Can the idea of a Creator God be easily dismissed in just five steps? Well, atheist and anti-theist Richard Dawkins certainly thinks so!
Dawkins starts by equating God with fairies, and then says that “the onus is not upon an atheist to say why there is not something, the onus is on a theist to say why there is.” Well, Dr. Richard Dawkins, the onus will actually be on each person on judgment day when he stands before God. And no excuses will be enough when we stand before Him. In the end, every person will bow before Christ and acknowledge Him as Lord (Philippians 2:10–11). You can either do so voluntarily now or by compulsion later.
Dawkins then says that “there simply are no reasons for the existence of a God.” But, of course, this doesn’t mean there actually aren’t any reasons for God’s existence. It simply shows his anti-God bias. He then mentions a few of the common arguments used to demonstrate that there is a God.
Dawkins begins with the argument from design. Now, Scripture is clear that everyone is without excuse for not believing in God because His creation clearly shows that He exists (Romans 1:20). But Dawkins dismisses the powerful argument from design in nature simply by saying that we should expect design because that’s what Darwinian natural selection does, “it makes them look as though they’re designed.” According to Dawkins, “Darwin has exploded once and for all the argument from design.” Dawkins recognizes that things do look designed, but says that the most likely explanation, a Designer, isn’t the case—natural selection simply does it. But what he never explains is how natural selection—a process that only works by decreasing or re-shuffling existing genetic information—is supposed to add the massive amounts of new information that are required to get the complexity we see today from a simple single-celled organism over millions of years. How do you get from simple pond scum to highly complex people without adding massive amounts of new genetic information? You can’t!
Dawkins next dismisses personal testimony by saying that people hallucinate or are fooled with relative ease. Now, subjective personal experience does need to be weighed carefully (see 1 Thessalonians 5:21), but what I would like to ask Dawkins is the same question Bill Nye was asked during our 2014 debate: where did consciousness (which is needed for our experiences) come from? Nye was at a loss to explain this “great mystery” as he called it and Dawkins likely would be too.
Of course, God’s Word tells us exactly where consciousness (and everything else!) came from—God Himself (Genesis 1:27, 2:7). And, furthermore, in a godless world, how do you even know what truth really is when you have no objective standard for determining truth? Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? As Pilate asked Jesus, without God and His Word, “What is truth?” (John 18:38). And if we are just random chemical accidents, why should we trust anything that comes from our brain anyway? If Dawkins’ worldview is true, then he can’t trust anything that comes from his brain either! It’s ultimately a self-defeating argument. We can only know what truth is because there is a God and He has ordered this world and has given us His Word.
Next is the argument of the first cause. This argument, in a nutshell, states that everything must have a cause, including the universe. Now, Dawkins dismisses this argument by saying that if God is the first cause, then where did God come from? Frankly, it’s a silly response. God is outside of space and time—in fact, He created these things. He didn’t have a beginning and He will have no end (Psalm 90:2). And if there was someone who created God, then it would be a bigger God, and then a bigger-bigger God would need to create that God, and then a bigger-bigger-bigger God would need to create that God, and so on to infinity. This is silly. If He needed to be created, He wouldn’t be God. But God doesn’t need a Creator; He is self-existent.
Dawkins then explains that Darwin shows how everything got here without the need for God. But Darwin was simply wrong because everything we see in observational science confirms the history of the universe from God’s Word, not Darwin’s ideas—kinds reproduce according to their kinds; we don’t see new genetic information being added to produce brand-new features; life only comes from other life, never from non-life. Life did not originate by itself; it was created by our all-wise Creator.
Lastly, Dawkins addresses the so-called Pascal’s wager, which says that it’s better to believe in God, live a godly life, and be wrong when you die than to reject God and die and go to hell. He says that this is a “silly argument” and that there is no way of knowing if you’ve bet on the right god or not. But I submit that only the God of the Bible makes sense of this world. God alone has left us a coherent Scripture that does not contradict itself and is historically and scientifically accurate in all it says.
But Dawkins does get one thing (sort of) right in his short video in reference to Pascal’s wager. He says that perhaps the God of the Bible would not prefer someone who “slavishly pretends to believe something.” Scripture is clear that God sees the heart, not external signs of worship or belief (1 Samuel 16:7). No one will get to heaven by “slavishly” pretending to believe in God. Salvation only comes by truly believing and trusting in Jesus Christ and His work on the Cross to pay for our sin debt (Romans 10:9–10). That’s the good news of the gospel—salvation is a free gift to those who will put their faith in Christ.
My heart breaks for people like Dawkins who are utterly lost and who, unless they repent and believe in Christ, will face an eternity separated from God in hell. All of their seemingly clever arguments against God will amount to nothing when they stand before His judgment throne. If you are like Dawkins, or even if you believe in God but have not trusted in Christ for salvation, I encourage you to listen to the good news and believe in Christ and be saved.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.