Wednesday, November 02, 2016

This speck of dust

I was listening to Richard Dawkins debate John Lennox. Dawkins said it's "petty and small-minded" to think the creator of the cosmos (if he existed) would come to this speck of dust to rid the world of sin. That fails to do justice to the grandeur of the universe. 

That's a revealing window into the mind of Dawkins. It reminds me of a distinction I've drawn between two kinds of painters: there are artists who like to paint people and artists who like to paint landscapes. Evidently, Dawkins is more interested in the spectacle of the natural world than human beings. 

Certainly humans are physically insignificant compared to the scale of the universe, or even mountains, canyons, and the like. It is, however, a false dichotomy for Dawkins to intuit that a God who's big enough to design the universe would take no interest in little creatures like humans. If anything, it's a mark of divine greatness to be mindful of each and every detail. Where everything happens for a reason. No plot holes. Is a God who only cares about the big picture, but can't be bothered with the details, really superior to a God who's cognizant of the fine details as well as the big picture? Isn't that a hallmark of quality craftsmanship? 

You also have creative writers who are fond of certain characters. They have favorite characters. 

I'm not suggesting that's directly analogous to God. I'm just saying there's nothing incongruous about the notion of a creator who takes a personal interest in the people (or characters) he makes. 


  1. Indeed. Dawkins just assumes and asserts this while offering no argument telling us *why* this is problematic. I am not sure if this type of assertion originated with Dickie D, but, like much atheistic silliness, it has taken on a life of its own. Only recently I saw another atheistic 'meme' on Facebook attempting to mock this, with pictures accompanied by the words:

    1. 'God's favorite galaxy'
    2. 'God's favorite star'
    3. 'God's favorite planet'

    When presented with this, one feels compelled to ask, 'So what's your point?' '*Why* is this so unbelievable and problematic?' As Steve has alluded to, a God who cares only about the 'bigger picture', and not about finer details like human beings and their purpose and progression, would be far less superior to a God who takes an interest in *all* of His creation.

    Why would a 'hands-off,' indifferent God - no less indifferent than the universe He created, be superior? Where's the argument?

    Dickie D and his disciples have it back to front. Kicker.

    Whenever I see/hear this objection it strikes me as somewhat like the sibling who lashes out in jealousy at their brother/sister because an Aunty takes a special interest in them.

    Bottom line is this is a stupid objection with no good reason behind it.

    1. Which reminds me of another point I intended to make, but it slipped my mind. Dawkins stresses how supposed incongruous it would be for God to come to our planet to rid the universe of sin. But suppose we're the only intelligent creatures in the universe. Or suppose we're the only fallen creatures in the universe. Naturally, God would zero in on our planet. For that matter, if there were other fallen creatures in the universe whom God redeemed, why assume we'd know about it? Indeed, that would be distracting information. (I'm omitting angels from my comment because the physical universe isn't their natural abode).

    2. Also, might I add, Dickie D ought to remember this - along with his 'blind, pitiless' universe from his River out of Eden - the next time he attempts a moral argument against God and Christianity. Consistency, dear Dickie, consistency.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.