Of all people, unexpectedly, Terry Eagleton (of Intro to Literary Theory fame–I find it difficult to believe that anyone who made a career out of critical theory could believe in a kind and loving God) wrote a scathing review of Richard Dawkins’ new book The God Delusion, which points at religion as the cause of the chieftest problems on the planet. Dawkins demands that religion be held to the same scrutiny as scientific theories are, and evidently believes that it will be found wanting. He’s especially harsh towards scientists who are also religious, seeing the two as incompatible.
By believing this, isn’t he elevating science into the same position as religion? And don’t scientists have faith in the fact that protons and neutrons exist, the laws of gravity never fail, the big bang occurred X billions of years ago? If anyone depended on evidence, evidence, evidence for everything they believed, then how could he or she live? Would you scrutinize your love for your parents with the scientific method? It’s impossible to demand constant evidence from your parents that they love you, and evidence can always be found lacking. Skepticism is a dangerous sword.
I liked this quote from Eagleton:
Because the universe is God’s, it shares in his life, which is the life of freedom. This is why it works all by itself, and why science and Richard Dawkins are therefore both possible. The same is true of human beings: God is not an obstacle to our autonomy and enjoyment but, as Aquinas argues, the power that allows us to be ourselves. Like the unconscious, he is closer to us than we are to ourselves. He is the source of our self-determination, not the erasure of it. To be dependent on him, as to be dependent on our friends, is a matter of freedom and fulfilment. Indeed, friendship is the word Aquinas uses to characterise the relation between God and humanity.
Jesus hung out with whores and social outcasts, was remarkably casual about sex, disapproved of the family (the suburban Dawkins is a trifle queasy about this), urged us to be laid-back about property and possessions, warned his followers that they too would die violently, and insisted that the truth kills and divides as well as liberates. He also cursed self-righteous prigs and deeply alarmed the ruling class.
Religion/faith should not be a crutch. It is not there to make you intellectually lazy. I remember the parable of Israel wrestling with the angel: man’s desire to engage with the universe is not a simple, easy thing. If you disbelieve because you think religion cripples people’s independence, then you are probably thinking of dogma rather than true spiritual grappling.
I find that rabid atheists like Dawkins and rabid fundamentalists like Pat Roberts have a lot in common. Neither camp would like to be grouped with the other, probably, but their approach to what they believe is remarkably similar. Dawkins and Roberts are both too busy pointing out the speck in each other’s eyes to notice the log in their own.
Ideal faith is, I think, balance between blind belief and blind skepticism. If you grow up as a strict atheist, who’s to say that you’re anymore openminded than a strict Mormon? Balanced consideration is so hard to achieve, yet likely– ultimately–most rewarding.
I abandoned organized religion years ago because of some of the horrible people I encountered within it. But rejecting spiritual exploration on account of a couple of jackasses is as rational as refusing to take math because the teacher is mean.
I find that Hebrews 11:1-3 speaks beautifully to the convictions of both scientists and the religious:
Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen.
By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible.
I have never seen an electron or quark or the Holy Spirit with my eye, yet I believe they do exist. By faith.
A quote from some poet I forget: “God says to the free mind--find me.” To get anywhere, we need freedom from both blind dogma and blind skepticism.
(discussion welcome, if anyone cares for it 
I thoroughly agree with your suggestion “that rabid atheists like Dawkins and rabid fundamentalists like Pat Roberts have a lot in common.” In addition to the similarities you pointed out, I think that both think not in terms of religion as the collective expression of the common elements in individuals’ relationships with God but in terms of social and cultural institutions.
When religion becomes “organized religion” it loses touch with that individual striving you refer to that makes religion compelling in the first place, and becomes just another social institution. It’s not the faith itself or the philosophical system that’s to blame, but the social institutions that have become entangled with those things.
Comment by Coconuts — October 24, 2006 @ 7:46 pm |
beautifully put. I couldn’t agree more.
Comment by apricot — October 25, 2006 @ 11:14 am |
[...] I’d like to quote the eloquent Coconut who commented on my post on Dawkins & Eagleton: [...]
Pingback by God Delusion pt. II « wandering apricot — October 25, 2006 @ 11:37 am |
[...] Even since I read a post over at Wandering Apricot about Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion I’ve been thinking a lot about both religion’s (and religious organizations’) role in society and the role religious beliefs must play in understanding the mind. Apparently, for some reason, this is on the minds of other WordPress bloggers as well (including some pretty fierce debate over at this blog about evangelism and even the possibility of the existence of a God). Recently, I mentioned an article by Paul Bloom about a cognitive/evolutionary basis for religious and superstitious belief. It’s a good, easy read that will probably be interesting to anyone that cares to read it, given that having an opinion on religion is hard to escape. What follows was originally conceived as a response to Apricot’s comment, but it was getting long enough to warrant it’s own post, so here it is: [...]
Pingback by On God, still « Mumble Mumble… — November 1, 2006 @ 3:47 pm |