The “evangelistic” atheist Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion (a book I’m still hoping to read this summer), is quoted in the book I’m reading now, Education for Human Flourishing: A Christian Perspective:
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? What has theology ever said that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that is not either platitudinously obvious or downright false.
There is a great deal wrong even with this short bit of Dawkins’ “wisdom,” but before I jump into it, let me say briefly Dawkins’ purpose in life, from what I’ve gleaned from the first four or five chapters of his book. Dawkins holds a strictly naturalist view of life, meaning that he is anti-supernaturalist. Only the things in this universe that are within the grasp of empirical, scientific investigation actually exist, which means that a supernatural Creator of any kind is out of the question.
You might think that it would be enough for him to believe this for himself and live his life, but instead he has made it his mission in life to encourage atheists in their unbelief and discourage religious and spiritual people of any background from their beliefs. When religious people try to change others’ beliefs, words like “exclusive,” “narrow-minded,” “arrogant,” and “judgmental” usually come up. Yet Dawkins considers himself a hero, because he insists that religion is not only pointless and without benefit, but a plague upon humanity.
It is understandable that a person might come to believe this, having few or no positive religious experiences and learning from history books and the evening news all the tragedy and cruelty that man’s religious has wrought on the earth: human sacrifices, crusades, the Inquisition, terrorism, and hypocrisy.
But to witness a destructive tornado and promptly say that wind is evil, or to see a gruesome chainsaw massacre and immediately say that chainsaws are evil is a touch irrational. This could only be unequivocally said if nothing good ever came from wind or chainsaws.
The same goes for religion. The other day, I had a conversation with a girl who is earnestly trying to seek out God, and she told me of a time recently when atheistic reasoning had taken such a grip on her that her mind was convinced of the truth of their arguments. Did she immediately find joy in the fact that her existence had been reduced to two, possibly three digits’ worth of revolutions around the sun before she dies and the basic particles of which she is composed return to a state of entropy and she ceases to be?
No, she did not. She told me that a great sadness came over her. “Depression,” I think is a word she even used. Why is that? She did not go into any detail, but I assume there were several reasons: her existence had been reduced to nothing; her self, a bit of the periodic table of the elements; her purpose, snuffed out; any hope she had for anything that would last, obliterated. This is because religion is the only source of any real hope, and the Triune God of Christianity is the only object of faith That can actually offer results. I do not mean a hope that I will get a promotion at work next week. That is not a hope worth considering, because in another forty years I will be unemployed, retired, or perhaps deceased. What then? What good did my dream job really do me?
I mean a real, reasonable hope that there is something to look forward to after leaving this world. A hope that the small things I do in this life can actually have a purpose, and make a difference. A hope that the love I feel in my heart and mind and soul is not simply a chemical reaction developed over millions of years so that I can reproduce most effectively. A hope in Christ.
What motivation do I have to do good if I know that all of my efforts will only be a drop in the ocean against the hurt this world is seeing currently, and that I only have another forty or fifty or sixty years to live? What motivation do I have to better myself, aside from greed, or desperation, or pride?
On the other hand, if my motivation is to gratefully do my very best for a Rescuer Who loved me deeply enough to bear otherwise unbearable torment in my stead, and has given me a true purpose in life—that seems like a true motivator. One that Dawkins’ atheism has not produced and will never produce.
What good things has Christianity offered us? Among many others (including reasonable answers to the fundamental questions of human existence—ones that science must necessarily ignore because they lie outside the empirical realm of investigation), hope, purpose, and love.
As far as Dawkins’ gripe about theologians’ “supposed” truths being false, or not demonstrably true, consider this: theologians, by the very nature of their field, deal with questions of heavenly, supernatural things. Of course the Triune nature of God is not demonstrably true, using the scientific method! What a scathing indictment of religion by Mr. Richard Dawkins.
In Defense of Richard Dawkins
ReplyDeleteIn my humble opinion, there are a few misunderstandings/misrepresentations of Dawkins in this post. It is not surprising that there would be misunderstandings, given your admittedly sketchy familiarity with his work, and your reliance on secondary sources for your impressions of him. Let me start with your attribution of his "mission in life." I would like to bring to your attention that you have not mentioned anything about his profession as one of the world's foremost zoologists. You make it sound like he set out from the outset to spread naturalism in philosophy, where I would say that he has turned to discussing and debating supernaturalism in response to its interference in his discipline. And i would demur that your definition of naturalism is slightly off; you said they claim "Only the things in this universe that are within the grasp of empirical, scientific investigation actually exist," when it would be more fair to say that they claim (and rightly so) that we only have any justification in saying these things which have empirical evidence exist. Dawkins is fine admitting the possibility of things for which there is no empirical evidence, but he would hesitate before doing or saying anything which assumes that things exist for which there is no empirical evidence.
Hugo
"You might think that it would be enough for him to believe this for himself and live his life" As I said before, if you had read a bit more Dawkins, you would have found somewhere his detailing of the interference and sabotage that scientific research and scientific literacy suffers at the hands of those who have no empirical justification for their beliefs. So when you say that he should just live his life and leave you alone, you can try to remember that he and his would prefer the same from religious people. The street runs both ways.
ReplyDeleteHugo
"Yet Dawkins considers himself a hero" Can you cite your source for this? Maybe can you point to an interview where he states this sentiment?
ReplyDeleteHugo
"But to witness a destructive tornado and promptly say that wind is evil, or to see a gruesome chainsaw massacre and immediately say that chainsaws are evil is a touch irrational. This could only be unequivocally said if nothing good ever came from wind or chainsaws." The question is not if religion is unequivocally evil, but whether it is true, first of all, and whether it is worth it, second. They say that Hamas, the islamist terrorist organization, provides social services, and that the Nation of Islam are good at getting urban black men out of jail and trouble; but is it worth it? Those who fight methamphetamine on the streets are not stopped by statements like "Well, methamphetamine is just a neutral chemical, like the wind or a chainsaw. Surely meth isn't unequivocally evil." This is all subservient however, to whether the claims of religion are true. The consolations of atheism are the consolations of realism. I can tell you from personal experience and from what I have heard from other people that this girl's experience is not the only response. I can attest to the relief experienced when deciding I didn't believe that all the suffering in this world was overseen and intended. That there wasn't a silent power out of reach which watched this world and did not change it. The idea of heaven and immortality is nice, but it is wish fulfillment, no less than the denial that your dead loved ones are dead. We all go through this stage when grieving, but no one thinks that delusion can or should be our default mental status.
ReplyDeleteHugo
And as for criticizing Dawkins' quote, which you said had a "great deal" wrong with it, the only thing I see you mustered up was special pleading once again, Peter.
ReplyDeleteSincerely,
Hugo
We've been through much of this before...perhaps I overstated Dawkins' "purpose in life" a bit, but his website limits the overstatement to just a bit: http://richarddawkins.net/
ReplyDelete"We only have justification in saying these things...exist" say the people who only allow their approved empirical evidence and their approved interpretations of it. For anyone interested in religion for practical purposes rather than theoretical intrigue, it seems to me that non-existence and non-justification are virtually the same.
You claim that the costs of religion outweigh the benefits...choose to believe that if you will. What of love, charity, self-sacrifice, encouragement? All things that religion has directly, possibly solely contributed to, even if secular society is now claiming them for their own. The methamphetamine analogy is only admissible to someone with a predisposition for thinking religion is poisonous. I doubt a neutral party would allow it.
I don't know that Dawkins has stated himself to be a hero, though it wouldn't surprise me. However, I find it extremely doubtful that a person with his ego can avoid the thought even if he can avoid the word.
Your different reaction to a notion means that her reaction is false? You should realize that this is illogical. You seem to have missed it, but the core statement of this post was "This is because religion is the only source of any real hope, and the Triune God of Christianity is the only object of faith That can actually offer results." You are criticizing an anecdote that was only intended to illustrate my belief that the hope that Christianity claims to offer is much more worthy than any hope that Dawkins can claim his world offers.
Oh, I look forward to this "war over the Truth" being over...awaken your slumbering spirit, Dom, and see the Truth...
Just as on Facebook, our words will get us nowhere Dom. Still praying earnestly for you.
I'm not trying to get anywhere (with you in particular) other than to not letting falsehoods lie in print unchallenged.
ReplyDeleteAs for the methamphetamine analogy, you misunderstand my purpose. I'm not saying that religion is like meth, i'm saying your analogy of "neutral thing" doesn't hold any water. It doesn't say anything. You can't meaningfully say that it is "like a chainsaw" any more than I can that it is "like meth."
I'm sorry, but I don't know if there are lions in the jungle, and I know there aren't any lions in the jungle are two very different things in my mind.
You talk about approved empirical evidence as if you want to add another valid form of justification. Maybe you don't appreciate how tenuous our justification for easier things to prove than god are?
As a humanist of some kind or another, i value love, charity, self-sacrifice, and encouragement, of course. And as a humanist, i have a pretty firm grip on where these virtues come from. Do you? Religion has the distinction at being our first attempt at science, philosophy, ethics, medicine, art literature, but as such, it also lays claim to being our most superseded attempt at the preceding. Anything you can claim for your god, I can claim with just as much if not more justification for the human race.
I have never been struck by Dawkins having shown any inordinate egomania, in the six odd books i've read, nor the documentaries or debates in which i've seen him take part. Can you as I asked before, cite evidence, something of his that you've seen or read, some evidence of this ego so I can check my memory?
I never said her reaction was false, but as you are so fond of pointing out to me, it is possible that she, or i, have simply yet to find the right frame of mind. And as I feel contentment and hope without religion, your core message seems to at least on an anecdotal level, fail for me.
I do not look forward to this war on truth ever being over, because winning an argument, and convincing another human being (not the most rational of minds) are two unfortunately separate things. Don't spout platitudes at me, either read my half of the dialogue and consider it honestly, or discontinue the dialogue and think what you want.
Hugo.
I guess we disagree about our analogies. I was thinking of it more as "there are not lions on the other side of the ocean" versus "I'm not sure if there are lions on the other side of the ocean." Or pick your spot where they can't hurt or interact with anyone. Maybe I misunderstood.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that there is no absolute form of evidence for faith (as I understand you require), or it would not be faith. And everyone would be compelled to adhere to it. There is enough evidence for a person to find their way if they desire it.
I'd say it's more of a strong general impression I've gotten. I cannot cite any specific evidence that Dawkins is an egomaniac, and as a) I am not positive I could find any and b) I don't think it's worth pursuing, I'll concede the point.
I apologize for spouting platitudes. That was the most heartfelt thing I had to say in that particular post, so I thought it was worthwhile to say. I have considered all your arguments, and I sympathize with them all.
Thank you for that. All this talk of lions has made me hungry, so to return to the sentence which spawned them, you said, "For anyone interested in religion for practical purposes rather than theoretical intrigue, it seems to me that non-existence and non-justification are virtually the same." Now, I will first invite you to restate this, as I'm not sure what you mean, especially by practical purposes, but I will also try to interact with what I think you are saying. Dawkins and others say that the god hypothesis is unjustified, god is our lion. Maybe god exists, but without any reason for thinking that, there is no reason to do anything based on that hypothesis. To act in what is to wit a religious way of any kind is to act without rational justification. That you say, is the virtue of faith. To me this difference between unjustified and non-existent is the difference between a pretty prudent, reasonable response and the tenet of a dogmatist. Let's say i find myself suddenly in some kind of jungle, possibly maybe the habitat of a tiger (god). I don't go around behaving like I know that there is one downwind of me (faith), panicking and running about (religious activity), but only that there is a possibility that there is one in the vicinity, with reasonable caution depending on the evidence (not very good in this case). Now, suppose instead I'm in the known habitat of a possibly extinct species, like the Cross River Gorilla (god). Of course, I don't believe he doesn't exist for sure (strong gnostic atheism, very rare), though I would be surprised to find one, because of the evidence. If they are on the other side of the ocean, then they are very much like russell's teapot, aren't they? If i had never seen a tiger, and i lived on a continent where there were no tigers, and a man came to me, asking me for alms, and telling me to repent, because someday i'll fall asleep and valkyries will sail me to an island where there's a great tiger who will certainly eat me if i'm not born again, i don't really feel bad about hypothetically thinking he'd be as nuts or dishonest as i think about all pedddlers of things for which there is no justification. I would sure be surprised to wake up on such an island, but i suppose, living only on that continent, it would be foolish to say, "Categorically, (heh, cat) there are no tigers." So where's the beef?
ReplyDeleteSee, if you don't require some evidence for the frankly extraordinary things you believe, I'm sad to say you must not value truth that much. Faith means believing in something for bad reasons or no reasons at all, it means ignoring occam's razor entirely and swallowing a proposition because you've been told that swallowing it is a virtue. Why not believe also in homeopathy, or seances, or pyramid power, or aura reading, if faith is a virtue?
I just hope you realize the condescension possible in certain heartfelt statements. "Awaken your slumbering spirit, Dominic," does rather put your own spirit on a doozy of a pillar.
Hugo
You tried to draw a certain distinction, saying that Dawkins does not argue for the outright nonexistence of God, but rather that there is absolutely no evidence for Him. I attempted to say that if there really were no evidence for a divine Creator, no way for Him to interact with us, then even if He does exist in some far off place, never to return, then it amounts to the same thing. Either way, we will never see Him or speak with Him and any attempts we make to connect with Him are the same as if He did not exist. Sorry for the confusion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is plenty of evidence pointing to a divine Creator, the "problem" being that it is all conveniently disregarded by Dawkins and his disciples. Faith is not belief with no evidence whatsoever. It's taking a step further in belief beyond what is assured, because I trust the object of my faith insofar as I do feel assured.
I'm sorry for not believing the people who claim that Occam's Razor is the know all and tell all of truth. The fact is that it is a probabilistic tool, not an outright truth tool.
I apologize for sounding condescending. Wherever my spirit is, it has nothing to do with my merit, I'll tell you that.
I maintain that the distinction is significant, for logistical reasons, but if you don't mind conflating the two, it's fine with me, until the consequence of so doing potentially comes up later. But one thing you said, "no way for Him to interact with us, then even if He does exist in some far off place, never to return," struck me as odd, because it would not be part of the argument of anyone who believes the idea of god significantly improbable. Sounds more like a deist stance. Where are you getting that from? Dawkins isn't saying there is no evidence for god because god is trapped somewhere in another galaxy (hehehe send william shatner to go pick him up) He's saying everything we experience can be explained more simply without resorting to god. Dawkins allows that there may be a god who is in our midst, but who has merely chosen to make himself undetected by any verifiable means. A sneaky god, but most theists don't like the idea of a sneaky god.
DeleteHonestly, I don't know why I have to argue with you over what Dawkins would say. It irks me that you post to your blog about a writer by whom you have not finished one book. Go read!
I would like to hear this evidence. I don't think Dawkins has disregarded (literally means 'not look at') any evidence, and your "convenient" label, implying that he's serving his own purposes by being intellectually dishonest is below you.
I hasten to agree that Occam's Razor is only a tool, and a conspicuous guide, not a definitive acid test. However, when a proposition goes against the Razor again and again, as the god hypothesis does, some kind of explanation must be given as to why the Razor can be ignored in this case. I have seen no such structure.
My fault. I was going down the deist route with that. I did not consider the possibility of an ultra sneaky God. I suppose He has. But maybe He wants people to come to Him on His terms, instead of as the deity police.
DeleteI'm sorry, maybe technically 'dismissed' would have been a better word choice. You and I have already discussed this, and you have also been dismissive. I have no desire to wear myself out again on it.
Well, I guess I have no further argument then.
See that's not really fair, because other people who are reading this blog if there are any haven't seen our conversations. I don't feel like there was anything much by way of evidence there, but those sympathetic to belief might make mountains out of molehills of alluded previous conversations. I really don't think Dawkins or I unfairly dismiss any evidence that might lead an honest inquirer to believe god likely. As far as coming to an alleged invisible entity on "his" own terms (dictated by his clerics to us) I hope you see by my surely annoying rephrasing of this idea that that is just a regression from is there a god to another unanswered question how can we know what his terms are? Clerics disagree.
ReplyDeleteI doubt there are, lol.
ReplyDeleteWe have touched on absolute morality (which you don't believe in, however, if morality exists that transcends culture, then it necessitates some divine moral agent.) Also prophecy within the Bible (Daniel, Psalms 22 and 53, Isaiah, others), which people who don't want to believe in it simply say was written after the fact as if it were prophecy. Clever.
His terms are unknowable except that He reveal them to us, which He has done.
"Everyone" get ready to read Dom's refutation...and maybe after that, he'll let me drop the conversation ;-)
I must demur once again on your all or nothing gradations of morality. Cultural relativity and absolute morality are not the only two choices here, and Cultural relativism is as unappealing to me as I'm sure it is to you. You have absolutely no grounds to say that morality which transcends culture necessitates divine authority, one might even use the word "dismissive" to describe that assertion. I won't ramble unnecessarily, but if you can't imagine how that is, I can expound on how morality works, imho, for you.
DeleteAs for Daniel, you make it sound as if the evidence for or against one or another alleged dates of writing doesn't matter so much as what you want the result to be. Very revealing. I'm not by any means a biblical scholar (yet, lol), but I've found some relevant resources to share with you if you are interested. Can you point me to an article written by a scholar with a degree from an accredited university who believes Daniel was written before the second century BCE? Or at least one in which the author doesn't use multiple exclamation points at the ends of her/his sentences? And while we are playing the prophecy game, do you want to start a running tally of all the fulfilled (excluding self fulfilling prophecies) vs. the manifestly unfulfilled ones? I have no definite idea about the results of such a tally, but I'm game if you are.
As I said before, you're free to drop the conversation at any point you want. This will necessitate nothing more than leaving one of my comments unanswered; I hope this is not impossible for your personal or sectarian pride.
I would be interested to hear about morality, iyho.
Delete