “Your problem is not a lack of information. If you have all your questions answered and still don’t believe, then your real problem is spiritual, not intellectual.”
There are plenty of things wrong with just this single paragraph. First, he recounts the statement from the university students as if it were a negative one, once again shifting the burden of proof. Second, “When they say no…” what if they say yes? The author seemingly claims that no atheist would ever say yes. Also, acknowledging existence and following/obeying are different. Remember the story of Lucifer, he had perfect knowledge of God and Jesus but chose not to follow and obey them. After reading and understanding the stories in the Bible since maturing beyond childhood I would choose to not obey such a god as is portrayed in the Bible IF it turned out that they did in fact exist.