Richard Dawkins on…Judaism?
“Originally a tribal cult of a single fiercely unpleasant God, morbidly obsessed with sexual restrictions, with the smell of charred flesh, with his own superiority over rival gods and with the exclusiveness of his chosen desert tribe.” (58)
Richard Dawkins on…Christianity?
“Was founded by Paul of Tarsus as a less ruthlessly monotheistic sect of Judaism and a less exclusive one, which looked outwards from the Jews to the rest of the world.” (58)
Such is Richard Dawkins’ take on Judaism and Christianity. While we can say that he is in the ball park in his descriptions of these religions, Dawkins is still nevertheless far out in left field. Let’s look at his quote about the Old Testament. His comments on how the God of the Old Testament is “fiercely unpleasant” and “morbidly obsessed with sexual restrictions,” reveals more his own refusal to actually learn about the ancient world of Israel than any actual substantial and legitimate criticism.
Does the of the Old Testament God Get Uptight Over Sex?
Take for example the Old Testament laws regarding sexual acts. They need to be seen in the larger context of the ancient Near East, where sexual perversions were as numerous. Furthermore, such perversions were considered to be part of the “worship” of pagan deities. The Old Testament laws were detailing the ways that the Israelites were not to commit idolatrous practices. If one takes the time to look at these laws, one will find prohibitions on things like incest and bestiality. Does Dawkins find these prohibitions to be a bad thing? I doubt it.
I must assume that the real focus of his criticism are the specific laws prohibiting same sex sex-acts. I must assume that Dawkins reads into such laws our modern concept of “homosexuality” and “sexual identity,” and makes the rather erroneous conclusion that YHWH is “homophobic.” Now, the topic of homosexuality is an extremely controversial topic that I will not discuss at this point. But what I will say is that Dawkins (and everyone, for that matter), has to read and understand such laws in their context. The term “homosexual” is a modern term that only came into being over the last 150 years. In the ancient world, no one was “defined according to their sexuality.” What these laws were addressing were specific acts, and these acts were mostly done in the context of pagan idol worship.
One still might object to such laws in the Old Testament, but one simply cannot do what Dawkins does: issue blanket condemnations that are based on ill-informed assumptions of the context in which one finds such laws. Critique them if you want, but at least make sure your critiques are well thought out and informed. Dawkins simply shows no evidence of this.
Does the God of the Old Testament Hate Animals?
What about Dawkins’ charge that YHWH is obsessed with the “charred flesh” of animals? What kind of God demands animal sacrifice? Well, once again Dawkins shows no evidence of understanding the very ancient world that he is criticizing. Apparently he is unaware that the priests were the butchers of the ancient world. This is true not only of ancient Israel, but of all ancient societies. As strange as it may sound, imagine that instead of going to your local butcher to get your meat, you went to your local pastor or priest, because he was also the butcher, and his butcher shop was part of your church.
In the ancient Israel, the priests were the society’s butchers. Once they butchered an animal, they took a portion to offer to YHWH. This portion was actually eaten by the priests, who ate it as representatives of YHWH. Practically speaking, this was their “payment” for their jobs. They literally worked for food. Another portion of the sacrifice was then given back to the person, who then ate the meat in the Temple, symbolically “having dinner” with YHWH, and celebrating the covenant relationship Israel had with YHWH. The rest of the sacrifice was then taken to market to be sold.
Practically speaking, things weren’t a whole lot different than today, with one major exception. Unlike in our highly industrialized and secular world, the sacrificial practices in ancient Israel actually showed a reverence and respect for both the created world and the God who created it. What the Old Testament shows is a more sacramental view of creation than the view of our modern world, where we slaughter animals en masse with no consideration at all regarding the sacredness of all life. Case in point, you might have heard it said, “If you ever visit a slaughterhouse, you’ll never eat hamburgers again.” Why? Because the industrialized way animals are butchered in our modern society tends to shock our innate sensibilities that see a “sacramentalness” to the created order, even though we might not acknowledge it.
Therefore, it seems that Dawkins’ outrage is misplaced. If he really had a problem with “charred flesh,” he should object to any local MacDonald’s or Burger King…or any frying pan or oven in any home that dares to offer up edible meat.
Did Jesus Even Really Exist?
Another thing Dawkins repeatedly has claimed is that it was the “renegade Jew,” the apostle Paul, who “invented” Christianity. In fact, Dawkins even doubts that a real historical Jesus even existed in the first place. Although such a view might be considered chic in “New Atheist Movement” circles, it is seen to be just as rootless and baseless as Ken Ham’s claim that Noah had access to advanced technology.
I know that some people think drawing comparisons between Richard Dawkins and Ken Ham are unwarranted and ridiculous—after all, Richard Dawkins is an Oxford professor, and Ken Ham is, well, Ken Ham. Yet, I have to stand by my comparison. As we go further through The God Delusion, I hope such a comparison will become more convincing. On this particular point, though, let me just tease out the comparison.
On his website, Dawkins has said, “The more I look at the evidence, the more dubious I become about the evidence for a historical Jesus-person. Yes, one may have existed, but where is the evidence?” He has said, among other things, that a main problem is a lack of early sources: the earliest ones being written decades after the alleged events, and “reference the clearly fictional Christ of faith.”
Please notice the vicious circle of “un-reasoning” that’s going on here. First, the historical evidence that we do have are, in fact, both the gospels (written within 40-60 years after the life of Christ) and various passages in Paul’s letters (written within 30 years after the life of Christ). Now, from a historian’s perspective, if you have sources that date within a generation of the events in question, that is considered to be extremely reliable and convincing evidence. Not only that, but we have 5,600 copies of these manuscripts, dating back to within a generation of the life of Christ, that hold 99.5% agreement with each other.
By contrast, we have 10 copies—TEN—of the life of Caesar, and the earliest one dates 1,000 years after the actual life of Caesar. No historian doubts the historical reliability of these manuscripts that tell us about Caesar. So, logically, if historians deem 10 manuscripts that date 1,000 years after the events of Caesar to be historically reliable, what do you think their opinion of 5,600 manuscripts that date back to 40 years after the events of Jesus is going to be? That’s right—pretty historically reliable. Despite what Dawkins would have you believe, historians and scholars do not doubt that there really was a historical person Jesus of Nazareth. The evidence is overwhelming.
So how can Dawkins claim there’s no evidence for a historical Jesus? Easy. First, he puts forth the lie that having sources that date within decades of the events in question is somehow considered “late”—no it’s not. That’s what historians call “really, really, early.” Second, he simply discards the manuscript evidence on his opinion that they clearly put forth a “fictional Christ of faith.” But how does he know this? His answer will no doubt be, “Because he does miraculous things.” But then if you reply, “How do you know he didn’t do miraculous things? We have 5,600 manuscripts that date within a generation that says he did,” Dawkins will no doubt reply, “Oh you can’t trust those—they’re late, and they present a fictional character.” “Why do you think they’re presenting a fictional character?” “Because he does miracles…”
Who’s on first? What’s on second? I don’t know is on third.
It should be blatantly obvious: there really is evidence, but Dawkins discounts it based on his presupposition that miracles don’t happen. He’s not letting the historical evidence lead him to consider the possibility that Jesus really did do miracles; he’s discounting the historical evidence because he thinks he “already knows” the truth. Such thinking is not rational, or logical.
And such thinking can be seen in Ken Ham. Ken Ham denies the provable scientific fact that the universe is 14 billion years old; he denies the Big Bang theory; he denies evidence for evolution. Why? Because he “already knows” that Genesis 1-11 is God’s “history book of the universe.” But scholars will tell you that Genesis 1-11 isn’t trying to do history—Ham rejects that too. Why? Because he “already knows” the truth.
Conclusion
I have come to realize that when it comes to the likes of both Richard Dawkins and Ken Ham, the same dynamic often plays out. In both cases, each man’s followers are so beholden to their ideological presuppositions, that they allow themselves to be blinded to the evidence. They are so intent on “supporting their guy,” that they end up swallowing the most outrageous claims “their guy” makes. Each side sees the ridiculous claims of the other side for what they are, but they are completely blinded to the fact that they are doing the exact same thing.
If you don’t believe me, go on the internet, strike up a conversation a Ken Ham acolyte, and then with a Richard Dawkins acolyte. You’ll be astonished.
