Why not, Mr Dawkins?
Just a short one to get me going.
The other day I was watching on youtube an old debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox. Lennox made the point that evolution does not disprove God. Pointing to a mechanism does not dispense of the possibility of an agency directing that mechansim. Richard Dawkins agreed that it did not rule out God but asked, "Why bother when there is a perfectly reasonable explanation that does not need him." Leaving aside, for the moment, the rationality of believing that chance, even if ever so gradual, really came up with intelligence and music and so on, I would want to ask, "Why not, Mr Dawkins?" If science cannot disprove God and indeed is compatible with his existence, then why would you want to dismiss him? If the alternatives are a godless universe spinning aimlessly towards some unknown end, and a life on this earth that terminates at death and is often nasty, brutish and short, why would we want to be so quick to dismiss a God who, because of Jesus, can offer us eternal life, and one that makes sense of this nasty, brutish and short life of ours?