The initial winner of the “Doofus of the Month” award is Richard Dawkins. Recently Dawkins was quoted in an interview with the UK Guardian as making the following statement. “Jesus was a great moral teacher and I was suggesting that somebody as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist if he had known what we know today.”
Let’s look at why Mr. Dawkins deserves this award for his truly amazing “Doofus Thinking.” First of all, if we are going to take an honest look at Jesus, we can only do so on the basis of the teachings given to us in the Gospels. It is our original source material on Jesus Christ, what He said, and Who He is. The gospels assume – and go to great lengths to prove that Jesus is God Himself. There are numerous statements attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in which He calls Himself God. Therefore for Jesus Christ to one moment state that He is God – and in the next (at least in Dawkins' thinking) deny even the existence of God at all – would make Jesus Christ one of two things. He is either a spiritual schizophrenic, or worse, a charlatan of the highest order. This then pokes serious holes in Dawkin’s statement that Jesus was a great moral teacher. As C. S. Lewis asserted, if we take Jesus at His Words in the Gospels, we are left with one of three conclusions. Jesus Christ is either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. If someone is crazy enough to call himself God when he is not - even willing to die a horrendous death on a cross for it - he is not a good moral teacher - he is nuts. So, Mr. Dawkins, Jesus has to be one of the two - He is either insane or He is Who He says He is - God. Those of us who are Christians believe that His teachings, His works (miracles), His fulfillment of prophecy, and ultimately His resurrection prove He is the latter.
The second thing that truly manifests “Doofus Thinking” of the first order is Dawkin’s comments that if Jesus knew what we knew, He would be an atheist. It is hard to decide if this is more “doofus thinking,” or just arrogance reaching to new heights. Truly this man sees himself as superior in his scientific thinking than the rest of us lowly unscientific serfs. Dawkins lifts the current world as superior in knowledge to any that ever existed – and evidently sees himself as high priest of such knowledge. This is how he can utter such absolutist statements about the intelligence of Jesus – and how it was inferior to our own. How else could a great moral teacher make such gargantuan blunders in advancing belief in God – when of course the enlightened ones of our current age have made such belief obsolete with their infallible science and its discoveries.
The God revealed in the Bible is represented by that revelation as omniscient (Mr. Dawkins, that means He is all-knowing). Jesus manifest that omniscience by knowing what His detractors were thinking. We learn in Philippians 2 that Jesus, being God of very God, chose to lay aside His attributes. He emptied Himself and took upon the form of a servant, being made in human form. He did so to eventually bear the sin of the world – and pay the full measure of punishment and wrath due that sin. But in no way does that mean Jesus was just too simple-minded and dumb to not realize there wasn’t a God – and He wasn’t Him.
Mr Dawkins also has a problem with his reasoning - because he asserts that there is a thing such as a "great moral teacher". That assumes that there is good moral teaching - or at least a set of morals that should be embraced as better than other morals. Unfortunately for him an atheistic evolutionary view of the world militates against even the existence of morals. Classic evolutionary theory is founded upon a world that has one moral code. That code is the advancement of superior species, and the ultimate extinction of inferior ones. It is even wrong to suggest that this is moral in any way - because this advancement of superior species is totally random and happens only because life is perpetuating itself. The existence of morals assumes someone who can speak with authority as to why one behavior or choice is superior to another. In Dawkins' atheistic, evolutionary model no such authority exists. It would be more consistent for Dawkins to say that Jesus was a bigoted, authoritarian, arrogant man who had the audacity to assume his moral positions were superior to what another person considered their own truth. If Jesus were a true atheist, the first thing he would shed would be the moral assertions of his own teachings. He could hold such a moral code for himself - but to assert that others should hold it as superior to their own thoughts and desires would be the height of arrogance and religious bigotry. Only a "doofus thinker" wants to have it both ways.
Mr. Dawkin’s statement defies any kind of reason in its assertion. He simply is defining himself as the ultimate authority on God. His statements lack credibility because, as one who rejects absolute truth, he himself is making absolute statements about God. In so doing he is making himself “god” in the process (well at least god over all thoughts and belief systems about God). One has to wonder if one day in the future other, far more enlightened scientists will one day state that if Mr. Dawkins knew what they knew, he would not have held his own views in such high esteem – thus making him an “A-Dawkin-ist.” Congratulations Mr. Dawkins! You are our very first "Doofus of the Month!"