Which one are you and why hide yourself?
For all the other half-witted, condescending opinions of Richard Dawkins in this video I couldn’t care less, but the thing I was interested in was his ending statement. It is:
What’s going to happen when I die, if I met god in the unlikely event after I died, I think the first thing I would say is well, which one are you? Are you Zeus? Are you Thor? Are you Baal? Are you Mithras? Are you Yahweh? Which god are you? And why did you take such great pains to conceal yourself and to hide away from us?
He’s often lumped together with others as one of the New Atheists, but by stating, “…if I met god in the unlikely event…”, really makes him an agnostic. Agnostics like Dawkins can deny the knowledge of God’s existence, deny there is even a possibility to know whether or not He exists, whereas atheists deny God exists at all. What Dawkins and his ilk are really looking for is proof, empirical evidence. I would suggest that there is ample evidence in the world, the universe, in everything that exists, even apart from biblical evidence. Of course that’s not good enough, at least not for the Richard Dawkins’ of the world. It may be that they don’t see it or that they can’t. Or it could be that they do but disregard it. In any event, the interesting thing about knowledge is that, like beauty, it’s in the idiomatic eye of the beholder. Knowledge of electricity, for example, has been there for the knowing since the beginning of time, but mankind’s realization and understanding of it has only been comparatively recent. In similar fashion the evidence of God has always been there, whether or not humanity could realize, understand or appreciate it. It’s not God Who is dimwitted, His intellect is unsurpassed, by definition of His being. For all of mankind’s scientific, technological and medical advances there is much we yet don’t know, even for Richard Dawkins. So who is the deficient one here? If Dawkins doesn’t know God it’s not because there isn’t a veritable mountain of evidence in front of him, which there is, but because his intellectual attitude is one of refusal to be honest with himself and such evidence.
By definition, God is fully self-actualized, completely autonomous, supreme in wisdom and knowledge. He is the I AM, as He states to Moses in Exodus 3:14, even though Dawkins would probably be the first to dismiss the notion of the Bible as being in anyway authoritative. There is no lack in His potential, no deficiency in His character, no error in His judgment and no defect in His being. He is complete in Himself. He is God. For Dawkins to ask “Which one are you?” suggests God (Big “G”) could be of similar character or nature as the other gods (Little “g”) he mentions. Confusing the issue in this way belittles God, but then there is no fear, no reverent respect, but rather anger masquerading as presumption. The issue is not which one but whether or not. There is God or there isn’t. Indeed, his question is indicative of the kind of blind uncertainty of unbelievers when sorting out these issues. Atheists and agnostics like Dawkins ask the wrong questions because they’re unable to ‘see the forest for the trees’. Theirs is a view bogged down in the particulars, the details. Such is the reason for Dawkins mention of those gods. After death, assuming Dawkins has the gracious opportunity to be introduced facing God (Big “G”) and to ask a question at all, his question should probably be phrased, “Hello, I’m Richard Dawkins and I’ve been a jackass, would you be God?”
“Why did you take such great pains to conceal yourself and to hide away from us?”, he then asks. As if God hasn’t given us a clue to His existence, let alone conversed with some of the people of His creation. There again, we reach into Scripture which Dawkins would dismiss. Nevertheless, even if Dawkins were correct, it’s rather presumptuous to construe God’s actions as taking pains to conceal and hide. It is God’s own graciousness to allow us to know Him, just as it would be gracious for any one of us to be known of another. One could ask the same thing of today’s popular celebrities. Even though his existence is established, why does Justin Bieber take pains to conceal and hide away from the rest of us? (There may be those who would rather his existence weren’t so ‘established’, but for the sake of argument stay with me.) Why doesn’t Justin Bieber allow himself to be better known among the rest of us? Why doesn’t Justin Bieber come to us? (I know, I’m beginning to sound like a 16 year old drama queen, but I hope you get the point.) Considering this to be a God-hostile world, why would God be inclined to ingratiate Himself with an ungracious and disrespecting people anymore than one of us would be with similar condition? Again, Dawkins asks the wrong question, because it isn’t a question of God hiding or concealing Himself, the question is upon us as to whether or not we’ve been seeking and has He been found of anyone.
These presumptive types like Dawkins rely upon their high and lofty intellectual sophistication to actualize truth. But God isn’t moved by intellectualism. The Gospel is the power of God to move the commoner or the intellectual. To the initiate in Christ, His character and presence is unmistakeable and ubiquitous.