Science & Religion posts 3

Total opinion: some thoughts from my own mind regarding The God
Delusion by Dawkins
• I don't fall into the category of being raised on religion. I do
agree that being "born Christian" and being "saved" are completely
different things. One is religion/culture, the other is faith and
genuine interest in God. My concern isn't Christianity. My concern
is salvation through Jesus Christ. Strength in a certain area, like
worldly wisdom, doesn't make you any better at discerning spiritual
things than, say, someone whose strength is love or mediating or
communicating the hurts of impoverished people. In fact, it reminds
me of the Pharisees who were so big headed about their knowledge that
they missed out on the simplicity of the gospel. Though I value
education, it's silly to think that only people who have university
degrees and can do research have some sort of special "enlightenment"
regarding God or the lack of God.
• Dawkins may be credible as a scientist, but so far all I hear is
opinion in his book. Just like some Christians get some parts of
science wrong, he gets parts of Christianity wrong. If he would
actually read the Old Testament in the light of the Holy Spirit, then
he would discover that God is incredibly just (that's why He punishes
sin; that's why He poured wrath on His own Son!) and is super
forgiving (how many times did He have to remind Israel to obey? How
many times did they disobey and complain when He was being just and
punishing them? How many times did He show mercy and forgive? Giving
them second chance after second chance).
• It isn't "prejudice" to be against homosexuality (the sin, the
action, the state of the heart). Out of the hatred in your heart, you
murder-that's not cool. Because of the lust in your heart you commit
adultery-that's not cool. You refuse to forgive others though you
fully know you've been forgiven by God-that is not cool. Though we
sin, we shouldn't let sin define us and we shouldn't see others like
that either. I love my friends who are homosexual, just like I love
my friends that get drunk every weekend, etc. I feel silly
describing them like that because when I look at them I don't see
their sins. Sure I try to encourage them in their relationship w/ God
because I know personally how destructive sin is when you willingly
partake in it.
• He makes good points and I have to admit that religion is misused
and that gives true believers a bad name.
• For him to claim nothing good comes from religion is insulting to me
personally because 1) I've had a pretty positive experience thus far…
that is such an understatement: the sweetest, most breath-taking and
life changing moments I've experienced have been those where God has
been directly involved. 2) Even atheists have to see how it shapes
culture. I'm Mexican and though I don't agree completely with
Mexican Catholicism, I do recognize and appreciate it's unique impact
on the people. It has made us who we are. Perhaps Dawkins can't
relate to deeply spiritual and/or cultural issues because he has never
experienced them.
• We (believers) have faith that the Bible isn't made up stories by
humans who've had no real interaction w/ God; but eyewitness testimony
is evidence enough for us, backed by history telling us the care taken
into transcribing the Bible. Bonus is when many believers can attest
to revelation through Scriptures, affirming that there is something
special about them. It's a mixture of prayer, the Holy Spirit, the
Bible, and Jesus' life, death, and resurrection (the gospel). I'd say
that's the only fool proof evidence, but no guarantee that just anyone
can have access to the Holy Spirit (only those He draws to the Father).
• Scientists giving their opinion on the existence of God have to step
away from the title of "scientist" for a moment and just become
"humans" w/ an opinion (just like everyone else).
• He keeps giving examples that are material: teapot, monster,
fairies. But our claim: we walk by faith, not by sight. Faith is the
evidence of things not seen.
• It's true that theologians with degrees and years of Bible studying
under their belt can still learn things from brand new, "unlearned"
Christians, but it's due to the Holy Spirit. Believers are more
credible when it comes to interpreting the Bible because they have a
direct connection to God thought the Holy Spirit. That's why it's
hard for Dawkins and others to really "get it."
• Dawkins is quick to brush off personal experiences and limits them
to images or voices. They actually vary greatly and the impressive
thing is that they all seem to end up w/ salvation (amazing or even
scary enough to change you). Not every experience is just on quick
one. Some continue with little confirmations along the way that it's
from the Lord. He keeps thinking too physical, dismissing mass vision
because others around the world don't see the same thing. Well duh.
"Visions" by definition aren't seeing things that are actually
happening right then and there in front of you. It's symbolic or
telling of the future. And just like reoccurring dreams, who's to say
God doesn't use our neurons to communicate w/ us? We are physical
beings, after all.

***"Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom or the strong man boast
of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who
boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows ME, that I am
the Lord…" ~God, through Jeremiah (Jer. 9:23-24)***