C:\Documents and Settings\Gordon W Simmonds\My Documents\Creation PDF\O Comments on The God Delusion Revised.pdf

BACK

Comments on The God Delusion by Dr. Richard Dawkins

(Preface and chapters one to three)

Scripture quotations are from the J.N.D. translation.

Page references are normally to Dr. Dawkins book.

Page

Dr. Dawkins one gathers is a convinced atheist and Darwinian evolutionist. The book

which I am commenting on is apparently designed to justify atheism. Dr. Dawkins

evolutionary thinking is in accord with his thoughts as to God though they are not the subject

of this particular book.

As to the preface I will not comment on it in detail, but I will say that I myself was in

fellowship till 1965 with those now known as the Exclusive Brethren and who have become,

to use Dr. Dawkins words, “a more than usually odious sect” (page 321). Actually I hold the

teaching of their earlier leaders and believe them generally right though by no means

infallible. I regard the current generation of exclusives as apostate - to use Mr. F. E. Raven’s

terminology: they have been blinded by the light.(New Series Vol. 1 page 27) (Mr Raven was

incidentally the grandfather of the late Anthony Crosland, who became a labour foreign

secretary and died somewhat prematurely from a stroke.)

That a lot of evil things have been done in the name of religion I do not doubt.

Christians were persecuted by the heathen Romans who believed in many gods. In the

middle ages many Christians were persecuted by the Roman Catholic church which believed

in one God. More recently Christians have been persecuted under Communism by those who

believed in no God at all ! The evil is in mankind rather than religion as the Bible teaches

(Ecclesiastes 9:3)

As to chapter one it may be asked: “Who made the laws of nature or have we laws

without a lawgiver ?”

It comes over as strange to me that anyone can say that higher animals came into

existence as a result of war, famine and death. I cannot see that this is a grand view of life,

though Dr. Dawkins appears here to be quoting Darwin with approval.

There are a multiplicity of religions in the world - some contrary to others. They

cannot all be right; they could all be wrong. Dr. Dawkins effectively tells us that atheism is

the only right religion, assuming we can call atheism a religion. Some would say that a set of

beliefs is only a religion if we bring God (or gods) in. It depends how we define religion

Saying human thoughts (spirit) emerge simply from what is physical (flesh) does not

ring true to me. Was not Christ right when he said: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh;

and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” ? (John 3:6). This is really fundamental. “God is

a spirit”, or perhaps we should read it “God is spirit”. This is why He should be worshipped

in spirit and truth (John 4:24). Again Christ said: “The flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63). If

the Roman Catholics had understood the force of this they would never have taken on the

idea of transubstantiation. On the other hand we do not want to go to the other extreme like

the Christian Scientists and spiritualise everything away (Science and Health page 278).

There is both flesh and spirit (2 Corinthians 7:1). If we only have flesh we are materialists; if

we only have spirit we are spiritualists (of a sort).

Talking of Muslims I have had contact with nice ones. I once worked with a devout

Egyptian Muslim lady and later did business with a Lebanese Muslim lady who had attended

a Christian school in Lebanon, but had been sent to England by her parents so she could get

away from the conflict with Israel (not the recent one). One is led to believe that some

Muslims are so disenchanted with what the Muslim fanatics are doing that they are

abandoning Islam.

Having attempted to soften us up in chapter one Dr. Dawkins berates the God of the

Old Testament in chapter two and claims He is a lot of bad things, but quotes not a single

passage of Scripture to support his statements. We may therefore be excused if we do not

reply to them. We may guess what he has in mind, but to reply to what we suppose

he has in mind would be rather unfair and might be regarded as setting up a straw man to

shoot down. However, one wonders what Dr. Dawkins would make of the following passage:

“Jehovah, Jehovah God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in goodness and

truth, keeping mercy unto thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but by no

means clearing [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the

children’s children, upon the third and upon the fourth [generation].”(Exodus 34:6/7) We

know that certain diseases such as Aids can affect the children of those that have contracted

the disease so that it is incumbent that people should be concerned that their behaviour does

not result in diseases that affect their offspring. The passage does not mean that we should

punish children for the misdemeanours of their parents. See Deuteronomy 24:16. However,

if we condemn the God of the Old Testament are we not condemning Christ, for He claimed

that the God of the Old Testament was his Father and that he perfectly represented Him (John

8:54; 14:9) ? Paul similarly: “who (Christ) is image of the invisible God” (Colossians

1:15).Was Christ all the bad things that Dr. Dawkins lists ?

As to ‘Gentle Jesus meek and mild’ it has been pointed out that Christ was what he

ought to be at all times - gentle with children (Matthew 19:13-15) and severe with the

Pharisees (Matthew 23). In this sense He had no fixed character but was like light which

contains all the colours of the rainbow. Another sentimental hymn, is the ‘rocking’ carol,

which many Christians are not happy to sing, because it is lacking in reverence. All carols

that I know of contain Biblical inaccuracies though they are not generally offensive.

Scripture teaches the opposite to what Dr. Dawkins does. Originally there was

monotheism - polytheism was a degenerate thing. This is the teaching of Scripture (Romans

1:21-25). The unity of the created system confirms that God is one and even the demons

believe this (James 2:19). Even evolutionists accept the unity of the created system; in fact, it

is one of the planks they use to support their system.

Dr. Dawkins goes on to inveigh against the doctrine of the Trinity. I won’t go into this

matter here as it is considered in detail on my web site: www.Gsimmonds.com. See my piece

entitled “Simplicity as to the Christ”.

As is usual, atheists direct the majority of their fire against the Roman Catholic

church as it contains a lot of superstitious thinking. I have heard atheists doing this years ago

on Tower Hill in London. The reason they do this is because the opposite of superstition

(imagination) is rationalism which leads to the denial of anything that cannot be the subject

of human investigation. It is rather like the Sadducees in the Bible who did not believe in the

“resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit” (Acts 23:8). The point is, are we going to disbelieve in

anything that can only be known by divine revelation ? If we do this our knowledge is going

to be limited to what can be confirmed by scientific investigation.

I have a friend who by her own account has learning disabilities. She has the Sturge

Webber syndrome which involves having a birthmark on her face and having epileptic fits. I

may say she is not silly and I respect her judgment. She is nominally a Catholic, but rarely I

understand attends the services of that church. A few years ago she went with a party to

Lourdes. She did not think much of it, particularly being put in icy water. She has not

apparently benefited in any way from the experience.

Dr. Dawkins goes on to say that Abraham was a mythological figure. The story of

Abraham does not read like that to yours truly. The fact that the story was written a few

thousand years ago does not make it false. Evolutionists go back in time umpteen million

years when there were no human witnesses around to record what happened and make it

pretty clear that they believe in their speculations as to what happened then. Which is the

most improbable ?

Scripture often says things that are not palatable to many. For instance, Peter in his

second epistle says that God “reduced [the] cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes” (2 Peter

2:6). A sceptic would not want to believe this. However, those who have been out to the

relevant area on the shores of the dead sea have found that what look like buildings are

solidified ash. Further, balls of brimstone (sulphur) are also found in the area. The

phenomena are attributed by sceptics to weathering, volcanic activity and other such

naturalistic explanations. Read also Jude 7. Accepting what the Bible says as to this event is

not a matter of faith, because the evidence is there to be seen as Jude says they: “lie there as

an example”. It is noticeable that this evidence has come to light quite recently at a time

when sodomy (buggery) as it is called is becoming acceptable. Are we taking warning? Lot

and the Sodomites did not take warning when they experienced military defeat and carrying

away in Genesis 14. The Sodomites still did not take warning when they were struck blind in

Genesis 19:11. It is significant that Abraham relocated after the destruction of the cities of

the plain (Genesis 20:1). No doubt it was painful for him to look towards the plain as he did

as recorded in Genesis 19:27/28. He must have wondered what had happened to his brother

Lot. As far as the record goes he did not know.

As to the old man in the sky with a long white beard: I expect the idea came from

Daniel 7:9 and Revelation 1:14. There is nothing about a long white beard in these passages

but there is about white hair. This was no doubt to signify age and therefore experience and

probably to indicate that the person was to have respect (see Leviticus 19:32). One suspects

this is why judges still today wear white wigs.

Whatever Constantine and others may have done, their actions were not in accord with

the Christian Bible. The New Testament gives no ground for going to war to establish

Christianity. Christ made it clear that his servants were not to fight in his defence (John

18:36). Further, He did not approve of Peter’s action in the garden of Gethsemane in taking off

the right ear of the high priest’s servant (John 18:10/11). There are other passages in the

Gospels to support this thought such as Matthew 5:38-42; Luke 9:54/55. The most violent

action of Christ in the Gospels was his cleansing of the temple. He made a scourge of cords

which was no doubt used to drive out the sheep and oxen (John 2:13-17). This does not mean

that the time will not come when evil has to be dealt with by the use of force (2 Thessalonians

1:7-10).

The Christian Gospel was not propagated in the New Testament by the use of force.

Any violence was used against Christians by, firstly the Jews, particularly in the shape of Saul

(Acts 8:3) and then by some in the Roman world (Acts 16). Paul repudiated the idea that

Christians should be other than peaceful persons, so that we have: “God has called us in

peace” (1 Corinthians 7:15); “As far as depends on you, living in peace with all men”

(Romans 12:18); “Our struggle is not against blood and flesh” (Ephesians 6:12). Our warfare

is spiritual, as plenty of passages show (Ephesians 6:12; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5; Hebrews 12:4).

That there are plenty of religious fanatics about I do not doubt - suicide bombers and

so on. However, there are also dyed in the wool Darwinists which could well be a form of

fanaticism. Darwin himself is reputed to have said that people took up his thoughts and made

a religion of them, or words to that effect. One can make a religion of almost anything and

hold on to it with a sort of fanatical zeal. The Grandfather of the late Anthony Crosland,

Frederick Raven who was a leader amongst the so-called Exclusive Brethren made the

following relevant statements: “If people take up a crotchet they will cling to it more

tenaciously than they will cling to the truth” (FER Volume 11, page 476) “Protestantism has

been as guilty of persecuting as Popery” (FER Volume 4, page 86).

That some have wishy washy thinking is no doubt true. My late boss said to me that he

thought the Church of England was a wishy-washy church. I agree with him. On the other

hand another colleague told me that he was an agnostic leaning well towards atheism. Almost

one might say a Dr. Dawkins.

Dr. Dawkins claims the existence of God is a scientific question. If it were, it would

make God’s existence a matter to be determined by man, his creature. Surely there is

something wrong here. Strictly speaking Theology - the study of God is a non-starter. God

cannot be studied. He would be the one to do the studying - the studying of mankind (Psalm

53:2).

The Bible tells us that God has revealed Himself (John 1:18; 1 John 1:5). What more

evidence do we want ? Christ did many signs, but still people did not believe on Him. “The

Pharisees... said, What do we? for this man does many signs” (John 11:47).

Talking of fairies, one wonders where the idea came from as it is said, There is no

smoke without fire. Were the fairies, butterflies ?

51/52

I suppose that today it is not impossible that a teapot or something similar could be

orbiting in space. At any rate we are told that there is a lot of junk now orbiting in space as a

result of the break up of space vehicles !

There is at least one native tribe in New Guinea that thinks they evolved from birds so

evolution is not just something thought up by sophisticated scientists in the civilised world.

Not such a strange idea if we consider that talking with a human sounding voice is something

only done by certain birds. Further, singing is almost entirely limited to mankind and various

bird species.

Incidentally, I had an E-mail the other day from a friend in the USA who had been told

by a friend of hers that she had read a book which said that Stonehenge must have been built

by aliens as primitive man could not have moved the stones because of their weight and the

distance involved. At least that was the purport of the E-mail. I think she was hoping that I

would rebut this idea. I pointed out that if Stonehenge was made by aliens, what about

Avebury, the Rollright stones as well as all the other stone circles around the country ? But

was so-called primitive man so primitive ? Is not the idea that mankind a few thousand years

ago was primitive the product of evolutionary thinking ?

The god’s of the nations are described as demons by Paul (1 Corinthians 10:19/20).

Christ indicated that Beelzebub was Satan (Matthew 12:24-27). Compare the reference to

Baal-ze-bub the god of Ekron in 2 Kings 1:2.

It is true that the death penalty was applied under the Mosaic law for a number of

offences as well as murder. The gathering of sticks may seem to us a trivial matter, but it was

disregarding Moses law and that was a capital offence (Hebrews 10:28).

What we may call a miracle need not be a suspension of a law of nature, but simply

the intervention of a greater power. To use a simple example: when a ball is thrown it will

eventually fall to the ground due to gravity. However, if someone intervenes and catches the

ball it will stop it reaching the ground. Fielders in a game of cricket are trying their utmost to

do this all the time.

Not everything is a scientific matter. Decisions in Courts of Law are not normally

based only on scientific (forensic) evidence, but are based mainly on the testimony of

witnesses. The Bible is largely based on the testimony of witnesses, something that Dr.

Dawkins discounts or does not accept at all.

I have a Son who has to date had a remarkable life. He has been close to death on quite

a number of occasions and on several occasions within seconds of death. I can supply details.

Should I, and he, not consider that there have been remarkable interventions of God in his

life?

Speaking of prayer: this in itself does not do anything, save perhaps bring mental relief

to the one who prays (a psychosomatic effect). Prayer can only have real effect if it reaches

the one who is prayed to, and he is able and willing to answer it. Praying to Baal had no effect

(1 Kings 18). We must not only pray to the right person, but we must ask in faith (James 1:6;

5:15) and we must ask for things that are according to the will of God (1 John 5:14; James

4:3). If an elderly person is approaching the end of his life it may not be appropriate to ask that

his life should be prolonged, whereas in other cases it may be. I can’t say that I have ever been

healed by prayer, but since I have grown up I have never been really ill !

Dr. Dawkins quotes approvingly a statement of Peter Atkins: “May you rot in hell”.

Elsewhere Dr. Dawkins expresses strong disapproval of the idea of hell - The Selfish Gene,

page 197.

Dr. Dawkins thoughts never seem far away from the subject of evolution. He talks of

intelligence being produced by evolutionary processes. If we trace the development of

intelligence back over time it seems we must ultimately arrive at nothing. Is this what atheists

would have us believe ? The Bible on the other hand would lead us to start at the top with God

who created a perfect creation which is deteriorating (Genesis 1:1; 1:31; Psalm 102:25/26).

In chapter three Dr. Dawkins considers arguments for God’s existence. Scripture does

not argue for his existence. God’s existence is assumed in the same way that we assume the

existence of air (Genesis 1:1). There is a certain similarity. Air is everywhere on this planet (it

is omnipresent). Air is invisible (we cannot see it). So is God. It is in a sense omnipotent, that

is, it is vital to our existence and if it were taken away we would all die (Job 34:14/15).

Scripture speaks of God as existing, but it also tells us that his eternal power and divinity are

seen in the creation (Romans 1:19/20). The words omnipotence, omniscience and omni-

presence are not found in Scripture. We therefore need to know what we mean by them and

they should only be used with care. The same can be said of other theological words like

Trinity.

God cannot be brought within the compass of the human mind. If he could man would

be as great or greater than God. He would effectively cease to be an object of worship. The

point that Christ makes to the Samaritan woman is that the Father (God) seeks worshippers

(John 4:23/24). If we do not worship God who or what are we worshipping ? Is it a pop star, a

film star or a sports star ? Might it not be a politician, a religious leader, man of science or,

may we say, a block of wood (Isaiah 44:19) ? The point is to be worshipping the true God and

Christ has been given to us as the perfect representation of Him (2 Corinthians 4:4). Most of

us like to think well of ourselves and we may effectively make a god of ourselves. If we get

rid in our minds of God we effectively make Man (the race) the highest being in the universe

and deify him.

One wonders why Dr. Dawkins spends time promoting his thinking if he does not

think he will benefit personally. If there is no God there will be no resurrection, because there

will be no one to do the raising. If there is no resurrection there will be no ultimate reward or

satisfaction to us that something useful has been achieved in our life here. Why not practise

the saying: “Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die” (1 Corinthians 15:32) ? The Bible tells

us that the only thing we can do in this life that is really profitable is the will of God (1 John

2:17). However, if one does not believe in God, one cannot do this.

Yes, there are plenty of illusory things around. I was given a little book of artwork

which was all illusions. Very interesting. However, has Dr. Dawkins ever considered whether

the evolutionary idea isn’t an illusion ? However, I won’t deal with evolutionary thinking here

as I have dealt with it elsewhere as Dr. Dawkins knows.

Dr. Dawkins then proceeds to debunk the Scriptures. He claims that there is little

evidence that Christ claimed any divine ancestry. However, if he goes to my web site he will

find under “Simplicity as to the Christ” in Appendix X a mass of quotations demonstrating

that the New Testament is consistent as to its teaching as to the person of Christ. This includes

the truth that He was the Son of God. That Christ did not go about pompously declaring that

He was the Son of God is true. He took a lowly place alongside mankind and therefore spoke

of Himself as the Son of Man.

92/93

As Dr. Dawkins says, the idea that the Gospels were written long after the events they

purport to record has been around a long time. However, I do not believe it is true. Are we to

claim that Peter was a liar when he speaks of himself as being an eyewitness of his majesty (2

Peter 1:16-18). The Gospels have too many differences to allow that the evangelists copied

one another (compare Matthew 10:9/10; Mark 6:8/9; Luke 9:3). The odd one out is Mark so it

is hardly likely that Matthew and Luke, if they copied from him, would make the same

mistake ! The Gospels have two many similarities to allow that we are dealing with

completely different accounts, for example, the feeding of the five thousand (compare

Matthew 14: Mark 6; Luke 9; John 6). It is significant that there is also a feeding of four

thousand in Matthew. Had there been no feeding of the five thousand in that Gospel one can

imagine that sceptics would have said that Matthew had got his facts wrong and discredited in

their minds Matthew as a historian. That there were two miraculous feedings is confirmed by

Christ Himself (Matthew 16: 5-12). It seems that Christ’s disciples had got used to miracles

just as we get used to doors opening of their own accord ! Again, see my web site “Gospel,

The”.

That the Gospel of Matthew was written by the tax gatherer tends to be confirmed by

the number of references to money in the Gospel. (See my piece “Money in the Gospels on my

web site) It is thought that the young man spoken of in Mark 14:51/52 was probably Mark

himself, the writer of the Gospel. At any rate the young man was not mentioned in the other

Gospels.

Are we going to deny that Luke wrote his Gospel before his Acts of the Apostles ? Paul could say:

“Luke alone is with me” (2 Timothy 4:11). Was he not the one who wrote about the early years of the

church ? Read Acts 1:1. That John’s Gospel was written last is likely to be true. It may well have been an

object to counter objections to the generally accepted accounts; hence John recounts the blood shedding of

Jesus as an eyewitness (John:19: 32-37). The object of the writers of the New Testament was to record

things before the eyewitnesses had passed off the scene (see for instance 2 Timothy 2:2; 2 Peter 1:12-15).

Dr. Dawkins gives no reason why the Gospels were written long after the eyewitnesses had passed off the

scene. Read pamphlet 362 published by CSM and titled “The Early Date of the New Testament Canon by

Bill Cooper MA, PhD, ThD”.

Dr. Dawkins then proceeds to debunk the virgin birth of Christ. However, I have dealt with this

matter elsewhere. See my web site “Virgin birth of Christ, The” and “Wise Men, The”. There is nothing

about Kings worshipping Jesus in the Gospels. Further, why assume the Bible is wrong and the civil

records right? Maybe there is a fault in the dating somewhere. Joseph was no doubt regarded as the legal

father of Jesus though not the natural one. Dr. Dawkins says that Luke refers to the prophet Micah;

actually the quotation is in Matthew. Further, those that queried the place where Jesus was born were “the

crowd” and “the Pharisees”, rather than his followers - see John 7:37-53. As Dr. Dawkins indicates there

are considerable differences between the genealogies in Matthew and Luke - they must have had different

sources.

Speaking of Christ’s miracles: it may be noted that all those recorded in the Gospels were

beneficial, save one, - they were not useless miracles like weeping statues. The exception is the cursing of

the fig tree (Mark 11). That was done to teach the disciples a lesson and by extension ourselves. Further,

all the miracles were necessary because what was done could not be done by ordinary means. I am not

aware of any exception. Christ made a scourge of cords (John 2:15). He did not do it miraculously

because it did not require a miracle to make it.

Can anyone seriously think that passages like John 17 were produced by man’s mind ? The

thoughts are so sublime that no man of Adam’s race could have conceived them. The theologians of later

generations were markedly inferior to the writers of the Christian Gospels and Epistles. If you don’t think

so read them and compare them with the Scriptures. Gospels like the Gospel of Thomas were rejected

because they were manifestly inferior to the Gospels we have in our Bibles.

Christ’s death has been celebrated ever since he instituted the memorial meal (Matthew 26).

Maybe one of the reasons he instituted it was because he knew sceptics would go so far in future

generations as to deny even that He ever existed.

Dr. Dawkins speaks of an overwhelming case that the Gospels are not reliable and that the Gospel

writers wrote late, but he produces no evidence (pages 92/93) . He does the same with evolution; claiming

that Charles Darwin destroyed the argument for the existence of God from design (page 79). If one reads

Dr. Dawkins books evolution is assumed to be true, but actual evidence is minimal or non-existent.

We now come to the Lady Hope account of her visit to Charles Darwin near the end of his life. Dr.

Dawkins speaks of a deathbed conversion and dismisses it peremptorily. If one reads James Moore’s book

“The Darwin Legend” he gives good reasons for thinking that Lady Hope visited Darwin at least once

towards the end of his life. It is remote in the extreme that a Christian lady would have fabricated the

account. It seems to me that Dr. Dawkins only believes what he wants to believe. I am afraid I may hurt

him by saying this. Obviously, we have not got a tape recording of what passed between Lady Hope and

Charles Darwin and it is possible that what Lady Hope reported may have been highly coloured and she

may well have read the signals coming from him wrongly. However, one would mention before

continuing that many creationists as well as evolutionists have discounted the story. Although we can

never know exactly what went through Darwin’s mind the most likely scenario was as follows:-

Lady Hope visited Darwin and they were having a pleasant conversation when she introduced the

matter of evolution. This worried Darwin and accounted for the pained expression on his face and the fact

that he twitched his fingers while thinking how he should answer her. Darwin was by all accounts not a

militant man and would not have wanted to upset his visitor. He therefore played down the subject and

alluded to the fact that some people made a religion of evolution; that they made it a matter of gospel

truth so to speak, that is, something that had to be believed in. From the little one knows of Darwin’s life

one would not think that he was a convinced atheist, rather that he was a doubter. As to Darwin’s reading

Hebrews this is far from impossible, one reason being that his Bible was in one place marked in that

book. Further, he may have had some idea that it supported the idea of evolution as it frequently speaks of

what is better and the replacement of what is old by what is new (Hebrews 8:13). Dr. Dawkins is

favourably disposed towards the books of Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs so one can’t condemn Darwin

for having a liking for Hebrews. As to the suggestion that Lady Hope should conduct a service in his

Summer house one would accept that this in fact never took place. Often suggestions are made which

never materialise. Opposition from others may have been the reason, but other factors may have been

involved such as the weather. One has supposed that the Summer house may have been suggested as the

focal point of the meeting (pulpit if you like) while the listeners stood around. As to the subject of the

meeting Darwin did not say what was the best theme, but put to Lady Hope as a question what he knew

she would want to hear. Darwin was no doubt aware of what was preached about in the schoolroom at

Downe which he owned. It would appear that Darwin was suiting himself to company as we speak.

Maybe he went too far and Lady Hope was not careful in what she reported. She got the impression that

what Darwin said meant he had now repudiated evolution and been converted. Darwin said he would

listen to the hymns being played in the Summer house from his room, leading people to suppose that he

was on his deathbed. However the reason for what he said may well have been that, although he would

have been happy for a service to be held in his Summer house, as he was for services to be held in the

room he owned, he would not have wanted to identify himself with it by attending the service any more

than he would have wanted to have gone to a preaching in the room. Mr. J. N. Darby commenting on

Darwin writes: “Darwin has given up a good deal of his system as exaggerated... he admits his proof fails,

geological facts giving no support to it.” (Letters Vol. 2 page 357. Letter dated October 18 , 1875) To

what extent Darwin wavered could be a matter of enquiry, though one would doubt that he was so

uncertain in his views that he would have abandoned evolution one day and maintained it the next. The

same with Christianity. It appears to me that James Moore has done a good job in ascertaining the facts as

to the Darwin Legend so far as possible.

Dr. Dawkins says that there are not that many top religious scientists (page 100). Why this is may

be arguable. Would religious scientists be given top jobs today ? Further, as Paul himself pointed out:

“Consider your calling, brethren, that [there are] not many wise according to flesh, not many powerful,

not many high born” (1 Corinthian 1:26). Consider also what is said in the rest of the chapter. God is not

ministering to man’s pride whether that be in his scientific achievements, the power that he is able to

wield, or in his station in life and, I would add; in his spirituality (the E. B.’s problem). Consider also

what Christ Himself said on the subject (Matthew 11:25). A piece one once read comes to mind:

“A man of subtle reasoning asked a peasant if he knew,

Where lies th’ internal evidence that proves the Bible true?

The terms of disputative art had never reached his ear.

He laid his hand upon his heart and answered simply - Here !”

One would not base one’s beliefs on the experience of one person which might only be his feelings, but

such evidence should not be cast aside with levity as Christianity is not just a matter of intellectual belief.

One noticed when I was at school that those that attended the Brethren meetings invariably did

well academically, including yours truly. One wondered why. This was so even where the parents were

not involved in intellectual employments. The reason seemed to be as Paul says: “Piety is profitable for

everything” (1 Timothy 4:8). Brethren did not smoke or spend a lot of time on amusements, which meant

they spent more time on study. I once read in a newspaper that there was going to be an academic study of

this phenomenon, but what the result was, if the study actually took place, I never heard. Further I was

told that those, mostly Brethren, in the non-combatant corps (NCC’s) had the highest average IQ’s in the

army except for the intelligence corps. My wife has an IQ of Mensa level, whereas mine is so low that it

has shocked examiners on more than one occasion.

Some do not believe in God because they do not want to as it makes them feel uncomfortable. It is

a matter of conscience. They are fearful of meeting God in judgment. If they can persuade themselves that

there is no God they get some sort of relief. One recalls the story of an atheist who when he was dying put

a sort of placard on the wall in his bedroom to console himself: “G O D IS N O W H E R E”. A visitor

came in and read it out but read it as “God is now here.” It may be noted in this connection that the

meaning of the words in Psalms 14:1 and 53:1 could well have the sense of: “No God for me.”, that is, he

is not going to recognise any God, but go on in his own wicked way. See the rest of the verses in these

Psalms and verse 10 of Psalm 10:4. See also Job 21:14 and 22:13.

104

Incidentally, we should not mix up jealousy with envy. The former is a by-product of love

(Proverbs 6:32-35); while envy leads to hate (Genesis 37: 8 and 11).

104

As to faith: this is not just a matter of believing in the existence of God however important that is

as a first step. “ Thou believest that God is one. Thou doest well” (James 2:19). James goes on to point out

that the demons even believe this and tremble. However, the writer to the Hebrews goes on to say: “He

that draws near to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them who seek him out”

(Hebrews 11:6). This takes us a step further. Then there must be, not only the belief that God is a

rewarder of those that seek him, but also actual seeking (Isaiah 55:6). Seeking involves calling upon Him

as the verse quoted in Isaiah says. A person may claim to believe in God and pray to Him, but does he

recognise the one who He has sent, that is Jesus ? (John 6:29). Christ is the test (John 3:17-21). Living a

respectable life before men is not enough. That may be only a veneer covering up a rotten inside. John

Bunyan found this out as I have just read in the last few days. Christ stressed this point in his life here.

“Make clean first the inside of the cup and of the dish, that their outside also may become clean”

(Matthew 23:26). Peter speaking in Acts makes the point that God had purified the hearts of those he was

speaking to by faith (Acts 15:9). Much more could be said on this subject, but I think what is said here is

adequate for my present purpose.

April 2nd 2007