The humanist apostles’ creed—that which ‘a Devil’s Chaplain might write’
First published: 4 October 2004 (GMT+10)
Re-featured on homepage: 15 December 2015 (GMT+10)
Wikimedia commons/Shane Pope
First published: 4 October 2004 (GMT+10)
Re-featured on homepage: 15 December 2015 (GMT+10)
Well-known atheist, Richard Dawkins, now styles himself as A Devil’s Chaplain, the title of a recent book. As ‘Professor of the Public Understanding of Science’ at England’s Oxford University, Dawkins is infamous for his vitriolic attacks on those with religious—and particularly Christian—faith. He relates that Charles Darwin coined the phrase ‘Devil’s Chaplain’ in a letter to a friend in 18561: ‘What a book a Devil’s Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature’.
While in the Netherlands recently, involved in speaking ministry, I became aware that Richard Dawkins gave a talk at the prestigious Leiden University as part of the launch of the Dutch translation of his recent book. He also gave an interview with a Dutch radio station, the web audio transcript of which a Dutch friend kindly located for me.2 In characteristic style, this evangelist for atheistic scientism proceeded to attribute all the truly praiseworthy aspects of life (as he saw it) to Darwinism, whilst also pouring scorn on those who disagreed with him. As I listened, I wondered how many of those who heard him that day, and/or bought his book, could see his double standards and the misleading nature of his comments. I also thought of the many Christians that I’ve met over the years who have found his books and arguments compelling, seemingly oblivious to Dawkins’ own heavily anti-Christian motives.
Near the start of the interview, he stated: “Nature is cruel; not only is nature cruel, but it follows from Darwin’s theory of natural selection that nature is bound to be cruel, because even very beautiful things like a leopard, a lion, a cheetah or the antelopes that they hunt, they’re beautiful and beautifully designed to run fast because countless millions of cheetahs and antelopes have killed and died over many generations to make them so.” Of course, anyone who cares to examine the present-day natural world would have to agree that nature is cruel, but Dawkins is looking at a fallen, sin-cursed world. This is not the perfect creation that God originally made and pronounced ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31)—a world in which the ugliness and cruelty of animal carnivory were unknown (Gen. 1:29,30). Dawkins—like Thomas Henry Huxley at the time of Darwin—is keenly aware of this conflict between the horrible things in nature and the paradise-on-earth description of Genesis chapters 1 and 2, which is precisely why he delights in highlighting it.
Yet, only minutes later, he described things quite differently, when he admitted: “Well, I suppose, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is for me the most beautiful [thing in science]—but that’s probably my bias because I am a biologist—but it is astoundingly elegant, when you think about it, that such an amazingly simple theory—it really is exceedingly simple—suffices to produce all the range of life, from bacteria to redwood trees to elephants to humans. And they are astoundingly complicated, stunningly beautiful, and yet it’s all come about by the slow, grinding out of the laws of nature (emphasis added).” So when it suits him, he describes the ‘clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature’ as ‘elegant’ and ‘beautiful’! When asked why it was so important for him to be convincing people about his evolutionary ‘science’ as ‘the only truth’, Dawkins replied, “Because it’s so beautiful—it’s such a magnificent thing to live in the universe and to understand the universe in which you live, to be a part of life and to understand the life of which you are a part, to understand why you were born before you have to die … And it’s so sad that people go to their grave without understanding why they were born in the first place.”
How many listeners discerned that this famous scientist was now preaching his own brand of unadulterated humanism and not arguing from science at all? For many like Dawkins, belief in evolution is foundational to their rejection of what God’s Word has to say about why ‘they were born in the first place.’ Instead, they preach the audacious idea that believing that the cruelties and vagaries of Darwinian natural selection have created all life will help you somehow ‘understand why you were born before you have to die’!
How could this anti-God religion of death possibly be reconciled, as some try to do, with the biblical teaching of God as the Author of life? Death—and the associated bloodshed, extinctions, mutations, diseases and suffering—is an unwelcome intruder into a creation that now ‘groans’ (Rom. 8:22) under the weight of the consequences of the sinful rebellion of humankind. This will continue until the time when the Curse is removed (Rev. 22:3) and death (which is called ‘the last enemy’ in 1 Cor. 15:26), mourning, crying and pain will cease in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21:1,4).
At one stage, Dawkins’ interviewer commented: “There’s a central theme [in your writings]—You’re fighting for truth and you’re fighting against misconceptions.” However, the ‘truth’ that Dawkins fights for is a materialistic, religious belief that rejects out of hand any notions of the supernatural—matter and energy is all there is. It also emphatically denies the Truth of God in Scripture, shoehorning its adherents into searching for some kind of meaning and purpose in the blind, wasteful, cruel forces of nature.
This logically leads to nihilism so it’s a grievous thing indeed that so many young students read Dawkins’ books as though they are the words of a twenty-first century sage. No surprise then, that suicide among people of this age-group is the leading cause of death in some western countries. If you’re just rearranged pond scum and the going gets tough, ending your life perhaps seems a rational decision to take, as a young man called Gerard reasoned on Australian radio: ‘ … I think that some people may have an inability to cope, and maybe this might sound a bit extreme, but that might be Darwinian theory, the Darwin theory of survival of the fittest. Maybe some of us aren’t meant to survive, maybe some of us are meant to kill ourselves … There’s too many people in the world as it is. Maybe it is survival of the fittest, maybe some of us are meant to just give up, and maybe that would help the species.’3
For Dawkins, the alternative (acceptance of God and His revelation in the Bible) is anathema. He told the interviewer: “[Religion] is giving not only a false explanation, but a very boring explanation compared to the truth. The truth is so exciting, it’s so riveting, it’s so much grander than anything that any religion has ever contemplated that it is simply tragic that people are still misled in ways that their ancestors were in mediaeval times.” As we constantly teach in Creation Ministries International, the worldview you choose not only affects your understanding of science, it has enormous consequences for how you view yourself and your fellow human beings.
Ultimately, to choose the worldview that Richard Dawkins espouses is a slippery slide into hopeless unbelief.4 Removing discussions of God and Christianity from science classrooms and university lecture theatres does not remove religion. Rather, the fruit of Dawkins’ own pen and lips reveal that he is a veritable apostle of secular humanism, who desires to replace Christianity with his own creed, a religion that claims to answer questions of life’s meaning and morality. I close with my own version of the Apostle’s Creed5 that, I believe, fairly sums up this deeply religious man’s convictions about Darwinian natural selection and his undisguised antipathy for the Christian church:
I believe in naturalism, Science Almighty,
the creator of heaven and earth,
and in Darwinism, its offspring, our Master:
Which was conceived of ‘enlightened’ men,
born of a rejection of Scripture,
flourished under Charles Darwin,
suffered, but was rescued by the ‘new synthesis’.6
It ascended to acceptance in the church.
The next century, the church spiraled further into compromise.
She descended into humanism
and sits at the right hand of naturalism, Science Almighty,
from which she is powerless to judge the living or the dead.
I believe in ‘enlightened’ men, the evolutionary establishment,
the fellowship of evolutionists,
the nonexistence of sins,
the annihilation of the body,
and death everlasting.
My prayer is that many Christians who have compromised God’s truth with the opinions of fallible, sinful human beings, will instead stand firm on the authority of the Word of God. The words of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 17:5,7) are particularly appropriate here: ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart departs from the Lord … Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord.’
References and notes
- Letter to the botanist and friend of Charles Darwin, Joseph D. Hooker, 13 July 1856. Return to text.
- Noorderlicht Radio, 18 May 2004, noorderlicht.vpro.nl. Return to text.
- Black Dog Days—The experience and treatment of depression, Life Matters with Norman Swan, ABC (Australia) radio, 4 May 2000. Return to text.
- This happened to evangelist-turned-apostate, Charles Templeton; see The slippery slide to unbelief, Creation 22(3):8–13, 2000; creation.com/slide. Return to text.
- The Apostles Creed consists of the basic beliefs of reformed churches and was composed a half century or so after the last writings of the New Testament. Return to text.
- The rediscovery of Mendelian genetics was problematic for Darwinism until several biologists salvaged it by hypothesizing that rare, beneficial mutations could be the raw material for natural selection to work with; their idea was called the synthetic theory. Return to text.
I wonder, is Professor Dawkins aware of your awesome ministry and do any of our experts have personal contact with him? Would he understand the "millstone syndrome" that awaits those who lead little ones (including all adult believers) astray? Could he be asked why he should waste his life denigrating One he says does not exist? We pray for him every day. He has the potential to become a modern day Apostle Paul but to the evolutionists.
The article states:
“When asked why it was so important for him to be convincing people about his evolutionary ‘science’ as ‘the only truth’, Dawkins replied, 'Because it’s so beautiful—it’s such a magnificent thing to live in the universe and to understand the universe in which you live, to be a part of life and to understand the life of which you are a part, to understand why you were born before you have to die … And it’s so sad that people go to their grave without understanding why they were born in the first place.'”
Now, this is a very curious thing for the author of The Blind Watchmaker to say. According to Dawkins, living things evolved entirely by chance; without any purpose or design. Yet now he seems to be saying that there is a beautiful purpose served by our living and dying. I would like to ask, “What purpose would that be, Richard? And whose purpose was it? If there is a “why”, then there must be someone who intended something. Yet you have fiercely denied that there could be a design or a designer in this wasteful, cruel, indifferent universe! Which is it, Richard? You can't have it both ways.”
But Richard continually lapses into the use of biblical concepts. One example occurs in the very same quotation, where he commiserates with those pitiful creatures who die without a belief in evolution: “...it’s so sad that people go to their grave without understanding why they were born in the first place.”
Aside from the strange idea that one's life is somehow enriched by believing that we come from nothing, live for no purpose, and must die with nothing to show for it all; what is he doing caring about such things at all? What difference does it make to him or anyone else if people suffer? On his terms, nothing in life has any meaning or value.
Well what do you know, I just happened to come across an interesting book-chapter from Fernando Mires, he is a writer about sociological and cultural issues on my country, and in his chapter: La Revolución Paradigmática (Paradigmic Revolution), guess what he identifies as the dogmatic paradigm of our day? That's right, aside from postmodernism, he observes that there is a Secondary Secularization in our times, where science becomes the new secular religion, science is the new dogma of the day, questioning it, you are anathema. It is also interesting to note, according to the author, that there were specific tenets of Modernism that really are no different from what he would identify the Judeo-Christian religion has: determinism (our actions determine our destiny), naturalism [the author seems to contextualize it as affirming that things have a natural created order that must be followed (for the economist, communism is natural; for the biologist, homosexuality is against the natural sexual order), essentialism (finding the truth by division), rationalism (that which is not within the scope of rational or reasonable thought [emotions, sexuality]), dichotomy, transcendency, universal order and objective-subjective tenet. These 8 characteristics is what Mires identified in Modernism that he understands the JC worldview was no different in attribute, and our postmodern age is beginning to do away with those. The point is, that with all the dogmatism the atheists are spousing on science, they keep forgetting that key tenets science relies on are key tenets the JC worldview teaches, and hearing Richard Dawkins espouse his scientificist dogmatism really gets you thinking if he and et al are any different than the religious he shows vitrol over *their* 'dogmatism'. Hmmmmm.
I was sitting here thinking of all the obvious arguments I could use to rebut Richard Dawkins but it seems pointless in the modern age of science and genetics because of what has been discovered. One has to be willingly ignorant not to see a creator in the creation, (Romans 1:20-23). As I believe you, Philip, explained; it really is not about the observations or science but a prior commitment to the materialist point of view or religion.
Satan is doing a pretty good job of deceiving the world and I pray that we Christians remain strong in his word and truth.
All I can do is pray that God gives Richard Dawkins and his followers spiritual smelling salts.
"And it’s so sad that people go to their grave without understanding why they were born in the first place.”
The unintended irony of that Dawkins statement beggars belief. Furthermore can an accidental collection of atoms and molecules even ask that question?
As has been said elsewhere, the creed of Dawkins and his ilk can be summed up as crass idiocy dressed up as self-proclaimed intellectual superiority.
So true, I especially like your inspired evolutionist/humanist 'creed'
Rom 1:23. and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human beings and birds and animals and reptiles.
Dawkins continues to bring his religion/belief to the data, misleading so many.
Humanism & the idea that humanity is basically good has to deny many facts regarding human behaviour.
Another irony is that Dawkins has to lean on Christian culture & declared it to be so, to get through the night of sin, his science cannot save him. Only Jesus has that power & beauty.
Many atheists just dont get the fall in Gen 3 or they choose to ignore it to skew an argument.We are mocked for following Jesus & data that supports a young earth yet Dawkins is in adoration of Darwin who got caught up in his grandfathers ideas anyway.
Mirror mirror on the wall, Dawkins ideas are poison for science & society.
Unfortunately Dawkins seems to have , not a love for the truth, but a love for the lie. The Bible tells us God will send a delusion on those who hate the truth and they will believe a lie.He really can not call anything either beautiful or otherwise as the only absolute by his standards is his rejection at this stage of God's Word- the only absolute of humanism and its attendant atheism and materialism is God. He is the One they do not tolerate.Many have been running from God ever since Adam's rebellion, but as the saying goes- you can run but you can't hide.Everyone will meet God face to face one day.
Isn't it better to meet Him as our loving Heavenly Father Who sent His Son Jesus to take our sins to the cross and forgive us? The alternative is to meet Jesus as the Judge. If we believe Jesus we will be welcomed into eternity with Him. Rather that than eternal separation.
We can only leave it to the Holy Spirit to get His Foot into the doors to the hearts of people like Dawkins while they still have time and grace.