Richard Dawkins, Atheism, and Christianity
November 28th, 2006 | Richard Dawkins is omnipresent.
His new book, The God Delusion, is currently #6 on the Amazon.com bestselling book list, and lately his name has been popping up everywhere in my life. I first saw his name on kottke.org a while back, and about a week ago I read an article that mentions him at TSK (which I posted as a digression). I have subsequently seen several stories about him on Digg, most notably one entitled Atheist Richard Dawkins Destroys Students from Jerry Falwell’s University (500+ comments!), which links to a video of a rather lenghty Q&A session with Dr. Dawkins. I probably wouldn’t have thought too much of it, but then during our student-led worship on Sunday night the speaker referenced a recent issue of Time magazine that features him in the cover story, God vs. Science. And just to top things off, I passed a professor today who was holding a book of his under her arm.1
Here’s how I feel about the whole situation.2
I don’t doubt Dr. Dawkins’ legitimacy or ability as a scientist. He is quite accomplished in his area(s) of study and this must be respected. I think however, that it might also be his Achilles’ heel because I believe that Richard Dawkins represents the dying gasp of modernity. Science ruled in modernity, and it promised to “unlock the secrets of the universe in order to master nature for human benefit and create a better world.”3 In the aforementioned Time editorial he says, “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.” I agree that it is an important question, but here we see a hyper-modern Dawkins appealing to the authority of science to answer it, as if only science provides truth.
If anything, science has only proven that science itself cannot provide the answers. Developments in quantum physics and other disciplines have pointed to an ever-increasing (and perhaps fluctuating) complexity of the universe. I simply don’t find it necessary to look to science for answers that science isn’t apt to provide.
To some extent, I think the Christian/atheist debate is irrelevant. In his book How (Not) to Speak of God, Peter Rollins describes how Christianity was seduced by modernity into an apologetic discourse that sought to “prove” Christianity with objective analysis and empirical claims. “In this way,” he says,
the acceptance or rejection of the system is based not upon a love for the system or a feeling of overwhelming seduction by it, but rather upon the accumulation of evidence that stands secure, regardless of the motive and desires of the individual.4
In contrast, “instead of closing thought down - by telling people what they ought to think - this discourse opens up thought… The discourse of Paul acts as an aroma“5 (see 1 Cor. 2:1-5). Jesus did not offer a scientific explanation to convince people to follow him, instead he spoke in such a way that made people desire to follow him.
One of the things that saddens me most about this whole thing is the portrayal of Christians. Unfortunately, in the American secular media the steryotypical Christian is a Republican fundamentalist who believes the world is 6,000 years old. Take the movie Borat for example. I think it would be fair to say that far more areligious people attended this film than Christians, and the portrayal of Christians in the movie is absolutely abhorrent. As a Christian I would in no way want to be associated with that particular brand of “Christianity”, yet at the same time I am lumped in with them because I use the title of Christian.
My point here is that I think atheists sympathetic to Dawkins in this debate are fighting a losing battle because their crusade is against a charicaturized-psycho-Christian who may actually exist but is inflated and demonized by the media (have you seen Jesus Camp?). And often times it is these Christians who see it as their duty to convert the atheists, which only fuels the fire.
This is the first post ever for which I’ve hand-written notes beforehand, and this is where my notes end. However, I’m not sure I have exhausted my thoughts. Part 2 might be on its way in the near future.
Please feel free to leave comments.
- I could actually only see “ichard wkins” because her arm was covering half of the book, but who else would it be, right? ↩
- To be fair, I haven’t read his book, and I am not very familiar with any of his arguments or agendas. At this point I just want to provide an overarching reaction to and analysis of what I think is happening. ↩
- Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. 81. ↩
- Rollins, Peter. How (Not) to Speak of God. Brewster, MA: Paraclete P. 35. ↩
- Ibid., 36, emphasis mine. ↩
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed to have articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always sign up for email updates and have fresh content delivered daily to your inbox.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
No feed reader? No problem! Subscribe by email to receive daily updates featuring the freshest content from JakeBouma.com!
![Another world. [edit]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3138/2426374093_1c9b676580_t.jpg)
Jake…
You might want to read this book. I’m afraid your assumptions of the “type” of Christianity Dawkins is fighting against is incorrect. He isn’t talking about the superficial Christianity that you are citing. He’s fighting against the real thing. The modernist vein you’re talking about is correct, but I think to link this to superficial Christianity is a non sequitur.
In Christ
Noah
Noah,
Perhaps I was unclear. I have no doubt that Dawkins is fighting against a non-superficial Christianity; like I said, he must be respected. I was talking more about people’s reaction to Dawkins’ book: “I think atheists sympathetic to Dawkins in this debate are fighting a losing battle…” You’ll see some great evidence of this in this comment thread on Digg. People say things like, “You seem like a typical religious person (ignorant),” “Science provides understanding. Religion just provides comfort,” etc.
I think its interesting that a majority of scientists will flip out when you try and bring faith and science together because you can’t use science to prove there is a God, and etc. Yet this guy is trying to do the opposite with science by proving there isn’t a God.
I digress.
While I do think that there are evidences that there is a God and that He is still very active in our world, these evidences won’t impress people. I think of the Jews asking Jesus for a sign. That was flippin’ stupid. Jesus was turning water into wine, healing people everyday, raising people from the dead, making fish yield coins from their mouth and the list goes on. Yet the Jews still asked for a sign. A relationship (with Jesus) is by its very nature exclusive. And the real reason there are athiests in the world today is that for whatever reason, people are unwilling to have a shotgun wedding with Jesus. There are plenty of “signs” and “evidences” out there. There are people who are looking for evidence, but we all reach that point when “evidence” stops and faith begins. And those who refuse to take that step of faith are the ones who, generally speaking of course, are not looking for evidence, but rather excuses.
p.s. hi jake, i miss you honey;-)
I am completely unfamiliar with this Dawkins character, maybe I shouldn’t be, but I am. I think that Noah has something here though. I doubt that atheists, as such, reject the very thought of the existence of God because of his/her perception of Christians. After all, the whole Jesus thing came across as foolishness even when it was coming from the God/Man’s lips himself. Though the ridiculousness of some of these “Christians” neither hurts an atheist’s’ case or helps the cause of Christ.
In the same vein, TJ, I understand and appreciate your zeal, but I think that it is very dangerous to refer to someone or some people, especially the Jews, as “stupid” if he/she/they don’t arrive at the same conclusion as you about the existence of God based on the evidence at hand. This merely reduces things to a system based on mental assent and gets tragically close to a very crude form of Gnosticism. We must remember that in the end, these questions will hinge on faith, and I commend you for getting there with your comment. But be please be careful, if someone has not faith, it is not a matter of intelligence or lack thereof.
Also:
“My point here is that I think atheists sympathetic to Dawkins in this debate are fighting a losing battle because their crusade is against a charicaturized-psycho-Christian who may actually exist but is inflated and demonized by the media”
In this post, I get the sense that you may be equating this “brand” of Christianity to “modern” Christianity. Could you either deny this inference or expound on it further?
Yeah, it sure seems like a lot of “New Atheist” books are coming out now, from reading that Wired article linked at TSK. It’s just buzz, though, and it will subside. I haven’t read Dawkins’ book, but what I have read of his work doesn’t impress me. There are much more convincing atheists out there–real philosophers like Bertrand Russell. Atheism and arguments like Dawkins’ are as old as humanity. There have always been people who thought humanity is no different than dirt and that life is meaningless. The circumstances may be different, but the questions, problems, and answers are ultimately the same. Eventually, you choose to believe in God or you don’t. As TJ above said, “we all reach that point when “evidence” stops and faith begins.” Or for me, the merely thinking about Christianity stops and acting out my faith begins.
I hope thinking about Christianity doesn’t stop when acting out your faith begins:) I think I know what you mean though.
Good response. I’m not arguing that atheism is on a surge to take over. It’s in the same position it has always been in [the losing position]. Jesus has broken the back of evil and the moves of his antagonists [Satan, Flesh, the World] are making their last desperate moves [from our perception…as they have been for a long time].
In your opinion Dawkins has poor arguments, and that’s fine [I certainly am not convinced of his arguments]. But he influences a ton of people. Sam Harris, in the same vein, influences a ton of people today. Bertrand Russel is on the losing side despite his credibility as a philosopher/thinker. When it comes to Christianity he pretty much had the same view as Harris and Dawkins…e.g. Christianity as a religion is harmful to mankind and it is a superstition [which I emphatically disagree with]. He might not have been as off the wall as Dawkins… e.g. thinking that we need to inhabit other worlds to sustain the existence of mankind…but in a nutshell he had the same views. But that might have been because he lived in a less technologically advanced time. Who knows? In my opinion he’s not anymore legit than Dawkins or Harris.
But I think there is value in understanding their perspectives. Mainly because of the influence they have. There are people we will speak with that will have the same views…and I think it’s good for us to be able to interact with their perspective to bring them from Nihilism to Christ. No matter how legit or illegitimate their views may be.
Good conversation:)
In Christ
Noah
“There have always been people who thought humanity is no different than dirt and that life is meaningless.”
Keith, and there have always been people who assume atheists don’t value life simply because they don’t think it was an explicit gift from a higher power. That’s the whole nihilistic “atoms acting on atoms” counter-argument. It’s just as equally unproductive an assumption as blindly bashing the faithful (e.g., using ‘Jesus Camp’ as evidence).
Morals, to all of us, are much more influenced by society anyway. You’re certainly free to believe whatever you want, but a fear of “God” isn’t the only thing keeping you a decent person, right? Your faith would be rather disingenuous otherwise.
Besides, I wouldn’t place Richard Dawkins in the nihilistic-atheistic group you’re describing. (I wouldn’t place him on a pedestal, either.)
Those of you who haven’t read any of his books would do well to at least skim through a decent introduction like ‘The Blind Watchmaker’. I don’t expect it will change your minds (nor does it need to), but at least you can put the guy in perspective. Many of us on the other side have at least read the Bible or gone to church. It’s intellectually dishonest to try speaking for the other side if you haven’t made an honest effort to understand them.
I do appreciate the nod to Bertrand Russell. ;)
I thought I’d just chime in with a little balance on the discussion. It was an interesting read.