What on a breakpoint, a daily look in an ever-changing culture through the lens of unchanging truth?

For the Colson Center, I'm John Stone Street.

A new atheist icon in Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins recently asked a surprising question on X.

Referring to his most famous book, which was published 18 years ago, The God Delusion,

Dawkins asked,

what do religious people think I got wrong in the God delusion?

The replies were many and insightful.

One person pointed out how Dawkins depended on methodological naturalism. That's the belief that only material

explanations are valid, but which is in and of itself a belief that can't be proven by

material explanations. Another pointed out, quote, you spent the majority of the book

making a moral case against religion, but then you state in other works there isn't

objective morality. In fact, Dawkins' moral case against religion is a central theme in the God delusion.

For example, he wrote this, quote, 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 capriciously malevolent bully,

end quote.

Those are strange words coming from a man who also male the properties we'd expect if there is at bottom no design no purpose no evil no good

nothing but pitiless indifference so dr dalkins which is it is the god of the Bible

not worth believing in because he's evil or is evil an illusion.

Daukin seems to have wanted his moral indignation and to eat it too.

Still, a more fundamental mistake in this best-selling book is one which virtually every

prominent new atheist copied. As Susanna Roberts pointed out in her reply to

...