Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

The Mail On Sunday (via VirtueOnline) ^ | 5/18/07 | Alister McGrath

[Frumanchu]

Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

by Alister McGrath
The Daily Mail
5/18/2007
Original Article

He is a 'psychotic delinquent', invented by mad, deluded people. And that's one of Dawkins's milder criticisms.

Dawkins, Oxford University's Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, is on a crusade.

His salvo of outrage and ridicule is meant to rid the world of its greatest evil: religion. "If this book works as I intend," he says, "religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." But he admits such a result is unlikely. "Dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads" (that's people who believe in God) are "immune to argument", he says.

I have known Dawkins for more than 20 years; we are both Oxford professors. I believe if anyone is "immune to argument" it is him. He comes across as a dogmatic, aggressive propagandist.

Of course, back in the Sixties, everyone who mattered was telling us that religion was dead. I was an atheist then. Growing up as a Protestant in Northern Ireland, I had come to believe religion was the cause of the Province's problems. While I loved studying the sciences at school, they were important for another reason: science disproved God. Believing in God was only for sad, mad and bad people who had yet to be enlightened by science.

I went up to Oxford to study the sciences in 1971, expecting my atheism to be consolidated. In the event, my world was turned upside down. I gave up one belief, atheism, and embraced another, Christianity. Why? There were many factors. For a start, I was alarmed by some atheist writings, which seemed more preoccupied with rubbishing religion than seeking the truth.

Above all, I encountered something at Oxford that I had failed to meet in Northern Ireland - articulate Christians who were able to challenge my atheism. I soon discovered two life-changing things.

First, Christianity made a lot of sense. It gave me a new way of seeing and understanding the world, above all, the natural sciences. Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life.

I kept studying the sciences, picking up a PhD for research in molecular biophysics. But my heart and mind had been seduced by theology. It still excites me today.

Dawkins and I both love the sciences; we both believe in evidence-based reasoning. So how do we make sense of our different ways of looking at the world? That is one of the issues about which I have often wished we might have a proper discussion. Our paths do cross on the television networks and we even managed to spar briefly across a BBC sofa a few months back. We were also filmed having a debate for Dawkins's recent Channel 4 programme, The Root Of All Evil? Dawkins outlined his main criticisms of God, and I offered answers to what were clearly exaggerations and misunderstandings. It was hardly rocket science.

For instance, Dawkins often compares belief in God to an infantile belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, saying it is something we should all outgrow. But the analogy is flawed. How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood?

Many people discover God decades after they have ceased believing in the Tooth Fairy. Dawkins, of course, would just respond that people such as this are senile or mad, but that is not logical argument. Dawkins can no more 'prove' the non-existence of God than anyone else can prove He does exist.

Most of us are aware that we hold many beliefs we cannot prove to be true. It reminds us that we need to treat those who disagree with us with intellectual respect, rather than dismissing them - as Dawkins does - as liars, knaves and charlatans.

But when I debated these points with him, Dawkins seemed uncomfortable. I was not surprised to be told that my contribution was to be cut.

The Root Of All Evil? was subsequently panned for its blatant unfairness. Where, the critics asked, was a responsible, informed Christian response to Dawkins? The answer: on the cutting-room floor.

The God Delusion is similarly full of misunderstanding. Dawkins simply presents us with another dogmatic fundamentalism. Maybe that's why some of the fiercest attacks on The God Delusion are coming from other atheists, rather than religious believers. Michael Ruse, who describes himself as a 'hardline Darwinian' philosopher, confessed that The God Delusion made him 'embarrassed to be an atheist'.

The dogmatism of the work has attracted wide criticism from the secularist community. Many who might be expected to support Dawkins are trying to distance themselves from what they see as an embarrassment.

Aware of the moral obligation of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many atheists have been disturbed by Dawkins's crude stereotypes and seemingly pathological hostility towards religion. In fact, The God Delusion might turn out to be a monumental own goal - persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant as the worst that religion can offer.

Alister McGrath is professor of theology at Oxford University. His new book The Dawkins Delusion?, co-authored by Joanna Collicutt McGrath, is published by SPCK at £7.99.

[Frumanchu]

Pinging to some friends regarding militant atheism.

[theDentist]

How about sending our aetheistic professor to the Middle East and convince them first.

[atomicpossum]

The ‘reason’-based Dawkins sounds very emotional in his arguments, doesn’t he?

[wideawake]

"If this book works as I intend," he says, "religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down."

Then this "scientist" knows nothing about behavioral psychology. At all.

[starfish923]

It's always interesting to see these ivory towers types go at it. The arguments always sound so reasonable. Alister McGrath is probably correct in his assessment of Dawkins.
Here's my read, FWIW.

IMHO, Professor Dawkins is an angry, unhappy man whose anger and unhappiness have little to do with God. It probably started with his early childhood and was reinforced by parents, family and a personality that was inclined to see the world perversely, obstinately and arrogantly.

But, hey, that's my Amateur Psych 101 opinion and though it's worth diddly to most, it might be correct. Bet it is, mostly.

[ksen]

Hmm, Dawkins must be about to fall into that pit he digged for us.

[verum ago]

I’m just going to go a step further, and while the term is no longer used formally, say that Dawkins is bordering on sociopathy.

[HarleyD]

Maybe that's why some of the fiercest attacks on The God Delusion are coming from other atheists, rather than religious believers. Michael Ruse, who describes himself as a 'hardline Darwinian' philosopher, confessed that The God Delusion made him 'embarrassed to be an atheist'.

Actually, I think the fiercest attacks come from within the church by liberal theologians who would either purposely or unknowingly lead the masses away. Extreme atheists, as noted by Mr. Ruse, tend to be embarrassing.

[Frumanchu]

Actually, I think the fiercest attacks come from within the church by liberal theologians who would either purposely or unknowingly lead the masses away. Extreme atheists, as noted by Mr. Ruse, tend to be embarrassing.

I agree. The most damaging and devious attacks on the Truth come from those who identify themselves with the church while working feverishly to attack every foundational pillar they can.

[RightWhale]

Dante reserved the ninth circle for them.

[onedoug]

Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay W Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place In The Cosmos Is Designed For Discovery

[LiteKeeper]

Very interesting

[xzins]

Dawkins is on a crusade, however, I find him refreshingly honest with his either/ors about evolution.

He clearly states that evolution makes God obsolete, and that the 2 are incompatible beliefs.

For a variety of reasons, I agree with that.

[marron]

evolution makes God obsolete, and that the 2 are incompatible beliefs.

My personal opinion, for what little its worth, is that creation is on-going, and we are a key and necessary element in the process.

And that evolution, depending upon how you define it, is just a tool in the toolkit.

That God is creator doesn't even enter into question for me. So the only question is "how". Thats where the sciences come in. Since God's existence isn't in question, however the evidence falls out doesn't disturb me, it intrigues me, it interests me, if it seems to be going in an unexpected direction I don't worry about it. There are people on both sides of the question who believe that, if evolution can be proven, God will vanish, and so the whole question takes on a desperate existential quality that it doesn't merit, with each side believing that God's existence hangs in the balance.

All that hangs in the balance is our understanding of how God goes about his business, and we need to know, because our business is to make use of what we learn. Its a big universe out there, and God gave it to us. Or, well, he is in the process of giving it to us. Our job is to learn how it operates.

One thing we should be very clear on is that while "science" digs up bits of information every day, there is no way that we will know all there is to know this year or next or in our grandkids' lifetimes. Anyone claiming to have final and complete scientific understanding is just being argumentative. All I care to guess is that the picture that unfolds is going to be even more astounding than we can guess. I can't wait. I won't live to see the really cool stuff half a century or a century down the line, I'll have to watch from the grandstands on the other side, I imagine.

[Diamond]

Dawkins often compares belief in God to an infantile belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, saying it is something we should all outgrow.

I've never understood why atheists say, "should". What basis does a materialist have for emoting that the universe or some aspect of it (in this case, a 'belief')ought to be something other than what it is? If the physical universe is all there is and that's where beliefs come from after all, and that's all beliefs are made of, then where does he get his imaginary standard by which he measures beliefs and determines that some of them don't meaure up. Measure up to what?

How can the universe produce something "wrong" with itself?

Cordially,

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so much for sharing your insights!

I assert that if one considers our space/time coordinates v the inception space/time coordinates (relativity and inflationary theory) - the incompatibility between evolution and creation is a perception and not real.

[betty boop]

There are people on both sides of the question who believe that, if evolution can be proven, God will vanish, and so the whole question takes on a desperate existential quality that it doesn't merit, with each side believing that God's existence hangs in the balance.

Lovely essay/post, marron!

[GraniteStateConservative]

For instance, Dawkins often compares belief in God to an infantile belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, saying it is something we should all outgrow. But the analogy is flawed. How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood?

The analogy is just fine. The difference is that there is not a stigma attached to believing in God and there is no way to "prove" he doesn't exist, since all the payoff is when you are dead. It's standard to treat adults who believe in Santa with pity and ridicule and we're secure in that because we can prove he doesn't exist every Christmas morning when we don't get gifts from him and neither do our kids. The reason no one seriously claims to believe in Zeus or Jupiter is that people would treat them as crazy. There's no real logic to the separate responses.

Dawkins can no more 'prove' the non-existence of God than anyone else can prove He does exist.

The thing is, the burden of proof is on you, not on us. I don't have to prove that unicorns and leprechauns don't exist, either. The default is that unless you can prove something to be true, it isn't true.

Most of us are aware that we hold many beliefs we cannot prove to be true. It reminds us that we need to treat those who disagree with us with intellectual respect, rather than dismissing them - as Dawkins does - as liars, knaves and charlatans.

Society doesn't treat those with unsubstantiated beliefs with praise. Only unsubstantiated beliefs that the particular society has adopted, which makes it totally relative. We call people kooks and crazies and nutjobs and such all the time for believing in things that have been accepted by society as nonsense. We here at FR laugh at Rosie every time she talks about the Bush Administration blowing up the WTC. We at FR think Allah and Mohammed's supposed divine association with him are ridiculous, too.

[GraniteStateConservative]

How can the universe produce something "wrong" with itself?

Dawkins answered your question. You are saying that belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy should not be criticized for not measuring up. Do you really believe that statement? Belief in those two things came from the universe (which was your argument), after all. Not all ideas should be treated equally, with equal respect.