Brook's book "Necessity of Atheism" was written in 1933; Dawkins seems to harp basically on the same premise 50 years later. Dawkins repeatedly emphasizes the grievous harm that religion inflicts on society, and how no rational human being could believe in God. Others (Jim Herrick, Peter Cave) propose a less divisive proposition, more in the social scientist realm, that that the doctrinal differences between Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism were superficial and insignificant, that really we all believe in the same God. Basically, Buddhism doesn’t believe in a personal God at all. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam believe in a God who holds people accountable for their beliefs. Judaism and Islam hold that God's attribute could not be all reduced to a "loving" God and assert some racial identity to it's members. Christianity, on the other hand, breaks from the Hebrew racial and national identities held in the "Old Testament" and extends it's reach to "gentiles" of all nations through a belief in Jesus Christ.
Two extremes - Dawkins claims that the Christian view of sin can basically be attributed to a "selfish gene" and Paul Kurtz who maintains the notion that man is basically good and all religions are good. While one may sound biologically plausible and the other may sound like a nice way at reconciling all of the world's religions, do they offer any real "breakthrough" in explaining good and evil? Are there ethical values and principles that nonreligious individuals can live by? Of course, it is called civility. So, does this resolve or explain why we have evil in the world? Dawkins claims that religion is basically the reason for our stupidity and that evil can be genetically "engineered out" through recombinant DNA pharmaceuticals. Kurtz is like the well-endowed blond in the Miss America contest calling for "world peace."
As a Christian, I want to examine these approaches seriously. Does the human record (a subject called history) demonstrate that the atheistic or agnostic approach or, dare I say the "scientific approach" uphold this premise? Darwin's "Origin of Species," published 150 years ago, did set the scientific community in motion in better understanding the diversity of CREATION (I know this will sound archaic) . I respect Darwin, his work was fascinating and a major breakthrough. But, he seemed to stir a deep division between religion and science. He was perhaps the first person to offer some evidence on the origin of man, the scientific explanation, but it was theory. He wasn't there to observe man evolve. What is interesting is his view on race. He asserted something additionally that many scientists would disclaim - that race (human skin color) traveled different distances along the evolutionary path. Caucasians in his mind were at the top of the racial hierarchy , while black and brown people ranked below.
Is racism evil? Of course. Did it get a helping hand from Darwin? Yes. Consider Pekka-Eric Auvinen, a Finnish schoolboy who murdered eight people at his high school in November 2007, wrote on his blog that "stupid, weak-minded people are reproducing ... faster than the intelligent, strong-minded" ones. Sounds evolutionary, don't you think? What about the "KKK" in the United States, isn't some of their thought based on the "gene pool" being pure?
I know, some are going to say that this is no different than the harm Christianity or other world religions have imposed on society.
So we have made strides in alleviating racism, as we know it today. But, why, is it heralded as a " humanistic achievement" and why is racism now stripped of it's "roots" in Christianity? A logical or reasonable approach would say no, racism, at least in the United States, was brought to it's knees by a Christian - Dr. Martin Luther King. He implemented the teachings of Christianity in bringing out the "end" through non-violence and civil disobedience. I know some will claim those are not exclusively Christian ideas, but I don't recall Rev King running around giving speeches about Buddha so please be fair with the historical record.
Scientists claim that the bible is full of mistakes and atheists espouse the replicate errors in the "good book" - they are essentially making these same mistakes in documenting how humanism and the social sciences brought us to understand the evil of racism. Didn't social scientists perpetuate racism by proposing African Americans had lower IQ than whites (Galton).
Jesus Christ is a controversial figure historically. But in order to be empathetic to my agnostic friends, a "theologically abstract person" confabulated by idealistic religious fanatics through the evolutionary rewriting of the scriptures. I know, either way, it still comes to a name - doesn't it? Jesus of Nazareth. I believe him to be a real person and the manifestation of God in human form. You may not. But, belief is not an abstract thing. Your belief in not believing in Jesus Christ is real. My belief in the deity of Christ is just as real. But, I do take issue with people like Dawkins who claim I can't be a good scientist or person of reason because I believe in a creator God. I read and agree with findings from atheistic scientists, why should Dawkins not accept people of faith who are scientists? Albert Einstein was Jewish and Louis Pasteur was Catholic. Do we throw out their contributions to science?
There is a flaw in mandating that all scientists be agnostic or atheistic, that we are somehow disabled in our inquiry of the empirical because of our faith. I don't stream "truth" through the lens of religious fanatics and I don't compromise my clinical research findings by worrying that it will interfere with my religion or beliefs. What is humorous to me is the "scientist" who truly believes that "love" and "evil" are biological phenomena and the social scientists who claim "exclusive" rights to discovering the evil of racism and social justice. Are religion and science adversaries?
Bottom line - is intellectualism impeded by faith? I don't think so. The fact that evolutionary scientists assume "no responsibility" for racism, offer silly explanations for good and evil, and rant about how religion invades science amuses me. I do understand that the Catholic church tried to squelch Galileo and that religion also has it's abuses throughout history. But, let's not say that science and religion are adversaries, ok? Isn't it time to bury the hatchet? We are not in the era of the Scope Trial. Can't the two camps trust each other a bit?
No comments:
Post a Comment