From the Pastor’s Study

During the last couple of years three books attacking religion have made the best seller lists.  All three of these books espouse a militant brand of atheism that attacks all religion as not just mistaken, but dangerous.  The first of these books was written by a professor of biology at Oxford University , Richard Dawkins, and is titled, The God Delusion.  Dawkins argues that Darwinian evolutionary theory precludes any concept of God, since the world can be explained without recourse to what he calls the “God hypothesis.”  But Dawkins does not stop there.  He goes on to argue that religion is not just mistaken, it is dangerous.  For Dawkins all people who believe in some kind of deity are irrational, and their irrationality inevitably leads to the violence of those who fly planes into skyscrapers.  In other words, if you believe in God you are giving aid and comfort to the those who send suicide bombers out to kill innocent men, women and children.  The books by Sam Harris (The End of Faith ) and Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great ) are in the same vein, except that they are even shriller in their attacks on people of faith.  

How can we respond to those who have read one or more of these books and are persuaded by their arguments?  There are at least three possible answers.  The first is to attack the messenger.  Since Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens use their books to attack people of faith, we can respond in kind by writing them off.  Since they obviously have an animus against all expressions of faith, they can be dismissed as dyspeptic critics who are simply spewing their venomous prejudices.  However, killing the messenger does not deal with the message.  What is it in their attacks that resonates with enough people to make their books best sellers?  

A second option is simply to ignore them, assuming that people of faith will not buy what they are selling.  If we can keep our people happily isolated from their influence, then what they write will not matter.  However, as any parent will tell you, that tactic will not work in the long run.  No matter how hard you try, you cannot protect your children from discovering the things of this world.  In the case of Richard Dawkins we are dealing with a highly respected scientist in the field of biology.  Anyone who studies biology at the college level or above will sooner, rather than later, come across Dawkins (or someone like him).  The respect he has achieved in his field will give him a hearing.   

A third approach is to engage the arguments and reasoning in their books, insofar as there are ideas to engage.  At this point I would focus on Dawkins’ work because he claims that his science has led him to this conclusion.  Ever since Darwin ’s Origin of Species was published there have been scientists who have claimed that the theory of evolution precludes the existence of God.  But God is not a scientific hypothesis to be proven or disproven by the latest scientific findings.  Dawkins claims that only scientific knowledge counts as knowledge.  Everything else is hallucination or delusion and is irrational.  This reductionist stance rules out any forms of knowledge that do not fit Dawkins’ rules.  In other words he tries to stack the deck in his favor.  However, this creates a problem for him, since by his own canons of knowledge there is no way that he can say anything one way or another about God.  Evolutionary biology in itself has nothing to say about God.  Dawkins does not represent all biologists who consider the theory of evolution to be the best explanation of the living species on our planet, given the evidence that we have.  There are many biologists who are people of faith.  David Fulford, a professor of biology at Edinboro University, who is also the Episcopal priest here is just one example.  There are also excellent books by other biologists that engage the theory of evolution from a Christian perspective and see no real conflict between the two.   

In a short column like this it is impossible to do justice to such a complex topic as the relationship between science and religion.  I just want you to know that there are other alternatives than issuing mutual anathemas against each other, or compartmentalizing our knowledge with one part of our brain devoted to science and another devoted to religion (and never the twain shall meet).  There are both scientists and theologians who are involved in mutual and respectful conversations with each other with the understanding that we can learn from each other out of our various areas of expertise.   

Your pastor,

John 

[For last month's column go to mar Column]

This web is property of The First United Presbyterian Church of Edinboro.  
P.O.Box789/4281 Route 6N Edinboro, PA 16412 (814) 734-3511    
For problems or questions regarding this web contact support@presbychedinboro.org.
Last updated: March 28, 2008.