I may disagree with Richard Dawkins about any number of things, but his book review for God: The Failed Hypothesis(by Victor J. Stenger) is something to behold. I don’t know about you, but I certainly got a very stark and hilarious mental image upon reading it
“Darwin chased God out of his old haunts in biology, and he scurried for safety down the rabbit hole of physics. The laws and constants of the universe, we were told, are too good to be true: a setup, carefully tuned to allow the eventual evolution of life. It needed a good physicist to show us the fallacy, and Victor Stenger lucidly does so. The faithful won’t change their minds, of course (that is what faith means), but Victor Stenger drives a pack of energetic ferrets down the last major bolt hole and God is running out of refuges in which to hide. I learned an enormous amount from this splendid book.”
I’ll definitely have to give this book a look, especially since Lee Strobel’s wretched The Case for Creation is so chock full of physics/cosomology-worship that it either sends my head spinning or makes me lose interest. Admittedly I don’t care much for cosmology, quantum physics, etc., but that does not excuse me from learning something about it. I do have to agree with what Dawkins says in his review as well; it seems that since evolution has taken away the need for divine intervention in the origin of life, God has been relegated to the laws of physics and other such things. Even in Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God (a book that I enjoy, as a whole) I found it tenuous that God resides in physics but not biology. If theologians and theistic evolutionists are to make a case for God through science, they would do well to not keep putting him in the areas of our least understanding, almost hoping that because these “unanswerable” or unfathomable questions exist God will always have a refuge. Again, I found it strange that I agreed with Dawkins towards the close of his TIME magazine debate with Francis Collins, wherein he said “If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.” Now I realize that his meaning is that he doesn’t find it likely that Jesus or any Olympian manifestation belie the true identity of God (if any god exists to begin with), but I think Christians would do well to remember that the more we put God in a box by trying to determine his existence with absolute certainty, the more we set such beliefs up for failure and falsification, leading to even more conflict and turmoil. Everyone wants to have the answers, but in reality, if we are really being honest with ourselves, we have to say “I don’t know” when it is appropriate and be equally familiar with all sides of a question before we can even begin to approach reality. Otherwise, what are we doing but merely paying lip-service to what we would like to believe?