When renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins, was asked what he would say if he died and ended up face to face with God that he denied all his life, he claimed he would respond to the Sovereign Creator: “Not enough evidence”.
For a moment, I want us to consider the derisive attitude that this former superstar of the new atheist hit parade has expressed about God and, by extension, any who profess belief in the Judeo-Christian God.
“It is often said, Mainly by the ‘no-contests’, that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal’s wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to fairies?”
Let us not mistake the stinging rebuke embedded in his remarks about the intellectual paucity native to those who affirm God’s existence. He is essentially arguing that such a person’s grasp of reality is on a par with that of an unschooled and gullible child. Coming from an adult, however, such naivete would clearly be risible and that person should be pitied. In fact, it would meet the standard of a delusion – not an outrageous interpretation of his attitude considering his book, “The God Delusion” is based on just such a premise.
With this in mind, I confess to being nonplussed by the consistent response I get from professing unbelievers that they consider God to be unjust if it turns out that he and, by extension, heaven and hell exist. They will inevitably argue that if, much to their chagrin, it turns out that the promise of an afterlife with 2 binary destinations is true, a God who would cast them out from the pearly gates would be unjust. If this were not so, Dawkins would not trouble himself with such an equivocation focused on special pleading for favourable consideration.
Also inherent in the responses of such atheists is that not only should their unbelief not be an impediment to entering paradise, but their good deeds on earth make them worthy candidates. For anyone unfamiliar with Pascal’s Wager – that Dawkins derisively references – this is highly relevant to the atheist’s plaint that they should not be denied entry into heaven if it turns out to exist.
Blaise Pascal, a 17th century French philosopher and mathematician posited that if one is uncertain about God’s existence, he benefits by adopting the position that the Christian God (Christ) exists and live their lives accordingly. The reasoning is that living out the Christian faith requires temporal sacrifices in the current life while ensuring a blessed eternity in the afterlife. Opting to deny Christ means that one is recklessly gambling with eternal banishment in hell for immediate pleasures.
As believers, we can first admit that Pascal’s framing leaves something do be desired, but the implications extend from the simplistic terms. One cannot just invoke a belief in God and have the assurance of heaven. The only way this becomes relevant is to embrace the salvific implications that require the recognition of our sinful deeds and the necessity to submit fully to Christ’s lordship. The torturous reinterpretation from devout atheists is to claim that Pascal is telling them to have blind faith as though the response is akin to rubbing a lamp in hopes that a genie appears to grant your wishes.
The irony is that the unbeliever denies both the lamp and the genie of their analogy and still want to have their wishes fulfilled. In actuality, the hope of heaven is the very foundation of Pascal’s Wager, yet the piously Christ-averse atheist wants to indulge in the here and now and be spared the consequences of their decision in the afterlife. In essence, they are sitting at the blackjack table with no cards and decide to go all-in, absurdly holding out hope that they hold the winning hand. This is the type of hubris that causes them to reject God in the first place.
Going back to the Dawkinsonian equivocation that failing to follow the evidentiary breadcrumbs to God could simply be an honest oversight, I want us to return to his analogy that having faith in God is on a par with belief in Father Christmas, the tooth fairy, or garden fairies.
Notice, for starters, that “Father Christmas” is itself an invocation of God because it is Jesus that puts the Christ in Christmas. As an avowed atheist, even he hearkens his talking points back to the God he denies. While this may be an incidental point, this was not a one-off for Dawkins who, during a debate with Rev. Giles Fraser, belittles Christians that profess belief in Christ yet can’t name the first book of the New Testament. In response, Fraser asks Dawkins for the full title of his bible, Charles Darwin’s tome, “On the Origin of Species,” during which Dawkins inadvertently invokes God. For the record, the full title is: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” This falls under the category of things that cause one to say, “hmmm!”
The same is true of the tooth fairy. As for sprites festooning the garden, this has only ever been the stuff of children’s fables. No rational adult has ever laid claim to the existence of such beings, so his intent in each case is to be derisively contemptuous toward anyone who maintains that there is a God. He is saying at the same time that he not only doesn’t believe, but doesn’t feel that taking a middling stance by insisting that God’s existence can be proven or disproven is worthy of entertaining. He doesn’t need to affirm a disbelief in God any more than he needs to profess that rainbow emitting magical unicorns are floating around and spreading sunshine.
I don’t know about you, but that seems a rather cavalier attitude coming from a man who has devoted the better part of his life and amassing wealth and fame to engage in an academic refutation of a deity that he claims to be no more than a substitute for garden fairies. Furthermore, it is a curious thing to hear the cocky attitude evaporate as the hypothetical situation of facing the God he denies reduces him to a meek and snivelling plaintive cry of: “Not enough evidence”.
Now I want you to imagine that you are confronted by a member of the Order of Fairies, a religion dedicated to the worship of fairies. A high priest or elder of the faith seeks to convince you of the magical power of their Fairy King. How many of you would entertain the prospect of a debate? Who would write diatribes intended to disabuse throngs of fairysees that they are mistaken in their beliefs. Would your attempts to academically dispute the claims of fairydom be expected to place you on the bestseller list or would you be dismissed as being almost as delusional as the opponent you are seeking to disprove?
Clearly, Dawkins and his acolytes know that the debate over the existence of God is consequential and backed up by reams of evidence. Beneath their hubris we see all the hallmarks of people ideologically committed to denying God; not earnest seekers of truth who have weighed out the evidence and determined that it does not measure up. Their mockery suggests a level of contempt which, based on my experience, stems from their discontent over the implications of their moral and civil responsibilities one they acknowledging God’s existence. They also revel, whether unconsciously or volitionally, in setting themselves up as intellectually superior to those who are committed believers in God. Simply try to engage an atheist in earnest debate and watch how they refuse to defend their position but try to derisively take a few scripture verses out of context and insist they don’t need to prove God’s non-existence.
After numerous failed attempts, I confess that endeavouring to debate an atheist is an exercise in futility. Instead, I have landed on the best way to expose their insincerity and hypocrisy over their anti-God prejudices. I simply ask them, “What is the gender of a biological male?” Once they start to evade and equivocate, I let them know that I cannot have an adult debate with someone for whom science, biology and facts are secondary to special pleading and following their emotions.
Don’t worry, I haven’t lost my place.
Let’s sweeten the libidinal pot and see if a similar attempt to induce unbelievers by appealing to their lustful desires. Imagine that there was an entire religious system with teachings that promised, after living a righteous life, you would spend eternity surrounded by a bevy of virgins that would satisfy your every desire for all eternity.
Admittedly, this may not resonate with “cisgendered” women, but neither might the requirement to cover themselves from head to foot in heavy black material with only a carve out for their eyes. Okay, so many on the spectrum of imaginary genders may find such an eternity less than alluring; but let’s imagine that they are promised a future life that is similarly enticing based on their divergent proclivities and this population is not instead at risk of being thrown off buildings for their non-conformity.
Okay, so you are not fooled by my veiled (pun intended) representation of Islam. This just happens to be the formal religion with the second highest number of followers. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that they also happen to have a policy of death sentences for those failing to affirm their devotion to Mohammad or leaving the faith. Setting that aside, I have a question.
Since unbelievers are bound to find such an eternity more appealing than the Christian version of worshipping and reveling in the presence of God; why do so many atheists insist that they want the reward of heaven, but don’t have debates with Muslims or suck up to Mohammad to opt for his promise of eternal debauchery. There is also the benefit that the Islamic faith is more nebulous about moral duties of its adherents and satisfies the atheist’s notion of morality consisting of celestial scales weighing out the good vs the bad.
Christianity calls for sacrifice of the self, putting others above yourself, loving your enemies, forgiving those who wrong you, and suffering persecution without confrontation or violence. As such, not only is the lifestyle – at least for the heterosexual male Muslim – more beneficial on an indulgence level in eternity, but it has its perks this side of their version of paradise. They can also set aside that distortion of Matthew 7:1 they find so admirable when Christians abide by it while they revel in self-indulgence while condemning others for holding them to account.
There are a few reasons for their indifferent attitude toward Islam and 72 virgins. Beyond the fact that Islam does not brook criticism or challenges to their faith, their claims are indistinct, contradictory, and outright absurd. They don’t deal with the singular issue causes atheists the greatest consternation – the existence of order and recognition that the origins of life and basis for natural laws, objective truth and moral duties. In fact, Mohammad himself (at least if we are to believe he existed and his utterings are accurately portrayed in the Koran), said that whatever isn’t clearly explained in their sacred texts can be answered by the people of the book (Christians and Jews).
Since we have been having fun at Mr. Dawkins’ expense, let’s go one more layer down. Let’s look at his oft-quoted indictment of the God whose existence he denies. To quote him from “The God Delusion”:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction; jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasticistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
If we are to believe Dawkins and his sycophants who denounce God if he does not allow them into heaven because he fails to meet their standards of evidence; why would they want to spend eternity in the company of such a detestable deity? While the specifics of what eternity in hell looks like, we do know that heaven means being in the company of God and offering him worship and praise. Is that really more appealing to the unbeliever than 6 dozen virgins?
Sure he is careful to denounce God as fiction, but then why character assassinate the equivalent of a unicorn? That is aside from the quandary of moral condemnation from a man who necessarily denies moral absolutes. It is curious that the list of indictments against God just happen to track with those set out as sins by the ignorant sheepherders of 2000 years ago that he is fond of belittling. When he attempts to taint God’s reputation through his list of indictments, it is because he considers such conduct to be morally reprehensible.
It also again calls to mind the notion that atheists believe that their good deeds should earn their passage into the pearly gates. What is a “good” or “bad/evil” deed? Who is the judge? Why do they apply biblical standards to determine good and evil if these are merely moral constructs? What on earth would compel them to live and be judged positively by the God they deny by behaving in ways that align with scripture? This sounds like they want to base their entire worldview on Christianity while sneering at anyone who actually seeks to honour such virtues?
It also reveals the fact that atheists are either ignorant about scripture, or they simply choose to recast it according to their preferred interpretation. The Bible is crystal clear on the fact that our deeds will not get us into heaven – only acknowledging and receiving the gift of salvation through Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross. In other words, they want a special dispensation to get into heaven based on standards they can’t hope to meet while building their core identity on rejecting the only source that could grant them access to eternity in heaven.
Committed atheists like Dawkins and his ilk are representative of those who have led the efforts that resulted in the persecution and martyrdom of God’s redeemed. It is their sinful pride that allows them to act as adversaries of the church while anticipating that they will receive their “Get Out of Hell Free” cards upon their demise. It is a curious thing to see them adopting so many of the core factors that are foundational to the Christian faith (objective morality, objective truth, natural laws, rational thought, consciousness, etc.) while viewing us as the barriers to their self-fulfillment.
Christ followers do not land on our faith convictions based on our own fancy or desires. As mentioned earlier; short of the death and resurrection of Jesus, our proclivities might be more venal and would likely lead us to opt for the Islamic option of sexual licentiousness. One can easily understand, all things being equal, that the atheist male would much prefer Mohammad’s Wager. The problem is that it has no basis in reality and they know it.
It’s not like Christians are choosing between the garden fairy or unicorn option. If we have a proper understanding, we cheerfully endure – if not, embrace – suffering for our Saviour while on earth. Even the die-hard (pun not intended) Islamists who show their zealotry bonafides through suicide bombings are not suffering due to the suddenness with which they throw off this mortal coil impose their beliefs on others by denying others the right to choose when and how they will die. True martyrdom involves an agent volitionally taking the life of another for failing to embrace or denounce the convictions or deity the agent of death demands of them. The Islamic version of martyrdom is actually vicarious and, thus, is not true martyrdom at all.
Atheists have a similar penchant for vicarious martyrdom, even if they choose an early exit from this life since they choose both the means of death and the worldview that makes life meaningless – ergo, not worthy of holding onto. The unbeliever clings to life based on conditions of living – and dying – as they choose. The Christian who is rightly grounded, does not embrace death, but does not fear it or jealously guard it, but lives it in submission to the one who is owed our devotion. We also entrust him with the timing and circumstances of our expiration. When death is not the end, these matters are less consequential.
The atheist primarily lives in the here and now. Most hedge their bets by not indulging beyond the moral parameters they negotiate with their libidos and based on the objective moral standards they know to be true while simultaneously denying. Their lives are a cost-benefit analysis with hopes of mercy from the God they express a sneering disdain for.
Their equivocations over heaven are based on the Atheist Wager that God’s grace and mercy will redound to them despite their personal choices in this life. They will be in for a very unpleasant surprise and we can only hope they come to a right understanding before it’s too late.