|
A CRUCIAL MESSAGE TO RICHARD DAWKINS One of the questions asked to Richard Dawkins by Ben Stein, in the recent documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” was why he would want to take the belief in a God of love away from people who believed in Him. I do not recall his final response, though I do recall a fairly long pause after the question, which to me seemed to indicate a moment of discomfort -- and perhaps some guilt. Why, Richard? Why would you ever want to take away from countless millions the idea that there is a God of love that cares for them and that they can turn to in times of grief? Why would anyone with a modicum of kindness want to steal from humans the belief that there is a life after death and that they might still have the opportunity to see their dead, loved ones in the future? Why would you ever want to invalidate the belief that this God loves them so much that he would even give Himself so as to have them with Himself forever? Are you showing love toward these people, Richard? Are you giving them something of superior quality to replace their belief with? Are you giving them greater depth of meaning? Will your philosophy make them stronger in a world filled with grief? Will you make them better equipped to cope with the challenge of death? What is it that really drives your fanaticism, Richard? Why do you hate the Judeo-Christian God so much? Why do you insist on distorting reality by calling brutal, arrogant, manipulative and hypocritical people of the past, or of the present, by a name that can never in all honesty be applied to them? Crusaders, witch burners, allies of secular powers to maintain their own primacy, and killers of others who disagreed with them were not Christians. Child molesting priests or adulterous ministers are not followers of Jesus Christ, either. You would have no problem seeing the incongruity if a person called himself an atheist while he prayed faithfully to God; or if a professing communist openly supported capitalistic principles. Why do you not see the incongruity of associating evil with “true” Christianity, the Christianity that even insists on loving your worst enemy, then? Are you really humane Richard? How can a person be humane while offering humanity emptiness and confusion? Are you so blinded by greed and by fame, that you will not allow your conscience to make you see the results of your work? And how can anyone even think of continuing to fight the treasured notion of a loving God, even if they only see a 1% possibility of Him existing. (Remember, you told Ben Stein that you are 99% certain that God does not exist?). Stop for a moment and consider. What if God does exist? Think of the harm you’re causing. Think of the confusion you’re sowing. Think of the hopelessness you have brought about in some ambivalent and weak minds. Think of the possibility that some might have even given up on life because of you and others like you. If someday there will be a Judgment, and all the facts will be laid bare before you and you’ll see the harm you may have caused, how will you feel then? But you need not wait until then, for there is enough intelligence in you to assess these possibilities; especially the probability that you might have already helped push some over the edge, or that your book might have already led some to divest themselves of the fear of God that kept them from risky sex, drugs and alcohol abuse and abandoned themselves to a life of debauchery which may have led to incurable STD’s, or an early death due to drug or alcohol abuse. Absurd, Richard? I think not. I sincerely hope that you will allow your conscience to emerge once again, Richard. You do have some conscience left. I believe I saw it when you paused and thought for a few seconds after Ben asked you the question I mentioned above. You did not get defensive, and you did consider for awhile. I believe that during that revealing pause you saw the enormity of the consequences to your actions, though only for a brief while. Have I lost hope in you Richard Dawkins? No, I have not. I am quite convinced that behind your bombastic, over-confident, at times offensive ways there is a man who can still reflect long and deep and can still allow the sensitive part of his being to re-emerge and overpower his rationalistic defenses. I hope you will, Richard -- for your sake, and the sake of the millions you might still affect. Michael C.
|