McGrath's Open Forum on "The God Delusion"

http://blog.crosswalkamerica.org/2007/01/15/mcgraths-open-forum-on-the-god-delusion/

Republished from the CrossWalk America blog; http://blog.crosswalkamerica.org

----

Alister McGrath, theologian and scientist, responds to biologist Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics;

http://www.citychurchsf.org/openforum/Audio/OF_Alister_McGrath.mp3 (direct link - click to listen to mp3 right now, or right-click and "save as" to download)

Dawkins' book is one in a series of recent volumes by "new atheists," including Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" and Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell." As a person who is very interested in the philosophy of science, it's fun and fruitful to be in conversation with these voices. They've had an impact on me as a Christian, and I think it matters for people of faith to spend some time in this discussion. Below is a revised version of my personal notes, which mostly summarize but also include a couple significant comments/ideas I'll mark with (h:) . McGrath's talk at times took the form of apologetics, a point-by-point defense of his Christian worldview, which can feel argumentative but in this situation may be helpful in adding a different kind of light to the territory Dawkins covers. -howie

----

Dawkins assumes there are three possible explanations for people of faith: they are stupid ("fools"), deluded ("mad"), or evil ("bad"). He describes faith as an "infantile" "process of non-thinking," comparing belief in God with belief in Santa Claus. McGrath points out that Dawkins does not converse authentically with the many studied, reflective, intelligent people of faith, including many scientists. Dawkins does not account for or discuss adults who come to faith (adults don't come to believe in Santa), suggesting that his analogy is not valid.

McGrath points out that all people live by certain assumptions that cannot be proven (i.e., there is no worldview that can be constructed without some assumption, that is entirely a priori). Challenges to our assumptions are always disconcerting, but we can respond differently (transformation - embrace - active fear - passive suppression). (h: I've found that seeking and thinking about the assumptions I live by has been a freeing process of self-discovery and then choosing what I will assume.)

"Delusion" is defined as "a belief held in the face of evidence." There is a long history, stretching back to Freud, of explaining religion naturally as a form of wish-fulfillment. Dawkins takes this point to imply that the human wish for God's existence is a delusion; McGrath points out that we often wish for things that are possible and real. For example, I might wish right now for someone to watch a movie with tonight. Later, a friend calls me, and we end up seeing "The Last Waltz."

Dawkins created the concept of a "meme" in 1976. His analogy is that memes are to human culture what genes are to human bodies; a way of encoding and transmitting information, loosely an "idea." He disparages belief in God as a "virus of the mind." McGrath points out that if you accept the concept/image of "memes," all ideas have that status and it does not affect their correspondence to reality and truth.

"Real scientists are atheists" and "science disproves God" are further assumptions Dawkins makes, against the witness of such scientists as Stephen Jay Gould, Francis Collins, and Paul Davies. McGrath asserts that science, by its legitimate methods, cannot judge or comment on the issue. "Are there limits of science?" Dawkins' book answers "Yes, but given enough time science will explain everything, become omnicompetent." McGrath agrees that science has unlimited potential regarding the material world, but cannot address "meaning" and "purpose," which he insists are real, legitimate questions. (h: Dawkins' argument reminds me of Goedel's incompleteness theorems; that any system of truth-expression (such as science) will generate true statements that cannot be proven within the system; such systems are inherently incomplete.)

Dawkins claims that religion leads to violence, ignoring the example of the officially atheistic USSR. McGrath counters with the insight that human nature is potentially violent; we tend to transcendentalize divisions, whether they are religious, tribal, racial, economic, or something else. (h: Though history is full of people using religion as a means for violence, our great religious leaders have shown us the way of transforming our nature towards universal compassion. Jesus is a perfect example, and there is no shortage of others, thinking today especially of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)

The last point Alister McGrath makes is to point how "terribly modern" Dawkins' argument is, meaning that it is thoroughly embedded in a modernist worldview that sees reason as the only way of knowing truth and the one way to do things properly. Dawkins seems like a scientific/logical positivist of the 19th century in this way, taking on a posture of certainty that is characteristically modernist (before physicists discovered uncertainty) but rather un-scientific. We are now in a post-modern period, open to many different possibilities and most importantly, to more-than-material forms of truth, information, knowledge, and being.

----

Thanks for making it this far. I'll ponder and reflect for the coming week, and strike back with some conversation-starters about what it all might mean Monday next. -h