Recently my family watched a debate between Mr. Dawkins and Cardinal Pell and though it was certainly interesting I have to wonder at a few of the absurdities brought out in the debate. First of all it was decreed by Mr. Dawkins that for a person to ask why he existed was a silly question and then he went on to say that as a scientist he had to allow there was always a small chance that perhaps God does exist just because that is good science to allow for possibilities beyond our present limited knowledge. Okay... The discussion was lively and interesting but ended with the vast majority of the people polled saying that they did not feel they needed to believe in God.

When I look around at the world I have to admit that God doesn't stand in front of us demanding that we pay Him homage. Actually, if He did then we wouldn't have free will any more because - well it would be pretty obvious who was God and there wouldn't be any chance of freely choosing Him. Also I have to consider the issue of who God is - The Creator of the universe, the creator of every star, every solar system, every blade of grass, every tree, every flower, every child ever created, every cell, every molecule....and I wonder that if our trying to see and understand God isn't a little like us standing before an ant on the ground and demanding that it understand us. Frankly - the ant can't even see us - not really. It sees a bit of a fleshy toe or the rubber part of our shoe and that is all it knows. Ants just aren't equipped with the stuff they need to completely understand the reality of a human being much less the larger world we inhabit. Could we be so foolish as to think that our little bits of personal selves can understand and see God as He really is in all His fullness? And when we don't see Him all and comprehend Him - isn't it rather foolish to simply refuse to believe He exists at all?

In my mind - and frankly by the reality that all humans are just that - humans - then my opinion is worth as much as anyone's - then I have the right to wonder why I came into existence for it is not a "silly" question. In fact I have the right to think it is a very good question. Just because "science" in all its glory cannot attempt to comprehend it hardly means it is not a worthy question to be asked. And I do ask.

I believe there is more to this world than meets the eye. If Dawkins wants to deny the reality of God I wonder does he also deny the reality of evil? Probably. Yet I have found when looking at history that the acts of terrorists, the acts of serial killers, the acts of geniocide which have been inflicted on humanity by humanity have been more than the will of a single person or the might of a an organized group of humans. The harm done is so terrible and so horrific that the mind shrinks from the reality of it. There is more at work than just a lack of good or a momentary insanity. It is a real, palpable evil. Hense the term.

If there is no God but real horrible evil exists - where is the hope for humanity? We are left with only our personal will to survive? Our personal definition of good? What makes your good right and my right good? Dawkins said he believes in Darwin's concept of survival of the fittest but he wouldn't want us to live that way. Why not? There are those who do! Why are they wrong and he is right? If there is no God surely Dawkin's is not stupid enough to make his opinion god for the rest of us. The guy with the biggest muscle and the largest gun will get the most and have the best. Look at the societies who have modled themselves on a no-God ideal and you will see the fruit of that philosophy.

I would rather believe in God than believe in nothing. If there is no God there is no hope for justice.There is no life beyond this one. Then we live in a tragically broken, meaningless world and there is no joy for anyone but what we can get while the getting is good. Dawkins may have walked away from that debate with the most votes but I know that those who believe in God walk away with the greatest hope.