A few weeks ago, I opened the cover of a thick and rather ominous looking book. This book was The God Delusion by none other than everybody's favorite atheist, Richard Dawkins. For many of my readers it will be no surprise that I'm writing on this topic as it is one that's provided great amounts of stimulating conversation around the lounges of Johnson and the lobby of the Grand Theater. I'm not a big fan of the man's principles, but I had decided that it was high time I read up on the atheists' arsenal of practical reasons why God ought not exist. Around a week later I was left wondering if maybe I had picked the wrong book! I'll admit that I didn't actually finish the book or even make it further than the first three or four chapters, largely due to my inability to suffer any further through his plethora of misinformed claims about Christianity and his inability to abstain from snide and often completely bogus jests.
Having given up on this valiant effort, I decided to instead delve into The Language of God, a (so far) astounding book by Francis S. Collins. Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, was raised agnostic, later nearly became an atheist, yet through the guidance of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity and a Methodist Minister instead found that God quite truly exists. The Language of God is primarily an attempt at finding some common ground between science and theology on the topics of evolution and the creation of the universe.
I wish not to respond to Collins' work because I haven't yet finished the book. I'm writing instead to comment on one particular section of a chapter on atheism in which he (in my opinion) tears Dawkins' argument to intellectual shreds. I will begin by sharing this quote from Collins:
"Dawkins is a master of setting up a straw man, and then dismantling it with great relish. In face, it is hard to escape the conclusion that such repeated mischaracterizations of faith portray a vitriolic personal agenda rather than a reliance on the rational arguments that Dawkins so cherishes in the scientific realm."
One point that I quickly noticed in reading merely the first few chapters of The God Delusion is that Dawkins assumes that because evolution can account for biological complexity and the origin of man, then there is no need for a God. He has, in making this assumption, failed to offer any reason why God could not have used evolution as a means to bring about the earth He desired. Ultimately, the first pillar of his argument crumbles in light of simple logic, only holding up against "Young Earth Creationism," the school of thought which believes the 6 days of creation to be 24 hours in length.
Dawkins sets up yet another "straw man" argument when he claims that religion is irrational (which he does VERY often). Again he jumps to conclusions and assumes that Christianity is really as basic and outlandish as Hollywood paints it to be (There Will Be Blood or Saved!, anybody?). I'd like to think that you'd agree with me when I say that Dawkins has a pretty watered down representation of the faith to go by. Collins likens it to a schoolboy characterized by Mark Twain who said "Faith is believing in what you know ain't so." On the contrary, the case for belief in God is quite strong. I won't go into detail, but Collins offers the arguments from the universality of both Moral Law and the desire to find God as evidence that has suited scholars from C.S. Lewis to St. Augustine (you can find the details behind both in Mere Christianity).
Collins offers one last objection to Dawkins' brash statements. Dawkins spends a considerable amount of time arguing from religious harms. He states that religion, because of the great amount of evil committed in its name, conveys that religion in itself is a negative and damaging force and ought to be abandoned. However, it seems that religious harms are merely a poor reflection of Christians rather than Christianity. One doesn't doubt the practicality of building houses for shelter simply because houses occasionally collapse or catch fire. Why would one doubt the good of religion on the basis of its imperfect followers?
Ultimately, I think we can agree that Dawkins has little to say against religion that is actually grounded in fact. Instead he relies on hazy misrepresentations of a faith that Collins and I believe can exist in harmony with Darwin's famous and widely accepted theory. I can say no more than that Dawkin's claims go beyond his own evidence. Collins calls upon Christian evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould to summarize his chapter, stating in reference to the large number of fellow Christians in his field:
"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or the science of Darwinism is compatible with conventional religious beliefs -- and equally compatible with atheism."
Richard Dawkins, please open your mouth and kindly insert your foot therein
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hey, Joe. I just finished Language of God, too, and found your post doing a facebook profile search.
From Dawkins perspective, on why he believes faith (except faith in Atheism) is wrong, I think it goes back to the position that Collins mentioned on pg. 164. “Dawkin’s third objection is that great harm has been done in the name of religion.” Dawkins position I think is that the story of science does all the good things that religion does, and that evil acts are less likely to be committed in the name of science. I think he’s wrong; society needs religious stories that involve human beings, not abstract scientific theories. Dawkins would argue that the "Moral Law" Collins refers to, is simple human empathy for creatures that have as high a level of consciousness as ourselves. Dawkins is an idealist, and I think he genuinely feels he’s doing the right thing, who happens to overstate his case at times.
Also, interesting article giving another atheist's opinion on Dawkins, claiming that Dawkins's form of radical atheism is actually a "stealth religion" itself.
-Tom Burwell
Post a Comment