Atheist Attacks

Today I heard a Christian radio station say that a movie should not be watched by Christians because it was written by an atheist bent on attacking the church. I read the books that led to the movie, and I have to say that the author, Philip Pullman, was notably unsuccessful at presenting an atheist message. I'd like to talk about the God presented in his book, as well as the one presented in another popular teen novel that produced a movie, Eragon, but first an introduction is necessary.

In Unspoken Sermons: Series I, II, III (Johannesen, 2004) George MacDonald mentions an attack on Christianity by a person who claimed it was impossible to know anything about God. The man wrote:

The visiting on Adam’s descendants through hundreds of generations dreadful penalties for a small transgression which they did not commit; the damning of all men who do not avail themselves of an alleged mode of obtaining forgiveness, which most men have never heard of...are modes of action which, ascribed to a human ruler, would call forth expressions of abhorrence; and the ascription of them to the Ultimate Cause of all things...must become impossible (p. 385).

This agnostic is horrified that God would be accused of "visiting dreadful penalties" on Adam's descendants for his "small transgression." He thinks it abhorrent that men would be condemned for not obtaining forgiveness in a way that most of them have never heard of.

George MacDonald is a famous Christian author. He was a licensed minister. C.S. Lewis, the great apologist and author of Mere Christianity, credits him with being his mentor. How will George answer these awful accusations?

He wrote, "I entirely agree...almost it feels an absurdity to say so." Then he adds, "I never yet heard a word from one of their way of thinking, which even touched anything I hold" (ibid., p. 385).

When I heard the comment about "The Golden Compass" on the radio today, I could identify with George MacDonald. I read the trilogy that begins with The Golden Compass. It is most definitely an attack on a church and an attack on a god. Which church, I suppose I could guess, and which god, I know for certain. However, I must say with George MacDonald, "There's not a word in her way of thinking when even touches anything I hold."

I do not recommend the trilogy. The first two books are relatively clean, but the third is slimy, and the conclusion extremely unsatisfying, perhaps even stupid. That was disappointing, because the second book especially was a delight to read. However, the books are far from being atheistic.

Eragon is similar. It was written by an atheist home-schooled teenager, Christopher Paolini. It's sequel, whose name I've forgotten, contains a two or three page argument in defense of atheism given by one of the elves, a race respected for their wisdom in the book. However, the elf's words are strangely hollow, because the whole book proclaims an all-powerful, all-wise, and benevolent God on every page.

So does The Golden Compass trilogy. It is almost a requirement of modern fantasy that there be some purpose, some destiny, behind everything that happens in the novel. Things happen by chance, but the books make it clear that these things are not really chance. They are meant to be. There is a "destiny" in all modern fantasy novels, and The Golden Compass and Eragon are no exceptions.

So let Philip Pullman take potshots at the little god that must be defended by his narrow-minded followers. It is we religious people, with our vain attempts to defend, not God, but our own inbred superstitions, that deserve the attacks such movies throw upon us. Let us learn to be like George MacDonald. Such attacks should never touch anything that we hold. The church of The Golden Compass trilogy is one we should all despise. We, too, should be able to say, "I entirely agree. In fact, it seems absurd to have to say so."

My God will be found, not between the lines of those books, but above them. He controls all things, including destiny. Those things that seem to happen by chance, but which are not really chance--those things are the product of my God's attention and care.

Richard Dawkins is one of the most famous and aggressive atheists in the world. Yet in a debate with the great thinker Francis Collins, a Christian and the head of the Human Genome Project, he was forced to admit the possibility of the existence of God. To gain such an admission from a man like Dawkins is a rousing victory in the intellectual defense of theism. But the much greater victory, if we will but take it up, is the common atheist explanation for Dawkins' embarrassing admission.

Atheists were quick to qualify Dawkins' admission. "Dawkins...does not rule out science's discovering something that might be called God. But it is extremely unlikely that this being will be the God of the Jewish or Christian Scriptures."

Is it? Is it so unlikely? The God of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures exactly fits the description Dawkins gave of what God would be like if he were found. Dawkins said, "There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding." Collins replied, "That's God."

Dawkins argues, vainly, that this God could be any god, and the chance that he's Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is "vanishingly small." Why is this? If you were to ask Dawkins that question, I can, having read several of his books, give you his reply. He will list all sorts of stories, teachings, and ideas he doesn't agree with that some Christians somewhere believe or have interpreted from the Bible. All of that is meaningless. God is who God is, and there is nothing in the idea that God is "incredibly grand, incomprehensible, and beyond our present understanding," that makes it impossible for God to be Yahweh, the God of Jesus. In fact, that completely agrees with Jesus's description of God, because he said, "No man has ever seen God at any time." He made it clear than no one could ever comprehend or understand God without the Son revealing him. The God of Jesus is indeed "incredibly grand, incomprehensible, and beyond our present understanding."

What Dawkins misses, or dismisses, is the tremendous every day evidence that God--the only God there is--does indeed exist and invades the world of men. The very fact that the name Jesus is on the lips of billions of people around the world--despite the fact that by secular standards he was nothing but a crucified criminal and a leader of a tiny, insignificant cult of Judaism--stands as proof that he possesses the power of the "incredibly grand and incomprehensible" God.

Dawkins would argue that the atrocities committed in the name of Christ throughout history stand as proof that he is not who he said he was. Au contraire! That Jesus' name has survived the horrors perpetrated in his name by ill-meaning men stands as proof that he is who he said he was. Why do people continue to name the name of Christ despite these crimes against mankind? Why do people continue to name the name of Christ despite the boring, lifeless churches that are the majority of Christendom?

Why? Because to this day, the name of Jesus brings intervention from the "incredibly grand and incomprehensible" God into the lives of men. Acknowledging Jesus transformed my whole world 25 years ago. Perhaps that was a mental delusion. If so, it is a mental delusion shared by enough people to have kept the name of Jesus alive for two millennia no matter what adversity thrown against it.

The problem, Mr. Dawkins, with your argument is that the name of Jesus continues to be the source of a real and powerful salvation, and as long as this is so, the chance that the "incredibly grand and incomprehensible" God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not vanishingly small, but undeniably large.

One last thought to tie this all together. Sorry, I know this isn't a poetic conclusion. The Golden Compass and Eragon's sequel do not attack God. They attack the sons of the devil who have dragged Jesus' name through the mud for centuries. Don't miss the "incredibly grand and incomprehensible" God that they acknowledge, seemingly by oversight or chance, but really not by chance at all.