REBUTTAL OF ATHEIST RICHARD DAWKINS BY RUSSELL EARL KELLY, PHD

REBUTTAL OF RICHARD DAWKINS

BY RUSSELL EARL KELLY

June 18, 2015

DAWKINS: Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous.

KELLY: Even more ridiculous is the atheist idea that evil does not exist. If, as atheists teach, everything came into existence as the result of an eternal amoral (not immoral), un-intelligent something exploding --- then there can be no such thing as morality.

DAWKINS: Dawkins argues that "the process of non-thinking called faith" is not a way of understanding the world, but instead stands in fundamental opposition to modern science and the scientific method, and is divisive and dangerous.

KELLY: Yet atheists themselves teach that non-thinking (incapable of thinking) amoral random chance created thinking persons who use scientific methods based on pre-existing eternal laws. Their explanation builds upon the original non-thinking explosion of an eternal something (their god).

DAWKINS: Dawkins then quizzes Father Liam Griffin… Griffin reports 66 declared miracles and about 2,000 unexplained cures (out of approximately 80,000 sick visitors per year.

KELLY: 66 miracles out of 80,000 visitors! Those odds are 1/12,000. Yet the odds of complex life existing which began as a Big-Bang of a BB which was amoral, unintelligent and random is infinitely greater. While arguing against miracles, atheistic evolution teaches that Dawkins himself is the result of millions of (“miracle”) mutations which occurred against uncountable odds from the most simple (still extremely complex) living cell into incomprehensible complex minds. I see this as the continuing miracle of miracles – unguided amoral, unintelligent random chance creates the modern homo sapien.

DAWKINS: He points out that science involves a process of constantly testing and revising theories in the light of new evidence,

KELLY: Yet in each era current science taught that it was correct. The universe consisted of fire, rock and water. When can science stop revising and say it is correct? Science began by saying the universe is infinite in age; now it is guessing 14 billion years plus or minus.

DAWKINS: … while faith makes a virtue out of believing unprovable and often improbable propositions.

KELLY:  Science stops where evidence ends. Science cannot prove the evolution of morality, the innate knowledge of right and wrong or the existence of a superior mind.  Science cannot even demonstrate its own existence from an amoral, unintelligent, random chance beginning.

DAWKINS: Dawkins also comments that the design hypothesis raises another question: who made the Maker?

KELLY: The fact that we exist can only be explained by two processes: willful creation by an eternal omniscient omnipotent “God” or existence as the result of an eternal “something” which was/is, amoral unintelligent and purely random. Each side of the argument begins with the assumption that “something”  “eternal” always existed. The atheist’s god-creator is an eternal, amoral speck of “something” containing all laws of the universe which exploded. It takes more faith to accept that than to believe in an eternal intelligent Creator.

DAWKINS: Fundamental Christian Haggard said the Bible is true and doesn't contradict itself as science does. Dawkins contends that the advantage of science is that new evidence changes ideas, allowing the advancement of human knowledge, something religion does not allow.

KELLY: The God who inspired the Bible knew that Earth was round and hung on nothing. He knew that that the stars could not be counted. It took thousands of years for science to change its theories to catch up to what the Bible had already long stated. All “new evidence” has not forced Christians to deny the Bible. Yet “new evidence” is constantly forcing science to revise its theories because science keeps changing its conclusions.

DAWKINS: Haggard says that American evangelicals fully embrace the scientific method, expecting it to show how God created the heavens and the earth. Dawkins asks if he accepts the scientific demonstration that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. According to Haggard, this is merely one view accepted by a portion of the scientific community.

KELLY: It is still called the “theory” of evolution. Far too many gaps exist. Major Phylum, or “kinds” of species suddenly appear in fossil records. The revised age of the universe to about 14 billion years only allows time for sudden major macro evolution.

DAWKINS: Dawkins regards Jerusalem as a microcosm of everything that is wrong with religion.

KELLY: The very continuing existence of Jerusalem is proof that the inspired prophecies given by all major prophets and most minor prophets was correct.

DAWKINS: Just because science has not yet answered every conceivable question about the universe, there is no need to turn to faith, which has never answered anything of significance.

KELLY: The atheistic proposition is based on “faith” that amoral, unintelligent random chance can create moral intelligent extremely highly complex life forms. Throw an automobile into a large bag and shake it up;        it will eventually turn into grains of metal, rubber, cloth and its components; that is the result of no designer. Take that same bag of metal, rubber and cloth grains and shake it up along with water, lightening and a chemical soup and a new automobile will appear after eons of countless random mutations without the assistance of intelligence. That is what evolution teaches.

DAWKINS: Dawkins opines that the moral framework of religions is warped.

KELLY: There is no moral framework for atheism. Amoral, unintelligent random chance cannot produce morality or a sense of right and wrong. The fact is that every normal person who has ever been born knows by conscience and nature the difference between right and wrong. This is part of our very being.

DAWKINS: Hawkes responds [to Dawkins] that without a law-giver, "Why is rape wrong? Why is pedophilia wrong?" and that if people believe they can get away with committing bad deeds then they will tend to do them.

KELLY: I agree. Without a “morality-giver) morality cannot exist.

DAWKINS: Dawkins responds to this claim by asking Hawkes if the only reason he doesn't do these things is that he's frightened of God and subsequently suggests that this attitude is characteristic of the warped morality that religion tends to instill in people.

KELLY: Notice that Dawkins does not answer the question. Instead he replies with an invented false accusation of God-believers to explain why they act moral. As C. S. Lewis discovered, we act moral because we have a conscience.

DAWKINS: Dawkins discusses specifically the idea of religion seen as a virus in the sense of a meme. He begins by explaining how a child is genetically programmed to believe without questioning the word of authority figures, especially parents – the evolutionary imperative being that no child would survive by adopting a skeptical attitude towards everything their elders said. But this same imperative, he claims, leaves children open to infection by religion.

KELLY: This is an odd example because it is exactly the example many atheists use to explain how morality works: it is behavior accepted or rejected by the group or family or society without any reference to a divine origin. He even calls it an “evolutionary imperative.” He is inserting his own logic into Christianity and then arguing against it!

DAWKINS: When Roberts asks why Dawkins doesn't believe the scriptures, Dawkins replies, "because of evidence".

KELLY: Dawkins needs to first admit that he personally is a sinner and needs to be reconciled to God. Pray for him.

DAWKINS: Dawkins questions whether the Bible really does provide a suitable moral framework, and contends that the texts are of dubious origin and veracity, are internally contradictory and, examined closely, describe a system of morals that any civilized person should find poisonous.

KELLY: An all-mighty, all-knowing personal God is fully capable of preserving His communication with mankind. Oddly, Dawkins has accepted either “by faith” or “scientific hypothesis” the Christian Liberal viewpoint of the Bible. Frankly, I do not know why liberals even bother attending church.

DAWKINS: He describes the Old Testament as the root of Judaism, Christianity and Islam; and, as example, readings are given of Deuteronomy 13 which instructs believers to kill any friend or family member who favors serving other gods, and Numbers 31 where Moses, angered at the mercy his victorious forces show in taking women and children captive, instructs them to kill all save virgin girls, who are to be taken as slaves: an act Dawkins describes as genocide.

KELLY: Study the depths of depravity in which the Canaanites had descended. Adopted children often seek to know everything their parents did. Even the Canaanite animals had been trained towards sexual corruption. Since all will eventually suffer the consequences of their sins, the different between the O.T. and now is merely a delay in eventual punishment.

DAWKINS: Dawkins is repelled by what he calls St Paul's nasty sadomasochistic doctrine that Jesus had to be hideously tortured and killed so that we might be redeemed – the doctrine of atonement for original sin – and asks "if God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them?

KELLY: How does Dawkins respond when he discovers that his son has just raped his daughter? How does he respond after he has accidentally (or deliberately) killed his wife? Science cannot tell us why we innately feel guilt when we sin; exist science; enter faith.

The State (society) cannot simple “forgive” sin. Like God, the State should have a higher standard of behavior based on both justice and mercy. Likewise, God’s character is both just and merciful. If either the State or God showed mercy and simply “forgave” without demanding justice, its (His) kingdom would not stand long.

DAWKINS: Modern science demonstrates that the alleged perpetrators Adam and Eve never even existed, undermining St Paul's doctrine.

KELLY: I have a collection of National Geographic articles over many years. They all show that Homo Sapiens appeared in history suddenly without any direct connection to any previously existing type of homo. Why? It is entirely possible that God directly created and inserted Adam and Eve into history as an completely new species of Homo Sapiens which was capable of recognizing and worshipping a Creator God.

DAWKINS: Dawkins then interviews Michael Bray who interprets the Bible literally – he would like to see capital punishment enforced for the sin of adultery…

KELLY: Old Covenant national Israel was under a Theocracy in which punishment was quick (as opposed to 20 years on death row). We Gentiles never were under that covenant! The New Covenant is “not according to the Old Covenant (Heb 8:9).

DAWKINS: Dawkins searches for an explanation of morality based upon evolutionary biology, which he considers more hopeful than ancient texts. Together with the evolutionary psychologist Oliver Curry, he discusses the primordial morality to be found among chimpanzees.

CURRY: Curry explains his view that we don't need religion to explain morality and if anything it simply gets in the way. Instead, he claims, a more convincing explanation is to be found in the concepts of reciprocal altruism and kin selection.

KELLY: The chimpanzee displays moral behavior as a learned method of surviving in the group. It does not possess a conscience and is not innately drawn to worship a higher god. The argument that morality is the result of peer pressure in groups proves nothing; that is majority rule; whatever the majority wants ignores the needs of others.

DAWKINS: Dawkins finishes by arguing that atheism is not a recipe for despair but just the opposite…

KELLY: It is a recipe for anarchy and chaos. It has no norms for the conscience. It encourages loose living, selfishness, living to the fullest while totally disregarding the rights of others because there are no real “right and wrong” laws to honor.

DAWKINS: … rather than viewing life as a trial that must be endured before reaching a mythical hereafter …

KELLY: He is attacking his own invented paper tiger. True Christianity gives peace and assurance and allows one to live free of worry in the knowledge of God’s grace.

DAWKINS: … an atheist sees this life as all we have, and by disclaiming a next life can take more excitement in this one.

KELLY: Nothing restrains him from “taking more” for himself from others. “Live life to the fullest today, for tomorrow we die and there is no afterlife.” If everybody thought like that, life would be utter chaos. Since (with no morality) there is no right or wrong, one can do as one pleases. But that will not work when one interferes with the rights of another.

DAWKINS: Atheism, Dawkins concludes, is life-affirming in a way that religion can never be.

KELLY: Life-affirming or self-gratification at the expense of others?

ALISTER MCGRATH, a Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, was interviewed for the program, but was not included in the documentary. McGrath claimed to have made Dawkins " implication, made by McGrath, was that Dawkins's program showed journalistic dishonesty appear uncomfortable" with his explanations of religious belief and the.