Do all human hearts have a divine shape hole?
The metaphor is the sense of longing that humans feel outside the garden of Eden, where humans lived freely with God, and in contrast to what God created, God alone fills this hole. It claims that it can be done.
Enter the most well-known atheist Richard Dawkins recently I felt I needed to declare A divine shaped hole that becomes mythical.
Dawkins's claims aren't surprising. After all, he is one of the most prominent figures of the new atheist movement and never hides his disdain for religion. But it's amazing why Dawkins decided to reaffirm his rejection of Christianity and God-shaped holes.
Dawkins's position
December, Dawkins Resignation From its blog from the Religious Foundation's Freedom Committee, which protests the decision to remove the FFRF's essay entitled “Biology is Not Prejudice.” In that essay, another member of the new atheistic movement, biologist Jerry Coyne, denounced another blog essay. It promoted and advocated transideology The “woman is the one who says she is her.”
His resignation letter, Dawkins defendant FFRF “slops” into the “hysterical cry” on the far left, referring to a backlash from the LGBTQ community.
It is not surprising that Dawkins opposes the promotion of transideology. Despite his commitment to atheism, Duckwins confirms the truth about his biological sex.
There's a lot of sarcasm
Dawkins' resignation from the FFRF triggered a response that underlined the irony of his assumed principled position on trans ideology.
Irony 1: Debbie Hayton, a biological man who identifies as transgender; I insisted that Dawkins's godless worldview builds a foothold where transideology appears to be plausible.
Hayton observed:
[M]An important lesson from this unfortunate blunder is that it is not so easy to eliminate the need for religion from humans than atheists would like to think. If we have a divine shape hole, and without an established religion, something else could be replaced.
In other words, atheism creates a vacuum for morality, ethics, and all of the biggest questions of life – it is And will Filled by “something else” such as transideology.
Later Dawkins I responded To Hayton's claim in an essay titled “The Myth of a Hole in the Shape of a God.”
“Christianity offers reasons to reject transnance. Therefore, Christianity offers only reason to reject transnance. He laughed.
Dawkins “loves it” and calls it “shaming,” implying that “humanity must turn to something equally irrational to ignorance, even if religion is taken away.”
Irony 2: However, as author Sarah Haider, she herself is an atheist; observation“Except in this case, that could have just happened!”
Her point? She also rejects divine shaped holes, but religion creates “floors” and generally does not become vulnerable to ideas like transideology and clearly violates common sense. It's clear. Meanwhile, atheism and the “reasons” that it is supposed to be constructed include inherent “vulnerabilities.”
Clearly, one such vulnerability is to provide Petri cuisine for trans ideology to flourish.
What Dawkins misses
It is ironic that trans-identifiers and atheists can recognize the pitfalls of Dawkins' worldview, but the real problem is that he appears to misunderstand Christian anthropology.
Christianity does not simply provide “reasons to reject transnance” based on biological sex. Rather, Christians reject transideology based on human teleology. Transideology not only rejects biological reality, but also rejects it from a Christian perspective. why and For what purpose God created man in the first place.
The Bible is clear: God created man and our bodies, For purposes – And that purpose, or telos, is the key to understanding what humans and our bodies are ultimately for.
This is where Dawkins's rejection of atheism and Christian purpose is at odds with his crusades against trans ideology.
Even theologian Carl Truman I believe Dawkins' worldview lives in a world that has made biology a “problem and challenge to overcome,” so he forces a “dramatic reduction in the importance of biology,” and Dawkins, for example, recognizes chromosomes. It does not explain why. If such authority is not given to biological challenges such as cancer or disease, then “decisive authority.”
“Why shouldn't we treat the differences in biological composition and functional differences between men and women as another set of problems for technology to send to the dustbins of history?” asks Trueman. “Gender theory may seem far apart, but if the body does not give authority solely for efficient causality, evolutionary scientists will inevitably fulfil it. It's difficult to understand why we consider it a problem.”
The question is, for Dawkins: What is human? for? What are we the purpose?
Christianity provides answers. In God's image, God creates humanity as a man and a woman in God's image, and works with him to age and concretely build the creation of the steward. The Bible teaches that humans were created for the relationship between God and one another, and the purpose of humanity in creation is of eternal importance.
Reality is strike
Dawkins can laugh at the idea of a divinely shaped hole, but the cracks in his worldview tell the real story.
If humans do not have divine terrorism, why should biology (and evolutionary theory built on efficient causality) retain more authority than emotions and, for example, transideology? Dawkins' arguments about transideology, and his general worldview, are built on the sand, making him vulnerable to the shattering waves of the most fashionable philosophy at the moment.
Transideology flourished as Western culture rejected God's terrorism.
Rather than accepting God-given purposes, our culture believes that authentic purposes are found in self-realization. In this environment, self-identity – your “most authentic self” makes sense why it makes sense to invalidate biology.
However, Christianity offers consistent teleology. Christianity not only teaches us that humans were created with purpose, but we also tell us what their purpose is. Therefore, Christianity denies that humans are merely biological machines. We are not space accidents.
Ultimately, Dawkins's deity hole remains only deeper and empty than he found, but the hole is still filled.
