The last two blogs have been about the creation accounts of Genesis, the first comparing them with modern scientific theories and the second with the other middle eastern creation theories. Now here’s a third one.
There are many who attack religion as being anti-rational. I have tried to explain in the first blog that this is not necessarily so. The other thing is they talk about religion as a whole. The second blog was to show that the stories in the Bible are not the same as those of the other cultures around, although they share a form there is something radically different about them. All religions are not the same.
Which is why when I see the sales of Richard Dawkins The God Delusion I am not worried. When I hear atheists say what they don’t believe about God I usually agree with them. I don’t believe in a God like that either. So I am not one of those who will counter with a book such as The Dawkins Delusion. I think that approach is unnecessary. the God that Dawkins is saying does not exist, or is a delusion, isn’t the God I believe in anyway.
But we make it easy for atheists with a scientific background to ridicule faith, and Christianity in particular. We say things like, “You have your theory of evolution, but I have my theory,” without first finding out what the scientists mean by theory. A scientific theory is not just a good guess, even hypothesis is better than that, but to a scientist a theory is something that can be observed, which has evidence to support it. Before you cannot come along with a theory with not enough evidence to support it. Intelligent Design does not nearly come close enough to be a theory. Sorry.
So I am not going to make a defence of what I believe to the new atheists. Because what I believe is not under attack by the new atheists. Is religion the ideas of feeble minded people who are easily led as these atheists believe? I became a Christian whilst studying physics at university. Work that one out.