Richard Dawkins and “The God Delusion”: Part 4–Charities and the Trinity

Before we leave Dawkins chapter, “The God Hypothesis,” I feel the need to point out a number of other rather inflammatory and questionable comments Dawkins makes as he, in fact, goes out of his way to attack religion.

No Tax Breaks for Religious Charities!
In this first instance, he goes out of his way to attack monotheistic religion. Apparently, Mr. Dawkins has a big problem with Christian charitable organizations being granted tax-exempt status. He writes:

“Monotheistic chauvinism was until recently written into the charity law of both England and Scotland, discriminating against polytheistic religions in granting tax-exempt status, while allowing any easy ride to charities whose object was to promote monotheistic religion, sparing them the rigorous vetting properly required of secular charities.” (53)

Think about that for a moment. Let me get right to the point: do you know of any “polytheistic religious charities”? To what charities is Richard Dawkins referring? The Little Sisters of Mt. Olympus? The Delphic Shriners? Let’s face it, outside of Hinduism (which is actually pantheistic), what other “polytheistic” religions—other than ones that have been dead for over 1,500 years—are there?

It seems to me that Dawkins isn’t really on a crusade to give the polytheistic religions of England a fair hearing, as he is simply angry that Christian charitable organizations get tax-exempt status, period. And if that’s the case, then it is obvious that Dawkins doesn’t want the government to make it easier for organizations dedicated to helping the poor. He’s free to have that point of view, but I think it shows him to be quite uncaring, to say the least.

Dawkins on…the Trinity
In a chapter entitled, “The God Hypothesis,” is should not be surprising to find that Dawkins comments on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. And, not surprisingly, he holds nothing but ridicule and derision for this traditional Christian doctrine.

Before we look at his comments, though, let’s get one thing out in the open: the concept of the Trinity is something no one can fully comprehend. If anyone tells you he fully understands the Trinity, that person is lying. No one fully understands the Trinity. C.S. Lewis perhaps gives the best discussion of the Trinity in his book, Mere Christianity. Simply put, to ask a human being to understand the Trinity is like asking a two dimensional character to understand a three-dimensional world. One might draw a cube on a chalkboard, so that one can get a sense of three dimensions, but the fact remains—a cube drawn on a chalkboard is still two dimensions, and only gives a sense of the three-dimensional reality.

In any case, Dawkins first quotes Thomas Jefferson, “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus” (55)—then piggy-backs on Jefferson and adds, “Perhaps it is the very fact that there is no evidence to support theological opinions, either way, that fosters the characteristic draconian hostility towards those of slightly different opinion, especially, as it happens, in this very field of Trinitarianism” (55).

To get to the point: the fundamental problem with both Jefferson’s and Dawkins’ take on the doctrine of the Trinity is that they are critiquing what is essentially philosophical speculation according to the rules of the physical sciences. Now, when I say “philosophical speculation,” I am not belittling the doctrine of the Trinity. I’m simply pointing to the fact that it was the result of the early Church Fathers trying to take distinctly certain concepts found in the New Testament that were rooted in a distinctly Jewish worldview, and then “translate” them into Greek philosophical categories, with little or no regard to the Jewish contextual worldview. The doctrine of the Trinity is obviously somewhat of a philosophical abstraction, and I am sure the early Church Fathers knew this.

For them, God was ultimately incomprehensible—the doctrine of the Trinity was not seen as an all-perfect definition of God (as if God has nothing better to do that be defined!) that clearly explains the entirety of God. It was the Church’s best attempt to explain in Greek philosophical terms what they found the earliest Christians saying in the New Testament:

1. Jesus tells his followers to pray to “the Father”
2. Jesus calls himself “the Son” and claiming equality with “the Father”
3. Jesus tells his followers that he will send “the Holy Spirit” who would guide them in all truth.
4. In his letters, Paul greets his churches with a type of greeting that mentions the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Throughout the entire New Testament we find a clear witness by the earliest Christians regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They don’t attempt to codify or define the relationship between the three, but that wasn’t what they were concerned about. They were simply acknowledging the reality of something they experienced in the ministry of Jesus and in the life of the Church.

Now, the Trinity can be confusing, and seemingly foolish, if you approach it as if it were some sort of mathematical/scientific equation. This is precisely what Dawkins is doing. His conclusion is, “You can’t scientifically prove the Trinity, therefore it’s stupid,” not realizing that the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t a scientific proposition in the first place.

When you critique one thing using the standards of another, you are going to get the kind of criticism Dawkins routinely puts forth in his book. Let me provide an analogy:

What Dawkins is doing is the equivalent of someone going into an art museum, looking at Van Gogh’s Starry Night, and saying, “What is this? This is not a starry night! This is clearly just a canvas with paint on it, swirled about in a haphazard fashion that I do not think is artistic at all! Where is the clearly-defined equations that only science can give? This is just silly! I heard that this Van Gogh guy actually cut off his ear! What kind of idiot would think such a psycho could adequately paint a star-filled night on a piece of canvas? If this is ‘art,’ then it is best we get rid of it! It clearly is not the night sky—it is only paint on a canvas, splashed together by a one-eared Dutchman!”

Such is Dawkins’ criticism of the Trinity. To properly understand the doctrine of the Trinity, even if you end up rejecting it, entails that you first acquaint yourself with the historical and philosophical contexts in which the early Church Fathers were working, as well as the first century Jewish worldview that the New Testament writers had. If you’re unwilling to do that, chances are your criticisms of it will end up sounding very much like someone ranting against Van Gogh.