So, the latest book of anti-religious bile has poured forth from the fingers of Richard Dawkins. PLEASE DON'T BUY "The God Delusion"...it will only encourage him!
The real problem with Dawkins is that, despite being a scientist, his approach to religion is about as unscientific as you can get. He is venomously fundamentalist about condemning all religion...primarily on the grounds that religion breeds fundamentialism!
Look, it boils down to this. Dawkins is a scientist...a geneticist to be specific. As a scientist, he should be committed to an objective weighing of all available data, to arrive at a rational conclusion. However, the sum total of all his arguments about religion is essentially this: religion has caused all sorts of problems in the world; therefore religion is bad. It's a stupid statement to make...and let me tell you why I think that.
Let me first acknowledge that indeed religion has indeed been inextricably linked with all sorts of awful things. But let us consider what else causes violence. It was not religion which caused the mass persecutions of the Soviet era, and the French Revolution...it was in fact agressive humanism. It is not religion that has unleashed the horrors of weapons of mass destruction, but the science and technology which created them. It is not religion which is primarily driving the current middle eastern conflicts, but the economics of oil and power.
Of course violence, and oppression, are linked with religion. But no more so than any other social system. (It was not God who killed Jesus, but the secular Roman Empire.)
Jesus utterly condemmed violence - "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword".
So what, we must ask, is the logical scientific thing to do? Confronted with a religion whose founder advocated peace, what should we do? Should we seek to abolish that religion on the grounds that stupid, power-crazy people have perverted it? Or should we not rather speak out the messages of Christ with more determination than ever: "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you".
I leave it to you, dear reader, to decide which is the most rational, logical, scientific approach to take.
For a much deeper, theological, and fascinating discussion of this issue, CLICK HERE to read an analysis of Dawkins' latest diatribe by Terry Eagleton (the Jon Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature, University of Manchester)
Apparently it’s emetic
ReplyDeleteFrom A.C. Grayling
Terry Eagleton charges Richard Dawkins with failing to read theology in formulating his objection to religious belief, and thereby misses the point that when one rejects the premises of a set of views, it is a waste of one’s time to address what is built on those premises (LRB, 19 October). For example, if one concludes on the basis of rational investigation that one’s character and fate are not determined by the arrangement of the planets, stars and galaxies that can be seen from Earth, then one does not waste time comparing classic tropical astrology with sidereal astrology, or either with the Sarjatak system, or any of the three with any other construction placed on the ancient ignorances of our forefathers about the real nature of the heavenly bodies. Religion is exactly the same thing: it is the pre-scientific, rudimentary metaphysics of our forefathers, which (mainly through the natural gullibility of proselytised children, and tragically for the world) survives into the age in which I can send this letter by electronic means.
Eagleton’s touching foray into theology shows, if proof were needed, that he is no philosopher: God does not have to exist, he informs us, to be the ‘condition of possibility’ for anything else to exist. There follow several paragraphs in the same fanciful and increasingly emetic vein, which indirectly explain why he once thought Derrida should have been awarded an honorary degree at Cambridge.
A.C. Grayling
Birkbeck, University of London
In response to the above:
ReplyDeleteMr Grayling,
Thank you for taking the trouble to comment on Eagleton's essay. Assuming you are Anthony Grayling, I believe you to be a philosopher par excellence, and I tremble to cross swords with you on philosophical grounds.
However, I would like to take issue with your illustration. How does one know that one's character and fate are not determined by the arrangement of the planets? I would tentatively suggest that one arrives at such knowledge empirically: one deduces, from experience, that one's character does not in fact add up to all that astrology says it should be. This can be shown as a matter of fact: astrology tells me that as a gemini, or a scorpio or whatever, that I should behave in a certain way. But I find that I do not behave in that way. Ergo astrology has been demonstrated to be false.
However, arguments about the religious experience simply cannot be so easily dismissed (and I believe Dawkins is unscientific to do so). Religion is not, as you suggest, exactly the same thing as astrology. Religious experience is essentially subjective: billions of people claim to have experienced something which is outside of what they believe to be themselves. To dismiss such experiences simply on the basis that they are pre-scientific rudimentary metaphysics is simply to say that your experience is different to that of others. We can dismiss astrology on simple scientific grounds (it is demonstrably false). We cannot do the same with religion. Dare I offer a philosophical argument? If I did, I would inexpertly suggest that it is impossible to prove that God does not exist. All that one can say is "I have not found God. Therefore God may not exist".
One can of course argue about the descriptions of God. John T. Robinson, Paul Tillich and recently James Spong have all argued that the theistic God (essentially, the creator who intervenes in his creation) does not exist. They do so by arguing that they have not experienced God to act as he is "supposed" to. (This is indeed somewhat analogous to your astrology example: "The Bible says God answers prayer...but when I pray nothing happens...ergo the Bible's view of God is wrong"). But that does not prove the non-existence of God. Rather, it raises new questions (i.e. if God is not like the Bible says he is, either he does not exist, or he is of a different character). But by this route, God has not been disproved - quite the opposite...God has been given more possibilities of existence than we had previously envisaged.
My fundamental objection to Dawkins is his fundamental assertion that God does not exist. Such a statement cannot be made scientifically - it can only be made, ironically, as a statement of faith. His writings on religion are, in my judgment, a set of lazy pot-shots at a particular (theistic) view of God and anti-Darwinism. He entirely excludes from his debate the much more nuanced understandings of God which exist within the religious community (and the students of the 'queen of sciences' as Eagleton calls them). I would much prefer him to put his significant brain power into helping us to better understand and improve the world we all live in...whether or not we believe in a God behind it all.
My other objection to Dawkins is that he is simply wrong in attributing strife to religion. It is the surely perversion of religion which causes strife? "Love one another" is a pretty simple call - to do anything other than love one another is quite simple to pervert that message. A perversion is not the thing which it perverts, and in this context to describe a pervert as a religious person is simply to mis-label them.
I doubt you will have the time to respond to my points: but thank you for making me think further and deeper on this important subject.
Tom
Your claim that Dawkin's statement "cannot be made scientifically" is somewhat flawed. Scientific principle is founded on the requirement for positive proof that something exists or behaves in a certain way. It's up to you (or the Church) to prove God exists if you want to win that argument, not for Dawkins to prove some kind of impossible negative. Otherwise, those who claim belief in fairies, goblins or any other nonsensical vision can make the same demands of you - how could you prove that they don't exist?
ReplyDeleteI can understand your distress at Dawkin's treatment of religion, particularly when it includes the largely harmless version that currently represents the Christian Church in the UK (though of course, it was not always so benign). Nevertheless, there's a perfectly good argument for blaming the agonisingly slow progress and occasional regression of mankind at least partly on the inability to rid ourselves of religion. It may provide an escape from primitive insecurities and fear of the unknown but they amount to poor justification for believing in the non-existent. Dawkins may be irritating, provocative and bombastic but he is right.
Incidentally, I stumbled over your blog when browsing articles relating to the White Poppy story. I noted your claim to be "evangelical, liberal, radical, catholic, orthodox and charismatic". Are you sure this doesn't just make you appear confused?
Dear Alan,
ReplyDeleteThank you for engaging with this topic, and for your thought-provoking comments.
You are of course quite right that it is impossible to prove a negative...and that is really my point (though obviously not made very well). I am saying that in so bombastically (to use your word) proclaiming his utter certainty the religion is all hokum, Dawkins is unscientifically disgarding all the evidence of those people who claim to have had an experience of God. To use an analogy, Dawkins is like the child who when told by an adult that having a good night's sleep is good for you, stubbornly refuses to listen to the experience of the adult, and stays awake all night on their playstation.
I have no doubt that many people stumble into religion as a result of all sorts of strange life experiences and adult indoctrination (and I believe that such indoctrination should be carefully monitored...it is never appropriate to say to a child 'this is what I believe, so you must believe it too'). But there are many more people(like me) who choose faith as the only rational choice for them - and who then proclaim an experience of God which is real, and meaningful. Does Dawkins really think that such people (including obviously intelligent, philosophical converts to Christianity like C.S.Lewis) are idiots? That is the impression he gives.
What a shame, instead, that he cannot be much more circumspect. I do not deny that he has personally discovered no connection with God. What right does he have to say that my personal connection is a self-delusion? Can he scientifically prove that my own experience of God is pure dellusion. He does not live within me, and has no way of judging my inner experiences. Surely, all that he can honestly say, as a scientist, is that he has not personally experienced God.
Dawkins' contribution would be so much more useful if he concentrated on those aspects of religion that have been perverted to evil ends - and, as I effectively said in my blog, joined the majority of intelligent people in saying that Jesus preached nothing but love...whether or not God acutally exists. (There are plenty of 'agnostic' Christians who uphold Jesus' basic sociological message without having to accept his theological one).
As for my own self-description - perhaps I am a little confused! However, if being confused means that I remain open to all that the many different expressions of Christianity have to offer (and steadfastly refuse to box myself into a theological corner) then confused I shall remain.
Best wishes
Tom