The God of the Atheist

Atheism is a religion of convenience. Rather than attempting to understand the truth of Christianity (or any other religion), the atheist’s recourse is to appear moral by having no morals at all. After all, how can someone be a hypocrite if they do not even hold themselves to a moral standard? As seen in the video, infamous atheist Richard Dawkins prides himself in his description of God, attempting to paint Christianity in the worst possible light. Today’s post is partially about refuting the description offered. At the same time, this post is intended to analyze the inherent uselessness of some of the words offered. You may be surprised at what we find.

I strongly believe that Christians should be reevaluating which words are in their vocabulary. Many words have only been recently invented and carry a specifically negative connotation. For example, “homophobia” was a word first used in 1972 by a porn magazine to encourage readers to break free from sexual stigmas.¹ The word “homophobia” was intended to negatively characterize it’s subject, so how should it apply to God? God does not have“phobias”, but he also cannot endorse homosexuality. What should Christians do with this word?

The goal of this post is not fully explain every word used, but rather to illustrate the uselessness of the exercise. Atheists constantly use recently invented words with negative connotations to describe God, and in a way, they are right. But in very real way, they are also very wrong.

Also note that this exercise is not a comprehensive word study. A linguist would likely go about this another way, but I do not have the luxury of academia for this post. If a layperson cannot understand these words that Dawkins used to describe God with the help of a dictionary, what good is the description? For that matter, what good is God?

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Richard dawkins, “the god delusion” – 2006

EXPLANATION

“Jealous and Proud of it” – TRUE

This accusation likely comes from Exodus 20:5: “You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,” Clearly, Christians should agree with Dawkins on this one. The God of the Bible is a jealous God.

“Petty” – FALSE

This is definitely a more subjective claim by the famous atheist. I cannot find a single reference in the Bible where God refers to himself in this way.

“Petty: Small; little; trifling; inconsiderable; as a petty trespass; a petty crime.”
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary²

Even in a literal sense, there is just no way God could be described as petty. 2 Samuel 7:22 says that our God is great, there is none like Him. There is no way to read the Bible and walk away thinking that He is a small or petty God. God is just not petty.

“Unjust” – FALSE

Unfortunately, Mr. Dawkins’ assumptions about justice are continually propagated in the culture today. The fact is, the God of the bible is a god of justice (Isaiah 30:18).

“Unjust: Not just; acting contrary to the standard of right established by the divine law; not equitable; as an unjust man.”
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary³

Contained within the definition itself is the idea that justice is based on the nature of God. To suggest that God is contrary to himself is honestly ludicrous. It seems as though this accusation of being unjust is likely rooted in a personal frustration. Some people view God’s love for Jacob and not for Esau as a form of injustice. Yet Romans 9:14 makes clear, there is no injustice with God. The answer to this descriptor is simple. God is not unjust.

“Unforgiving” – FALSE

This is one where Dawkins does not even receive partial credit. Isaiah 55:7 makes clear that God will “abundantly pardon” the repentant. Perhaps some people God to forgive the uncontrite, and consider God unforgiving when He calls for repentance. Regardless, to call God unforgiving in this scenario is ludicrous. God is not unforgiving.

“Control-Freak” – TRUE

This is another situation where you may disagree with my assessment, but I think the definition should clarify this label.

“Control Freak: a person whose behavior indicates a powerful need to control people or circumstances in everyday matters.”
Merriam-Webster Dictionary⁴

Clearly, this is a strange description to attach to God. Most people would probably use control-freak in order describe someone who is being a busy-body, or interfering with another’s personal affairs. However, a strict reading of the definition shows that God definitely has a “need to control people or circumstances in everyday matters.” I can’t even imagine God taking a break from this assignment. In Psalm 139:2, the psalmist makes clear that God knows when we perform the most menial tasks, such as standing or sitting. To some people, the idea that a God knows everything about them is worrying, or creepy. To the Christian, the idea that God formed their innermost being (Psalm 139:13) is a source of great encouragement.

So… God is a control-freak?

We are dealing with a colloquialism that first came into use in the 1970’s. As far as I can tell, it’s a term the culture has used almost exclusively to describe someone that is being irritating. This a fantastic example of modern linguistics causing confusion. God may fit the dictionary’s definition of control-freak, but it is a poor word to describe Him due to the negative colloquial aspect. I have given Dawkins a pass because God fits the technical definition, but in general, Christians should not call God a control-freak.

“Vindictive” – FALSE

This may seem like a strange verdict to some of you. Glancing at Nahum 1:2 may cause a reader to assume that God has vindictive qualities. However, there is a very important distinction to be made in definitions.

“Vindictive, adjective Revengeful; given to revenge.”
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary⁵

If God is given to revenge, this would be an accurate description. However, revenge is not the same as vengeance. In order to understand the difference between the two, we ought to examine the entire definition of the word “vengeance”, contrasting it with “revenge.”

“Vengeance: The infliction of pain on another, in return for an injury or offense. Such infliction, when it proceeds from malice or more resentment, and is not necessary for the purposes of justice, is revenge, and a most heinous crime. When such infliction proceeds from a mere love of justice, and the necessity of punishing offenders for the support of the laws, it is vengeance and is warrantable and just. In this case, vengeance is a just retribution, recompense or punishment. In this latter sense the word is used in Scripture, and frequently applied to the punishments inflicted by God on sinners.
To me belongeth vengeance and recompense. Deuteronomy 32:35.
The Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries. Nahum 1.”
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary⁶

If Dawkins had gotten himself a better dictionary, it is possible that he could avoided this confusion. God takes vengeance, but is not revengeful. Therefore, God is not vindictive.

“Bloodthirsty Ethnic Cleanser” – MIXED

This is a poor choice of words because we have no idea what Dawkins is talking about. Psalm 5:6 is pretty clear that God does not enjoy bloodshed. But you are then left with the phrase “ethnic cleanser.” If we took the phrase “ethnic cleanser” in isolation, we might infer that Dawkins is talking about Isaiah 36:25, but this seems very unlikely. I highly doubt that Dawkins is referring to God cleansing his people from their filthiness and idols when he speaks of ethnic cleansing. First, let’s define the word word ethnic.

“Ethnic: Heathen; pagan; pertaining to the gentiles or nations not converted to christianity; opposed to Jewish and Christian.”
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary⁷

Does God cleanse pagan nations?

By including the bloodthirsty modifier, Dawkins may be referring to God’s words message in Dueteronomy 8:19-20, so In using the word “cleanse” he actually means: “destroy.” This much is definitely true. God has a history of judging and subsequently destroying heathen nations and cities (See Genesis 19:24-25). Regardless of his intent, this is a poor way to describe God. The phrase does not provide adequate context to understand it’s meaning. Therefore, God should not be considered a “bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser.”

“Misogynistic” – FALSE

First, the definition of misogyny.

“Misogyny: Hatred of the female sex.”
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary⁸

For the straightforward person, it should be clear that God is not a misogynist. After all, why would God bother to create womankind (Genesis 2:22) if he was just going to hate her? While not comprehensive, If you go to Proverbs 6:16-19, “the female sex” does not show up once in the list of things that God hates. The idea that God is misogynistic is pretty ludicrous.

However, there may come a time when God IS misogynistic. If we didn’t ask Webster’s dictionary for the this definition, the world would have provided very different results. Most sociologists and scholars tend to associate misogyny and sexism. Feminism has been looking to redefine the word to include “the control, punishment, and policing of people and systems which threaten male dominance.”⁹ After an Australian politician gave a viral speech, the dictionary of that region decided to change the definition in order to incorporate these progressive changes.¹⁰ A brief look at Google’s word frequency chart should indicate that this word will be likely be completely redefined in 50 years.

Despite the fact that God does not change, there may come a time that he actually fits the definition of this heavily-abused word. But, for now, God is not misogynistic.

“Homophobic” – TRUE

So, the 1828 Webster dictionary doesn’t even have an entry for “homosexual.” The idea that someone could have an identity centered around sodomy is a very modern concept.

I already explained that “homophobic” is a recently created word, intended to reduce social stigmas. Dawkins probably had Leviticus 18:22 in mind when he used this descriptor, and he’s probably right.

I don’t really know what this word even means, but it’s probably true that God is homophobic.

“Racist” – MIXED

Honestly, this may be true. There is absolutely no way to know if the God of the Old Testament is racist with today’s terminology. I will, however, offer you two definitions of race.

“Race: 1) The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely. Thus all mankind are called the race of Adam; the Israelites are of the race of Abraham and Jacob. Thus we speak of a race of kings, the race of Clovis or Charlemagne; a race of nobles, etc.
Hence the long race of Alban fathers come.
2) A generation; a family of descendants. A race of youthful and unhandled colts.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary¹¹

This definition from Noah Webster equates the term race and lineage. Ultimately, every single person on the planet can trace their race back to Adam (Acts 17:26), making them “mankind.” Webster also references Abraham and Jacob in his definition of race. Genesis 12:1-3 illustrates the significance Abraham’s race, with that same blessing being offered all to kinds of believers (Galatians 3:8).

In contrast, we will now look at a second definition of race. This definition comes from another Christian source, the “Statement on Social Justice.” Created in 2018, it was a joint statement created to provide a biblical response to the social justice movement.

“Though people often can be distinguished by different ethnicities and nationalities, they are ontological equals before God in both creation and redemption. “Race” is not a biblical category, but rather a social construct that often has been used to classify groups of people in terms of inferiority and superiority.”
“Statement on Social Justice” – 2018 (Emphasis Added)¹²

The difference between 200 years should be obvious. The modern definition of race specifically excludes any biological or biblical significance. With such signers as John MacArthur, Voddie Bauchum, Doug Wilson, and Paul Washer, the statement makes clear that modern day Christians shouldn’t think of race as anything more than “social construct.”

Clearly, the concept of race has underwent drastic changes these last few years. In my opinion, this modern definition of race disconnects the impact of God’s promise to Abraham, but the assumptions behind each definition has made them impossible to compare. Did God say to Abraham: “And I will make of you a great social construct, and I will bless you…?” Clearly, this a poor way to contrast the definitions, but it clearly indicates that the modern world no longer wants Noah Webster. Even just defining the word race, Webster could be considered a racist. I highly doubt any signer of the statement would accuse Webster of racism, but they have used a definition of “race” that separates them from historical Christianity.

So to the answer the question: Is the God of the Old Testament racist? Probably. I just have no idea anymore.

“Infanticidal” – TRUE

Exodus 12:29-30. God killed all the firstborn children of the Egyptians: “…not a house without someone dead.” God clearly fits the definition of “one who kills an infant.”

I would hope that a conversation about God eventually leads to the gospel, but if you are needing a strict definition for some reason: God is infanticidal.

“Genocidal” – TRUE

Prior to World War 2, the word “genocide” did not widely exist. It almost appears as if it was created for the purpose of charging Nazis with war crimes in 1946. The trials were the first international trials of it’s kind, with the United Nations holding Nazi leaders to Ex Post Facto (after the fact) charges of “crimes against humanity.”

“To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention, “THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE (1948)” ¹³

It would have been great if we could have had a good definition of “race” before we tackle “genocide,” but I think the answer to this one is pretty simple. Deuteronomy 20:16-17 is a great example of God commanding the destruction of multiple ethnic or racial groups. You also have 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Genesis 6:5-7, and Genesis 19:28.

I don’t plan on qualifying God’s actions. As far as I can tell, the recently created crime of genocide does not have offer any situation where this crime against humanity could be excused. Therefore, God is genocidal.

“Filicidal” – FALSE

Filicidal means: “of or related to the murder of one’s own son or daughter”¹⁴

I honestly don’t know why Dawkins would think that this was a good descriptor for the God of the Old Testament. God had one son, Jesus, who died in the New Testament. The Bible is also pretty clear on who decided to have him killed (Luke 23:20-23). I can think of no circumstance where this definition fits. God is not filicidal.

“Pestilential” – FALSE

First, the definition.

“Pestilential: 1) Producing or tending to produce infectious disease; as pestilential vapors.”
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary¹⁵

If I had to guess, Dawkins may be referring to one of the plagues in Exodus 9:3. This is definitely a bit of a stretch, as the definition implies a consistent production or nature of production. For example: If you were contagious when you get sick the flu, are you “pestilential” in any meaningful sense? Most people would say that the flu transmission is only temporary, and not a good descriptor of you. In the same way, it seems to me that applying pestilential to God for his act in Exodus seems like a bit of a stretch, though I would not necessarily blame you If you came to the opposite conclusion.

God is not pestilential.

“Megalomaniacal” – FALSE

If you don’t recognize this word, don’t worry. It’s unfamiliarity may stem from the fact that it’s primarily used in the field of psychology to describe a narcissistic mental illness.

“Megalomania: a highly inflated conception of one’s importance, power, or capabilities, as can be observed in many individuals with mania and paranoid schizophrenia. In the latter, megalomania is often accompanied or preceded by delusions of persecution.”
APA Dictionary, “megalomania” – 2022¹⁶

I’m going to go out on a limb, and suggest that God cannot possibly have a mental illness. If God were to be manic or schizophrenic, there would be no God. In Malachi 3:6, God makes clear that he cannot change.

I think this one should be fairly clear. God is not megalomaniacal.

“Sadomasochistic” – FALSE

Sadomasochism is “the derivation of sexual gratification from the infliction of physical pain.”

I’m not even going to bother trying to figure this one out. God is not sadomasochistic.

“Capriciously Malevolent Bully” – FALSE

Don’t be scared by these large words. Let’s join definitions together in order to paraphrase: “One who is habitually cruel, operating out of an impulsive and intense ill-will.”

Clearly, God does not fit this definition either. The Bible makes clear that there is no unrighteousness with God (Psalm 92:15), leaving no room for “habitual cruelty.” Understandably, God is not a capriciously malevolent bully.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Richard Dawkins’ inability to understand God seems to originate from his dogmatic atheism. He has stated that he is proud of this sentence, yet to me, that pride appears misplaced. Only a third of his descriptions received a true label, and even that was generous. However, the purpose of this post is not finally prove or disprove these claims. Instead, the goal of this post is for Christians to reconsider their common vocabulary. For example, if genocide is a word that you frequently use, perhaps you should research it’s creator: a Jewish Polish man by the name of Raphael Lemkin. Perhaps you should know that Lemkin’s version of genocide also included things like apartheid, colonialization, destruction of cultural symbols and leadership, and European expansion. Perhaps the word genocide has many more meanings than most people assume it is.

I don’t see the benefit of going around calling God genocidal in the same way that I don’t see value in Christians calling themselves racist. Atheists and pagans enjoy creating and abusing words in order to make Christians look bad. This is not a new tactic. The important thing to remember is that every person in the world uses words that reflect the matters of the heart (Luke 6:45). For Christians, the overflow of our heart should bring praise to an Almighty God. For the atheist, the words they emit will look like an outpouring of evil.

“A wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit.” Proverbs 15:4