Richard Dawkins, Atheism, and Christianity: Part 2
December 5th, 2006 | Because there were several thoughtful responses to the the original post, I have decided to write a follow-up.
To do so, I shall enlist the help of Marilynne Robinson, the Pulitzer Prize winning author of Gilead. Robinson recently wrote a review of The God Delusion for the November edition of Harper’s entitled Hysterical Scientism: The ecstasy of Richard Dawkins. Although Harper’s doesn’t have any articles online, a full transcript is available here. I encourage you to read the article in full, but I will be quoting it much in this post.
Robinson begings by summarizing Dawkins’ crusade against religion:
There is no doubt in Dawkins’s mind that the evils of the world are to be laid at the doorstep of the church, mosque, and synagogue, and that science must be our salvation… because Dawkins implicitly defines science as a clear-eyed quest for truth, chaste as an algorithm, while religion is atavistic, mad, and mired in crime.
She theorizes that The God Delusion is published at a time when the “tectonics of culture are suddenly active”:
This view [that religion is the "great Satan"] is commonplace now, in part because the institutions of religion, like the institutions of journalism and government, have done a great deal to trivialize or disgrace themselves lately.
Although she doesn’t provide any specific examples, I agree with her, and this is more of what I was getting at in my last post. I would also add that the media has had a forceful hand in this so-called tectonic shift. No specfific vein of Christianity is at fault (although some get more attention than others1), and to say so would be pointing out the speck in someone else’s eye while ignoring the log in my (our) own.
Robinson continues to point out that science is not without its own historical blunders, namely Hitler and the use science (in the form of genetics) to justify the systematic eradication of the Jews. Dawkins tries to cover this by calling it “insane” and “unscientific”, but Robinson sees otherwise. “Bad science,” she says, “is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion.” If religion is to be scrutinized under a microscope, science should be held to the same standard:
To set the declared hopes of one against the real-world record of the other is clearly not useful, no matter which of them is flattered by the comparison… If by “science” is meant authentic science, then “religion” must mean authentic religion, granting the difficulties in arriving at these definitions.
It was refreshing to see Robinson espousing some of the same arguments as myself. In my previous post, I said “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.” Robinson agrees (and does so much more eloquently):
The finer-grained the image of reality physicists achieve, the more alien it appears to every known strategy of comprehension. The odd thing about Dawkins’s work, considering his job description, is that it does not itself seem the product of a mind informed by the physics of the last century or so.
Maybe I’m on the right track after all.
I am aware that this post contains little analysis on my part. In Part 3 of this series, I will examine more closely how Dawkins effectively traps himself in modernity and consider whether or not his theses are effectual in our postmodern age.
- E.g., the “caricaturized-psycho-Christian” to whom I referred in the previous post. ↩
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
[...] For everyone hypnotized by Dr. Richard Dawkins and Mr. Sam Harris, or any other prominent atheist that “destroys” Christian arguments at every turn, this is a great piece showing many of the themes that my meager writing skills have not been able to expound on. Thanks to JakeBouma.com for the link. [...]
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!
I had an interesting thought (although I am sure someone else has had it before). Isn’t theology and the knowledge of God that we promote just a scientific way of looking at God? Is theology the science of knowing God? Can the two be married?
Pastor Brandon,
I believe you are correct. Modern Theological thinking has culminated in a system or science of understanding God (i.e. Systematic Theology). Part of the beauty of an emerging, postmodern view of Theology is recognizing that Theology cannot be fully systematized or made into a science. God is much bigger than our reasoning, therefore He is bigger than any science. A modern interpretation of Theology might actually be: “Theology is the science of knowing God.” Whereas a postmodern interpretation might be: “Theology is the art of knowing God.” Science is predictable, calculated, and only understandable by an esoteric few. God and our knowledge of Him is static to an extent (as He has revealed Himself to us in a variety of forms); but it is fluid, organic, mystical, yet understandable by even children.
And by the way, Pastor Brandon and Jake, I miss you guys.
I just finished reading Robinson’s Gilead, and it is a book I would highly recommend. She challenges us to slow down, using a slow pace writing technique. In her book, she offers many very interesting perceptions of religion that I think might help in better understanding her view in this argument…
“And, they want me to defend religion, and they want me to give them “proofs.” I just won’t do it. It only confirms them in their skepticism. Because nothing True can be said about God from a posture of defense” (Gilead 177).
“I have always found that defenses have the same irrelevance about them as the criticisms they are meant to answer” (178).
“The Lord gave you a mind so that you would make honest use of it. I’m saying you must be sure that the doubts and questions are YOUR OWN…not, so to speak, the mustache and walking stick that happen to be the fashion of any particular moment” (179).
When asked about being “saved”…. “To conclude is not in the nature of the enterprise” (152).
Hope that adds something!
-Meg
Jake, I’m having a difficult time nailing down exactly what you’re thesis is…sorry brother.
Also, “theology as art” doesn’t mean anything “mysterious” or mystical to me. From my education as a musician aural, visual, dramatic art forms are all just the science of aesthetics. Aesthetics’ effects on people are mysterious though. I would say that the science of physical creation can have effects on people that are mysterious too. Are you saying that “postermodern” views have a monopoly on all genres of art as opposed to modernistic views of art? Honestly, this doesn’t make much sense to me. There are a million opinions in art just like there are in science. They aren’t exactly the same, but hopefully you can see why the idea that art and science of nature are more similar than they are different in my mind.
I think the proposal that Dawkins’ “modernism” traps him, or that it is his downfall, is not true anymore than a “postmodern” view that we can’t know absolutes…yet somehow we know absolutely that there can be no absolutes. To me both are radical views.
Also, most systematic theologians will usually say that biblical/narrative theology is just as important as a systematic approach to God’s revelation. The problem is that we are pitting to many situations against each other when in reality they are supported by one another, are a paradox, or it’s just a false dichotomy. Just a few thoughts.
In Christ
Noah
http://www.newlynearlymarried.blogspot.com/
A shame to see so many people who won’t have read any Dawkins, and are happy to receive their third-hand opinions of him pre-digested, being impressed by Robinson’s mendacious “review”. For anyone with the intellectual courage to read it, I recommend Earl Doherty’s thorough dismantling of her misrepresentations and logical mis-steps at http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/AORComment17.htm
Thanks for finding this essay–you’re always digging up interesting stuff.