Michael Bresciani
Dawkins on Haiti - - Robertson true to Christian theology?
By Michael Bresciani
Bill O'Reilly was the first to bring up Pat Robertson's statement on the Haitian pact with the devil to rid them of French rule. Bill said he didn't agree with Pat but Dawkins says in an article posted online that at least Robertson is true to his own theology.
Dawkins starts his article by side stepping the usual requirements and protocol for standard article submission. His name appears before and after the title. He follows that with bold article sub headings and bold parenthetical statements made for effect, all that remains after that is the Dawkins style of solipsistic banality for which he is so noted. Most authors would have their articles rejected out of hand regardless of content if they broke this many rules.
Let me begin with my own take on Haiti by saying in no uncertain terms that regardless of what caused this disaster we must all do everything we can to help relieve the misery of these islanders for humanities sake. The stories out of Haiti are compelling and this kind of tragedy is calling for people with heart to respond regardless of their theology or the lack of it. I'm sure the last thing on the minds of those rescued, relieved or restored is the theology of those who gave them aid.
The article entitled "Richard Dawkins: Haiti and The Hypocrisy of a 'Bankrupt' Christian Theology" is followed by an emboldened header that says "We know what caused the catastrophe in Haiti. It was the bumping and grinding of the Caribbean Plate rubbing up against the North American Plate: a force of nature, sin-free and indifferent to sin, un-premeditated, unmotivated, supremely unconcerned with human affairs or human misery."
Just the words "We know what caused the catastrophe in Haiti" reek of prior philosophic postulation and are all too much like the description of the big bang alleged to have taken place some 400 million years ago which no mortal witnessed. The North American and Caribbean tectonic plates are estimated to be some 25 kilometers (15.5 miles) deep but that depth does not keep Dawkins from speaking with full pomposity about what took place on the fateful day the quake of 7.0 magnitude began to rumble across the little Caribbean island.
To be truthful exactly what happened 15 miles beneath the earth on that day is as speculative as deciding that God doesn't like the pact the Haitians are reported to have made with the devil. Science has no leg on either assertion and should stay out of it entirely. But to be fair if the prophetic record is called into play then the theology of God's judgments by means of natural disasters or catastrophes is on much firmer ground.
Dawkins claims the shifting plates were an indifferent "force of nature." How does an atheist assign the word "force" to nature, randomness, or disorder and argue that an intelligent God would not use force for any purpose at all. It seems they are satisfied to say that nature which has no intelligence can use force but God who is supremely intelligent is impotent. To borrow a phrase from the Apostle Paul it would seem that Mr. Dawkins and his fellows are simply "beating the air." (1Cor 9:26)
All of this naturally leads to the question of whether Pat Robertson was correct. Unless Pat or some other person with a certified prophetic ministry and calling was forewarned that this was God's intention then the question is forever moot. We cannot know. All we can know for sure is that God retains supreme authority over the affairs of men and he will not yield one iota of that power to an entire civilization, a single nation or an individual even if it is one of the world's most notable atheists.
On a personal level I wonder what Dawkins or anyone else for that matter will say when every major city in the world is toppled by a worldwide earthquake at the close of the rule of the antichrist.
"And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath." (Rev 16:18-19)
Suffice it to say that the Bible's prophetic record is bolstered by its historical record. If God said a nation would rise, it did. If he said a nation would fall, it did. If he said Jewry would be dispersed throughout the world, they were. If he said they would be gathered back into Israel just before the last days, they have been since the British Mandate of 1948. If he says the antichrist will rule for seven years over a new revived European empire then look around because it is at the doors.
It takes a great deal more faith for most people to believe in a 400 million year old speculation, un-witnessed by anyone than the straight up prophetic/historical record of the bible.
© Michael Bresciani
January 28, 2010
Bill O'Reilly was the first to bring up Pat Robertson's statement on the Haitian pact with the devil to rid them of French rule. Bill said he didn't agree with Pat but Dawkins says in an article posted online that at least Robertson is true to his own theology.
Dawkins starts his article by side stepping the usual requirements and protocol for standard article submission. His name appears before and after the title. He follows that with bold article sub headings and bold parenthetical statements made for effect, all that remains after that is the Dawkins style of solipsistic banality for which he is so noted. Most authors would have their articles rejected out of hand regardless of content if they broke this many rules.
Let me begin with my own take on Haiti by saying in no uncertain terms that regardless of what caused this disaster we must all do everything we can to help relieve the misery of these islanders for humanities sake. The stories out of Haiti are compelling and this kind of tragedy is calling for people with heart to respond regardless of their theology or the lack of it. I'm sure the last thing on the minds of those rescued, relieved or restored is the theology of those who gave them aid.
The article entitled "Richard Dawkins: Haiti and The Hypocrisy of a 'Bankrupt' Christian Theology" is followed by an emboldened header that says "We know what caused the catastrophe in Haiti. It was the bumping and grinding of the Caribbean Plate rubbing up against the North American Plate: a force of nature, sin-free and indifferent to sin, un-premeditated, unmotivated, supremely unconcerned with human affairs or human misery."
Just the words "We know what caused the catastrophe in Haiti" reek of prior philosophic postulation and are all too much like the description of the big bang alleged to have taken place some 400 million years ago which no mortal witnessed. The North American and Caribbean tectonic plates are estimated to be some 25 kilometers (15.5 miles) deep but that depth does not keep Dawkins from speaking with full pomposity about what took place on the fateful day the quake of 7.0 magnitude began to rumble across the little Caribbean island.
To be truthful exactly what happened 15 miles beneath the earth on that day is as speculative as deciding that God doesn't like the pact the Haitians are reported to have made with the devil. Science has no leg on either assertion and should stay out of it entirely. But to be fair if the prophetic record is called into play then the theology of God's judgments by means of natural disasters or catastrophes is on much firmer ground.
Dawkins claims the shifting plates were an indifferent "force of nature." How does an atheist assign the word "force" to nature, randomness, or disorder and argue that an intelligent God would not use force for any purpose at all. It seems they are satisfied to say that nature which has no intelligence can use force but God who is supremely intelligent is impotent. To borrow a phrase from the Apostle Paul it would seem that Mr. Dawkins and his fellows are simply "beating the air." (1Cor 9:26)
All of this naturally leads to the question of whether Pat Robertson was correct. Unless Pat or some other person with a certified prophetic ministry and calling was forewarned that this was God's intention then the question is forever moot. We cannot know. All we can know for sure is that God retains supreme authority over the affairs of men and he will not yield one iota of that power to an entire civilization, a single nation or an individual even if it is one of the world's most notable atheists.
On a personal level I wonder what Dawkins or anyone else for that matter will say when every major city in the world is toppled by a worldwide earthquake at the close of the rule of the antichrist.
"And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath." (Rev 16:18-19)
Suffice it to say that the Bible's prophetic record is bolstered by its historical record. If God said a nation would rise, it did. If he said a nation would fall, it did. If he said Jewry would be dispersed throughout the world, they were. If he said they would be gathered back into Israel just before the last days, they have been since the British Mandate of 1948. If he says the antichrist will rule for seven years over a new revived European empire then look around because it is at the doors.
It takes a great deal more faith for most people to believe in a 400 million year old speculation, un-witnessed by anyone than the straight up prophetic/historical record of the bible.
© Michael Bresciani
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
