So what do you do

Simple question: What do you do to unwind?

I like to play video games with wacky friends and just totally be my insane self around people who thrive on insanity. This includes lunch tray sledding and Nerf gun fights (college). It also includes singing "In The Air Tonight" by Phil Collins, complete with an air-drum fill at the crucial part.

The Emotion Fallacy

I've noticed frequently in my life how quickly an emotional person is dismissed in rational discourse. If someone gets outwardly worked up about something, whether that passion is anger, joy, or what have you (all passions displayed by the Incarnate Son of God), their ability to think clearly and fairly is called into question. But while I realize that there is such a thing as a fallacious "appeal to emotion" in which one manipulates the emotions of another to win an argument rather than use logic, having an emotional or personal connection to a subject matter does not necessarily mean one carries baggage or bias. An emotional connection to a certain issue can be a source of bias, but so can a lack of emotional engagement.

Consider the testimony of a Holocaust victim. Undoubtedly, many Holocaust victims would not be able to talk about and evaluate their experiences without emotion, whether that emotion is sadness or anger. Are we to invalidate their viewpoint because of this, insisting that they cannot have a well-reasoned view of this event because their personal engagement necessarily constitutes "baggage" or bias? Obviously not. One can display immense passion in an issue and still be perfectly rational and objective in their assessment of it. Indeed, as I said before, a personal acquaintance with certain phenomena, along with an engaged emotional response, may be a pre-condition for properly and fairly understanding something. While we can be lead astray by our emotions and personal feelings, we can also be led astray by indifference or a lack of experience.

I suppose in our Postmodern age, our inclination in the face of someone who displays a personal connection with an issue they are discussing is to assume some past experience clouds their current judgment. Someone who responds emotionally cannot possibly be rational or objective, right? Well I disagree, and I think objectivity sometimes requires an emotional or personal connection. To know something first hand, so long as this is accompanied by a consideration of the wider wisdom of others as well as much personal reflection, is often an invaluable source of insight otherwise unobtainable. The bottom line is that someone can get worked up about something and still be as objective and rational as Mr. Stoic or the person who does not wear his/her emotions/passions on the sleeve.

A Failure to Own

I've encountered a certain phenomenon repeatedly in the extended theological reading, discussion, and debate I have participated in over the years. And no doubt, this issue is not limited to theological dialogue. You've heard of a failure to launch? Well, this is a failure to own.

There are many people who refuse to own or fully own the logical implications of their views. They refuse to be pinned with a certain label, even though that label accurately describes their view better than any other. They insist on holding on to theological concepts that simply do not fit into their system. They call their view one thing in order to keep it from being objectionable, but to all appearances it is clearly better known as something else. But if it walks like it duck, talks like a duck, and smells like a duck, then no matter what you want to call it, it's a duck.

Let me give two clear examples of this "finessing" phenomenon in theological conversation (not to be confused with being charitable or fair in interpretation - although which assessment is fair is itself frequently up for debate). Roman Catholic apologists are quick to point out that they believe in salvation by grace. And true enough, their official documentation at least gives lip service to grace. But in the very same documents (I have cited and analyzed their official documents here. While I'm grateful that many lay Roman Catholics depart from Rome, her theology remains official and informs her practice), we hear about "meriting eternal life" and "meriting the graces of sanctification" for ourselves and others. Are we really dealing with a biblical or a reasonable definition of grace at this point? Slapping "by grace" at the end of these phrases doesn't change their troublesome core; it actually just makes them self-contradictory if we have any meaningful definition of "salvation by grace" in play. God "graciously" gives me the power and the chance to earn my salvation and then "graciously" rewards me with eternal life in exchange for the condign merit I earn - does this theological obfuscation really change the unbiblical heart of Roman views on merit and salvation? No, it's still a duck. The gracious gift of eternal life and eternal life by the merit of works are mutually exclusive concepts.

My second example comes from my debates with Calvinists. Calvinists love to tell you they believe in human responsibility and free will, but the reality is that they do not. Or more accurately, their versions of these concepts are so void of the meanings that we normally ascribe to them that they cease to be appropriate words. The fact is, Calvinists refuse to own the troublesome implications of their views. Without the ability to respond, Calvinism simply has no way of affirming human responsibility and true free will. Calvinism requires a thoroughgoing determinism. No matter how loudly or passionately you protest to the contrary, it's still a duck.

Many, no doubt, do not see that their views land them in unwanted territory. I'm sure we all have views that have negative implications we don't notice. As a result, we should be gracious with others and their views. Where the point is when it becomes willful blindness, I do not pretend to know. I do not believe human beings are able to make such judgments about the heart. But let's try to be honest and own the implications of our views, or own labels that are far more accurate. Maybe then we'll be forced to stand under the truth and let is shape us.

Where have all the Calvinists gone?

It's been a while since I've blogged on (read: against) Calvinism, so I wonder if I still have any Calvinistic readership? Perhaps I need to make more inflammatory but true assertions, such as the fact that Limited Atonement is blasphemy. I remember that comment starting some interesting and fun debate.

The Calvinism/Arminianism debate is not a moot issue. Many Christians think that one can hold to either view with little practical consequence, but I don't think that's right. Either view will affect the way we relate to God, the way we think about God, the way we depict God, the way we view human responsibility, the way we counsel others, and much more. We can all agree that very little is required to experience initial salvation and come into relationship with God, but much more is required for serious discipleship and the ongoing Christian experience. We need sound theology to inform our thinking and our practice, and we are always better off with the truth rather than error. Error does not always have immediate negative consequences, but it can snowball into something much more serious down the road. Think of a plane that is just slightly off course; it may cause little deviation at the beginning, but eventually one could be way off target. This was an example brought home to me in Richard S. Taylor's little book, "A Right Conception of Sin." It's a pretty good Wesleyan/Arminian/holiness treatment of various issues, and I heartily recommend it.

At any rate, what kind of claim can I make today to spark productive dialogue? Let's return to Limited Atonement. I have to confess that it baffles me that someone would spend their energies defending such a sad and horrendous doctrine. It's hard to see what else could possibly motivate an extended defense of Limited Atonement but a perverse desire to limit the universal love of God in Christ to a chosen and privileged few, the elect. I'll be gracious and grant that there probably are people who don't really grasp the horrors of Limited Atonement as they try earnestly (though misguidedly) to defend God's truth. But frankly, I am deeply unsettled by the people who continue to defend this doctrine for years, writing books, articles, and participating in debates that do nothing but limit the precious atoning blood of Jesus. I can't think of a noble desire that could motivate such a concerted effort to limit the greatest news that has ever graced human ears. I say this with all seriousness, though I try not to take every theological dispute too seriously =)

So perhaps I should ask the Calvinists out there: what motivates you to defend Limited Atonement? Surely, you will respond that it is the truth from God's Word. But why do you believe in God's Word? Presumably because you have had an encounter with God from reading the Word. It gives meaning and purpose to your life, and you desire to worship and love this God who loves you and elected you. But if you are a loving person, wouldn't you want this love to be truly available to all people? I think the answer to that question is clear and inescapable, putting Calvinists in a very awkward position indeed. And before you accuse me of ad hominem, this is not an ad hominem at all. I am not discrediting the view of another by personally attacking them rather than their view. Rather, I am showing the stark personal implications of a prolonged defense of Limited Atonement. That is quite another argument, and a sound one at that.

The Wesleyan Soteriological Balance Resplendent

I have spent much of my Christian existence on a theological and spiritual journey from one tradition to the next, slowly but surely searching the Scriptures to find the path of salvation both in its conceptual form and in its practical application. I grew up in a nominal Roman Catholic home, met an evangelical Protestant (somewhat Lutheran-flavored) in high school who directed me to the Scriptures, and was sent on a long journey for truth and salvation from that point on. I still consider myself to be on that journey, for who of us can claim to have fully arrived either in theory or practice? But my experience and reflection has brought me to a comfortable place in terms of my soteriology where I think my conclusions are tried and true both on the theological and the practical front. Like Wesley, I put much of my theology into practice as I tried to find God (and even after I found God), seeing if it worked, and returning to the Scriptures if some conclusion just didn't seem to flesh out in reality. While I experimented, I tried to make sure I was not testing Scripture (which is God's infallible Word on matters of faith and practice, although it has to pass through human interpretation - something many Protestants forget) by the bar of human experience. Nevertheless, if a conclusion I thought sprung from Scripture just would not pan out after sincere effort to live it or put it into practice, I went back to it to re-examine. And so here I am, with Wesleyan convictions that have only gotten stronger as I have tested them theologically and practically (having passed through nominal and then sincere Roman Catholicism, easy-believist, decisionistic evangelicalism, Lutheran antinomianism, and Holiness-movement moralism - although I am not necessarily making the claim that these blind alleys represent the majority of each named tradition). I try to subject all that I do and believe to rigorous examination, and I did not lightly move into the Protestant/Wesleyan tradition. There were several points when I wondered if I am shortchanging Roman Catholicism, or if the argument that Protestants were just subject to doctrinal relativism without a Magisterium is valid, or if Wesley's view of the normal Christian life and grace is just too high or rigid, or if prevenient grace is just a theological invention with no biblical support, and the like. But in the end my experience and reflection upon life and Scripture led me to where I am, though I'm more than willing for both to lead me elsewhere.

John Wesley was a conjunctive theologian. He held many themes together in balance that other theologians and theological traditions over stress, under stress, or outright miss. Not only does he hold themes and insights in balance, but on the whole he holds to the right themes and insights. Here are some of the reasons why I think Wesley's soteriology takes the best of each tradition while leaving behind their various mistakes and imbalanced stresses:

1) Holiness and Happiness. Let's start with a relatively non-controversial one that happens to be one of my favorites. Wesley understood that true Christian holiness and deep, lasting human fulfillment and happiness and bound together with an unbreakable link. Even amidst the worst hardships of life, the joy of knowing Christ and being like Christ can sustain a soul and keep it from despair and loneliness. Holiness, best encapsulated as simply love of God and neighbor, enables successful human relationships and flourishing. It takes the pleasures we often cheapen and vulgarize and puts them on pedestals of sanctity as delightful gifts to be relished and appreciated with gratitude. Unless holiness ultimately led to happiness (recognizing that we often have to wait until eternity to reap the fruits of our behavior), we would be foolish to pursue it, for the moral life is painful and difficult. The grand illusion that must be shattered is that God's way is a joyless and passionless way, that godliness leads away from happiness. Who knows how to satisfy us more than the One who created us?

2) Justification by faith alone and the necessity of holiness, good works, and love Following the Reformers, Wesley believed in justification by faith alone. That is, he believed that we are brought into right relationship with God / put in right standing with God / justified before God simply by placing our radical trust and confidence in Jesus for the forgiveness of past sins without bringing any works or holiness to the table. It is a simple leaning on Jesus. Justification for Wesley, as for other Protestants, is something that is not accomplished by anything we do (even enabled by grace), but rather by the work of Christ alone received by faith alone. The relational rift between willful sinners and a holy God is breached by the cross, and Christ's work is reckoned to the believer - or to put it in biblical terminology, the sinner's faith is reckoned as (in place of past) righteousness, since the believer has no past righteousness of his own. This is a juridical and forensic declaration for the believer, pertaining to the forgiveness of sins. Not only do we not earn the forgiveness of sins (and sadly, Rome still affirms that we merit eternal life - one only has to read her official teaching), but we also do not achieve it by our works (even works enabled by grace). It is solely based upon the work of Christ on the cross. This fits well with the Pauline flavor of justification, which Paul sees as punctiliar and instantaneous. After discussing justification by faith in Romans 4, Paul speaks of those who "have been justified by faith" in Romans 5, indicating that this is a past event for his Christian audience, the result of which is a life of obedience and holiness, which Paul spells out in Romans 6-8. This is where a right relationship with God starts, with the open receptivity of empty-handed faith, and this is what God reckons as righteousness before any actual righteousness/holiness appears within us (and of course, we have no holiness before justification anyway).

And yet, although Wesley affirmed justification by faith alone, Wesley also believed that "without holiness no man shall see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14). How did he hold these two insights in tension? Simple: he saw faith alone as the condition of salvation, and holiness, love, and good works as the fruit of salvation. The goal of justification is the beginning of a relationship which is aimed at sanctification. Far from making holiness and growth in grace optional because we are now fine with God, it is the way we enter into those realities, and moreover, we can always fall back into the practice of sin and require restoration (the ordo salutis is the normative order of salvation for all people - since we all have the same problem and are dealing with the same cure. But we may, of course, step back at any stage if we so choose). When we are justified we are also regenerated, which is a significant work of sanctification done by God that begins the process of sanctification with a bang. So not only is faith the condition for justification, but faith is also the condition for initial sanctification and eventually entire sanctification (faith defined as an empty-handed, open-handed trust and openness to God's work within us, a disposition that can certainly be fostered by participating in the means of grace, though that participation on our part is not what does the actual saving and sanctifying work. It enables us to trust and be open to God's saving work). There is a crucial distinction to be drawn between the conditions of salvation and the result of salvation. To conflate them (faith and works, faith and love) or to make the result the condition is a counsel of despair for powerless sinners! As such, Wesley understood the teaching of Ephesians 2:8-10 that salvation is not by our works, lest anyone should boast, but God's work received through faith. We do not bring it about or achieve it; we merely extend our hands to receive it, all so we might then love and obey God and neighbor through God's work in us. This is what Paul means when he speaks of "faith active in love" in Galatians. The impartation of transformational and enabling power is the work of God alone, and only out of that work we can now begin to love God and neighbor. Salvation and grace (received by faith alone, a faith that looks beyond our current resources) secures and enables what the moral law requires. To run the two together is to create a soteriology of Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism in which we pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps and trust in ourselves and our works for deliverance (prevenient grace that draws us to Christ is not the same as sanctifying grace, folks. We still need grace beyond our current power before we can love as God loves). At every crucial level of Christian advancement in salvation, we come with empty hands in the powerlessness of faith, clinging only to the cross and the grace it imparts. God commands us to be holy as He is holy, and through saving faith He gives us the power to fulfill that command.

3) Process and crisis. Wesley understood that along the ordo salutis, there is both process and crisis. This is where he most clearly avoids the imbalanced errors of both many Protestants and the Catholic traditions (Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy). The Bible does not allow for a view that is all crisis or all process. There is process that leads up to the instantaneous crisis of conversion (conviction of sin, legal repentance from deliberate sin, exercising faith in Christ for deliverance, regeneration, assurance of salvation) whether or not that crisis is known or remembered. The language of regeneration, repentance, and conversion make it clear that this is a decisive shift that issues in a qualitative, not just a quantitative, change. Believers become something they never were before: holy. There is also a process that leads up to the final stroke of sanctifying grace (conviction of inward sinfulness and sinful tempers, evangelical repentance, exercising faith in Christ for a fully pure heart, entire sanctification, the full assurance of faith). For Wesley, process leads to crisis, which is the natural way to understand the language we find in the Bible. While there is process up to being born, for instance, there is a moment when the baby crosses into this world and is born. It is similar with our new birth with God. This means that while some may not like categories like "saved or unsaved," "born again or not born again," "sinner or saint," the Bible actually does speak of such black/white, either/or categories in some places. Specifically, with respect to the practice of sin or righteousness, the Bible also makes it clear that there is no in between point. You are either practicing sin or you are not; you have either left behind a life of rebellious transgression of God's known will, or you have not. You are either serving sin or you are serving God. You are either a child of the devil, practicing sin, or a child of God, practicing righteousness. You are either fundamentally walking in the light, or you are walking in the darkness. Passages such as John 8:34, Romans 6, Romans 7-8, and the whole of 1 John make this clear, and Wesley took them at face value. Not every change in the Christian journey of salvation is one of degree - some are changes of kind. This is lost on many traditions that believe salvation is unremittingly processive. It also tends to keep human working too much at the center of things, when there are times when God must work alone and we simply must receive that work with no cooperation or contribution on our part. Regeneration is one of those moments of crisis and free grace. It is therefore biblical and appropriate to speak of "states of grace," something that is hard to fit into a completely process-oriented model that postulates nothing but incremental change. We have to let the Bible judge us and tell us where we are at on the journey of salvation.

And yet, it must also be stated the human working and effort does play a role in salvation, a truth neglected by many Protestants, though not Wesley. However - and this is a BIG however - Human works categorically do not merit salvation, nor do they accomplish or effect it. Humans are called to repent, exercise faith, receive salvation, and then obey God once salvation has been effected by God (alone). These surely are things humans must "do," but they are not the kind of works Paul rails against in his epistles: works that merit or cause deliverance. They are conditions that enable God to cause salvation to occur and bring it about in our hearts and lives. They are our submitting ourselves to the reception of God's grace, and then obeying God once that grace is received and does its saving work. One must receive before they respond, and one must put themselves in the proper disposition to receive through practicing the means of grace.

4) Wesley's nuanced and Biblical doctrine of sin. Wesley's view of sin in the regenerate Christian life has brought him some criticism, mostly, in my view, because people do not sufficiently grasp his nuanced doctrine of sin. Wesley saw sin as both an act and a state. Moreover, he defined an act of sin, or "committing sin," as "willful transgression of a known law of God." Admittedly, this raises many questions. How do we respond to clear sin in believers? What does it mean for something to be willful and known? I think Wesley's parsing of sin is helpful for navigating the way of salvation.

Wesley does indeed affirm that regenerate believers are "so perfect so as not to commit sin." What does he mean? From my reading of the corpus, Wesley means the full-throttle, rebellious, willful, deliberate engagement of wickedness. It is when we know something is evil very clearly and we give our whole will and consent to the action, letting "sin reign in our mortal bodies," as Paul puts it. It is not simply a momentary lapse into an attitude of the flesh, which as we shall see does happen in the children of the God. It is the service of sin, bondage to sin, being under the power and dominion of sin. 1 John and other Scriptures make it clear that born again believers "do not practice sin" normatively in this sense. Even with human relationships, this makes sense. How can I be in a right relationship with my wife if I engage deliberately in adulterous behavior - if I give my sexual love to another, whether in the form of pornography or a person? I can't, nor can I be at peace with God if I find myself in chains to willful evil. I cannot be at peace with my wife if I can't stop giving myself to the ongoing practice of sin. This bondage is precisely what the initial work of salvation frees us from, so it should prompt those of us who want to follow Jesus but find ourselves enslaved to sin to cry out with Paul, "Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Romans 7:24).

However, my wife will also know that I am not perfect, and that there are sinful aspects of my character that come out in certain circumstances. I may snap, or be impatient, or be somewhat selfish, or find myself with a lustful thought, or be haughty at times, and so forth (not to mention all the mistakes due not to sin, but human infirmity and ineptitude, such as forgetfulness or a general lack of wisdom and maturity). Wesley refers to these sinful dispositions that manifest themselves in the children of God as the carnal nature or a state of sin. He even talks about "sins of surprise," those which correspond to the carnal nature bubbling up within us and catching us off guard (and which generally issue in immediate repentance). There remains even in the children of God self-will, pride, unholy anger, and so forth. But Wesley believes that regeneration keeps them from reigning in the believer's life. They are there, they affect even our noblest actions, they make us act in ways that are not entirely pure, but they do not control us. Eventually, through a further work of grace, this old nature will be uprooted and cleansed entirely.

Now, as already mentioned, believers may revert back to the bondage of sin and succumb to its slavery. One can always backslide, fall under the power of sin and willfully disobey God's law, only to be restored eventually or to fall away finally to one's eternal loss (as such, to affirm distinct and salient states of grace is not to be committed to a static rather than a dynamic view of salvation at all). But Wesley nevertheless taught that so long as believers remain in the grace of God by the power of the Holy Spirit, there will be no ongoing bondage in the regenerate Christian's life. There may be moral struggles with attitudes, dispositions, and the carnal nature, but that is quite different from bondage of the will and sin having control of us and enslaving us. Slavery to sin simply does not characterize the normal Christian life according to the Bible: victory does. Born again Christians surely are still sinful, but sin does not reign over them or have them in its enslaving grip. This is what the qualitative work of regeneration does for the believer, something that is not a change in degree but a change in kind. It is a distinctive mark of those who have been born of God, and the Bible testifies to this. The flesh still influences us, but it is kept from controlling us, unless we let go of Jesus and chase after it deliberately. And if we do turn from God back to the practice of sin, Jesus is always there to restore us if we repent. This should just not be the normal cycle, else it seems to me that the power of sin is never decisively broken - and again, how can two walk together lest they are agreed? How can I walk with God when I am walking in the other direction deliberately? How can I be at peace with God with such a disobedient and evil will?

In my opinion, this is a very biblical and balanced way to view how God deals with sin in our lives. It's not done in a moralistic way, breaking off this or that habit or "sin." Sanctification is not an accomplishment of human beings in this way, as if it were merely behavior modification that anyone can do without the Holy Spirit. It is not even done by us at all, even by the power of the Spirit. It is simply done by the Holy Spirit, and then out of that transformation we can then obey through the ongoing enablement of the Spirit. It is an over hall that deals with the flesh from the inside out, first breaking the slavery of sin and later cleansing us from its influence altogether. It enables us to see the Biblical truth taught by Jesus and Paul that we simply cannot serve two masters at the same time, while also giving needed space and grace for further growth in holiness and love. There is room for conviction of unknown sins, for the reality of sin (in one sense) in believers, and for believers to fall back into the willful practice of sin and require restoration or refuse it. And yet there is also an affirmation of liberty and decisive, gracious change and empowerment. Consequently, I gladly commend Wesley's soteriology to the wider Christian church. It seems to me that Wesley's soteriology is the most biblical and consistent one out there. It is realistic in its diagnosis, yet also optimistic in its high estimation of the transforming power of grace.

Idiosyncrasies

I'm not sure the frequency at which I will continue blogging, or if I will discontinue blogging altogether eventually. For now I'll keep posting at a leisurely rate, and then I'll go from there. Today I have a personal reflection.

Throughout much of my life I have been made fun of for and made to feel guilty about my many quirks and faults, from the most benevolent ribbing, to a semi-benevolent but haughty and paternalistic criticism, to outright malicious mockery. Because of this, I have a sensitive spot to the slightest hint of condescension or less-than-friendly banter that I generally freely admit. I will often either react by buying into and believing other people's false or skewed perceptions of me, or I will dig in my heels and get angry about it. I get angry because everybody has faults and quirks, it doesn't matter how holy or righteous you are (and I am not speaking so much of wickedness here, but more of smaller character flaws). Faults and quirks are just imperfections or strangeness of behavior that require a little grace from others to cope with. Some of them perhaps we can and ought to change over time, others are just part of who we are. But the bottom line is that we all have them, and unless they unreasonably impinge upon our lives or the lives of others, I think Christian charity should extend to them without us acting as though we are above such quirks or that people are beyond-the-pale imbeciles for having them (actually, Christian charity should always be extended, but it also should not indulge bad habits). This means that we should delight in bending a bit to fill in the gaps left by someone's quirk or fault. Perhaps when the time is right and our attitude pure, we should graciously suggest that it would be good for a person to get over some fault, especially if we perceive it to be something that begins to press uncomfortably upon that person's or other person's lives. And of course we may still be wrong in this perception, for righteous judgments of others are notoriously difficult for us. Other times we should realize that our quirks are just how God made us and that we ought to love people for that reason without forcing them to be what we wrongly consider "better." But it is never right to act as though we are above such behavior or make people feel like they are beyond the pale for having some odd but largely inculpable and harmless idiosyncrasy - actually, we shouldn't make someone feel like they are below us ever, for their eternal value never changes and is never greater than ours. I am not above the kind of downward-looking criticism that I criticize here; I have my own pride to battle, and I am submitting to the cleansing work of the Spirit to help me be more gracious with others. This is just a reminder to all of us - me included - that we need to be more gracious to those who we perceive to have weird behavior patterns, even if we think that person ought to change. Bear with one another's faults, and address them if perceived to be necessary with gentleness and humility. Such humility is the only proper attitude when we consider the universal reality of human faults and quirks.

But of course, friendly banter is always welcome =)

Taking on Richard Dawkins

I was assigned The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins for my apologetics class in seminary, and here is a paper I wrote critiquing some of Dawkins's arguments and views. So much could be said in response to this book, but I was limited to 7 pages. Enjoy:

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, eminent evolutionary biologist and scientific popularizer, issues what can only be called a full-throttle salvo against religious belief of all varieties, paying special attention to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Throughout his book, Dawkins displays a relative lack of philosophical training that undercuts many of his arguments against theism and for naturalism, robbing them of cogency and leaving the reader wondering if Dawkins expects his supercharged rhetoric and admittedly witty sarcasm to fill in the gaps. As I read through this thoroughly entertaining yet immensely frustrating book, I noticed that whenever Dawkins moves from scientific matters to philosophical or theological questions, his treatments are often shallow and his conclusions ill-gotten. For the purposes of this short paper I will limit myself to two main aspects of Dawkins' book. First, I will address Dawkins's desire and attempt to extend scientific methodology to religious questions. Second, I will briefly assess his treatment of several theistic arguments, particularly the design argument.

Dawkins is very critical of Gould's famous “non-overlapping magisteria,” or NOMA, view of the relationship between science and religion, which states that science and religion each answer different questions respectively without intruding upon the provenance of the other. Science, according to this view, tells us how the world works, whereas religion addresses issues of meaning and value.¹ He is rather adamant that “the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question.”² But here as in other places, it would be helpful to specify precisely what we mean by scientific methodology or scientific ways of knowing. I do not have the space to develop a working definition of science in this paper, nor does Dawkins provide us with one. However, we may posit some approximations of what Dawkins and other atheistic scientists mean when they speak of “science” as the sole or superior arbiter of truth. It seems to me that when most atheistic scientists extol the virtues of “science,” they are referring to empirical means of arriving at knowledge through evidence and reasoned argument. Science, in particular, typically proceeds by way of abductive reasoning, or inference to the best explanation. One tries to find a hypothesis that best explains certain phenomena as discerned through observation or experimentation. The scientist may also postulate theories or principles that attempt to explain wide phenomena.³

But is scientific methodology really an appropriate or sufficient way to determine whether or not God exists? Dawkins would surely be delighted to extend the provenance of science into the exploration of such ultimate questions, and I am inclined to agree that scientific methodology can shed some light on the question of God's existence. For instance, I have sympathies with the Intelligent Design movement and its efforts to illustrate that natural selection and other naturalistic explanations are inadequate to account for all features of the natural world. This would certainly offer evidence for God's existence. Additionally, scientific methodology may assist us in assessing whether or not a purported event or text is a genuine revelation from God.⁴ As such, one cannot object that I am dismissing scientific methodology as entirely irrelevant for religious questions. But Dawkins founders on insisting that scientific methodology is the only or sufficient means of arriving at knowledge about God or anything else in reality. That is a rather lofty philosophical claim about epistemology that requires justification – justification that, incidentally, cannot come from science!

The problem with insisting that God is merely a scientific hypothesis to be tested by human beings - the so-called “God Hypothesis” - is that God is not merely an object that can be put in a petri dish and manipulated at the will of human beings, let alone sinful human beings. The Christian God is principally a tri-personal reality Who addresses us and invites us into a relationship with Himself. If this is so, it is plausible that we must seek God and pray that He reveals Himself to us in an immediate way that de-centers us and shatters the scientific impulse to keep the “I” at the center of the knowing process and stand at a distance in an “objective” way. It may very well be that a knowledge of God requires a participatory openness to a spiritual apprehension of God that is contingent upon a properly disposed heart. An encounter with the living God is not the same as discovering a new scientific law or theory, although both issue in knowledge. Once again, I am not denying that evidential inference is one means to discover truths about God, but it is by no means the only way; and it may be insufficient in the end to shore up a lasting conviction that God exists and loves us, given the personal nature of God.

Dawkins actually addresses the line of argument I am advancing when he relates an encounter he had with theologians at Cambridge. In response to the notion that “there are other ways of knowing besides the scientific,” he alleges that a personal communication from God “would emphatically not lie outside science.”⁵ But is this true? Is a personal awareness of God's presence something that is scientifically quantifiable? I do not believe it is, nor do I believe it must be. Now someone might object and say that we should be able to discern the effects of God's communication and presence upon people, and I agree. The existence of the church, biblical revelation, and Christians transformed by God's grace certainly furnish some empirical evidence of God's existence. But in terms of the personal encounter itself, that is not something we can manipulate and control through scientific methodology. Do we get to know other persons in such a controlled, detached, manipulative way? If not, why would we think it appropriate to approach God in such a reductionist manner?

As Pascal reminds us, such readily available knowledge about God without proper self-knowledge and preparation could dangerously inflate our pride rather than properly dispose us to relate rightly to God.⁶ God is not interested in merely satisfying our intellectual curiosity, although He will give us sufficient evidence to exercise faith and enter into a relationship with Him. To dismiss testimony of personal experience by simply asserting that our minds sometimes play purely subjective tricks on us is insufficient.⁷ Any argument against the veridicality of my personal experience of God that seeks to explain away my experience of God must be more plausible than the view that I truly have experienced God and continue to do so.

Dawkins's philosophical ignorance is perhaps most ostensibly on display in his superficial and meandering treatment of traditional arguments for God's existence. First of all, he brings up and critiques Aquinas' ancient “Five Ways.” If Dawkins were at all familiar with the literature on philosophy of religion, he would know that contemporary discussions of theistic arguments have moved beyond these classical formulations. As such, I actually agree with him that these arguments need some serious tweaking before they would be persuasive. Sadly, it is also the case that his treatment of the ontological argument fails to interact with modern formulations, particularly the modal version of the ontological argument propounded by Alvin Plantinga.⁸ Dawkins raises the common objections to the ontological argument as formulated by Anselm: it assumes that existence is a great-making property and a legitimate predicate, it gives the appearance of a conjuring trick, and it is entirely a priori. These are indeed some formidable objections to the ontological argument, but again, the ongoing dialog on this argument has taken at least some of these objections into account. For instance, Plantinga suggests that while existence may not be a great-making property, necessary existence arguably is.⁹

What is perhaps most distressing is that Dawkins completely fails to address the crucial question of the origin of the universe itself and how it came to exist. As much as Dawkins wishes to extend the beloved theory of natural selection as far as he can¹⁰, it simply cannot be used to explain the origin of the universe itself, for natural selection operates on already existing materials and under an initial set of conditions. Dawkins basically concedes as much when he looks for naturalistic ways to get those conditions into place so Darwinism can take it from there.¹¹ Yet while he looks for a way to get the universe fine-tuned for intelligent life without an intelligent designer, he quietly passes over the question of the existence of the universe itself, which is surely also a necessary condition for natural selection to take place! Dawkins also never explicitly addresses the question of why there is something rather than nothing, or what is often known as the argument from contingency.

Dawkins spends most of his time rebutting the design argument, for this is where he feels natural selection most shines as a preferable theory to the God Hypothesis. In fact, there are points at which Dawkins inappropriately uses Darwinism as a rebuttal to non-teleological arguments for God's existence!¹² And indeed, I believe natural selection surely does offer a plausible explanation of how at least some biological features which appear designed have come into existence by naturalistic processes, even though God may still be required to set up the initial conditions and/or guide it along the way. However, it is also the case that one could grant the entire evolutionary picture from start to finish and this would do little to count against the existence of God. It may be that God has chosen to create through evolution. This is why I am puzzled when Dawkins remarks that his knowledge of evolution has influenced him in the direction of becoming an atheist.¹³ The most naturalistic evolution can do is take away one piece of evidence for God's existence based on an inference from biological complexity to His direct intervention. Unless that is our principle argument for God's existence, we can safely conclude that little ground has been gained for atheism.

Dawkins tries his level best to offer naturalistic explanations for both the wildly improbable alignment of just the right conditions for life on our planet, and the remarkable fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics for the emergence and evolution of intelligent life. After all, if atheism is going to be a tenable position, there need to be at least equally plausible explanations of these phenomena that do not require us to invoke God as an explanation. With regard to the first, Dawkins invokes the famous “anthropic” principle, which he states as follows: “However small the minority of planets with just the right conditions for life may be, we necessarily have to be on one of that minority, because here we are thinking about it.”¹⁴ As such, we ought not be surprised that we are here.

Now of course in order to be thinking about the necessary conditions for human life to emerge on our planet, the conditions of life would have had to be such that we emerged. That much is both necessarily and trivially true. But this simply does not explain why the conditions for life actually were just right for intelligent life when they could have easily been otherwise. This contingent fact cries out for an explanation, and all Dawkins gives us is the fallacious anthropic principle coupled with an affirmation that “the origin of life only had to happen once,” no matter how staggeringly improbable.¹⁵ True enough, but this leaves its occurrence utterly unexplained without a designer. Adding more planets to the picture would not explain why there are so many planets in the first place, nor would it explain why the conditions on each of them are evenly distributed so as to allow for one to be life-permitting. To postulate design as the best explanation is not necessarily to fall into God-of-the-gaps reasoning; it is to use the best explanation available for the data we do have.

Dawkins' naturalistic explanation for the second instance of fine-tuning is very similar: he combines the anthropic principle with a multiverse, evidently hoping that the multiverse would multiply our probabilistic resources. First of all, a multiverse is in principle unobservable and is a rather extravagant entity to add to our ontology; at this point we have moved well beyond science and into metaphysics. Second, it appears that even the multiverse would need fine-tuning in the same way planetary fine-tuning would, for what naturalistic explanation could be given for the presence of an evenly distributed range of laws and constants, yet another contingent phenomenon? Thirdly, it is doubtful that a multiverse is simpler than God, but a treatment of divine simplicity is beyond the scope of this paper. Finally, all of the problems attending to the anthropic principle apply in its usage at this level as well.

In conclusion, Dawkins does not provide us with sufficient naturalistic explanations for either the existence of the universe or the fine-tuning we find within it. Furthermore, he tries to subsume too much under the scientific paradigm of investigation, although as we have seen he unwittingly slips into metaphysics when it is necessary. Dawkins has a tough time seeing that all explanations end somewhere¹⁶ and that to invoke God as an explanation, coupled perhaps with an understanding of God's necessary existence, is a completely legitimate explanatory move. Not everything in reality can be explained by self-generating mechanisms like natural selection.¹⁷ The God Delusion illustrates that Dawkins could have made good use of the God Hypothesis to explain certain phenomena that have no plausible naturalistic explanation. Only a naturalism-of-the-gaps would hold out for non-theistic explanations when great theistic ones are available.

1Dawkins, The God Delusion, pp. 78-79.

2Ibid, p. 82. I should hasten to point out that science itself was not forged in the cradle of unbelief, but was rather made possible by Christian assumptions about the intelligibility of a universe made by a rational God.

3It is on the theoretical level of science that philosophical presuppositions often enter in unexamined.

4Dawkins, The God Delusion, pp. 117-123. I do not have the space to critique Dawkins here, but I do think there are many points ripe for critique in his section on the problems of Scripture.

5Ibid, p. 184.

6Morris, Making Sense of It All, pp. 98-101.

7Dawkins, The God Delusion,, pp. 112-117.

8Contra Dawkins, modal logic is not something you “resort” to!

9Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, pp. 104-106.

10Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 175. Dawkins insists that natural selection “raises our consciousness” in various ways.

11Ibid, p. 168. “Once that initial stroke of luck has been granted...natural selection takes over.”

12Ibid, pp. 184-185.

13Ibid, p. 93.

14Ibid, p. 164.

15Ibid, p. 162. And the problem is not just complexity, but specified complexity conforming to a pattern propitious to life.

16Ibid, p. 188. “...The designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.” Even in science, legitimate explanations do not require explanations of the explanation!

17Ibid, p. 99. “Cranes” vs. “skyhooks” in Dawkins's preferred terminology, borrowing from Daniel Dennet.