The Evolution Of Dawkins" Faith
What will be the next stage in the evolution of Richard Dawkins? While there should be no doubt that he is right about the scientific theory of evolution, we should also be clear that he is missing one or two points with regard to Christian faith. Having said that, he is making progress. He was polite and reasonable about all the Christians he met in his most recent broadcast, even those who were far from polite and reasonable with him.
Indeed, if the sole object of Christianity were indeed to provide a natural history, I would probably join him in dismissing the idea of God as a redundant hypothesis. However, God is not a scientific hypothesis and religion is not a substitute for scientific research. The object of Christian faith is to give us some guidance in the matter of how we should live our lives, and this is not something which can be achieved by any amount of scientific theory.
Yet the Bible does have something to tell us about the natural world, so how are we to understand it? My (far from original) suggestion is that the creation stories tell us three things (among others):
We are creatures along with the rest apes, fish, trees, and so on.
We have special responsibilities as a result of our power to manipulate nature.
The world we live in, and are part of, is essentially good and well-ordered.
I see nothing there that threatens Dawkins' world view sufficiently to motivate his dislike of religion. I have left out any mention of God, not because I have ceased to believe in God, but because there is clearly plenty of truth in the creation story whether you believe in God or not. People have wondered whether good' is an appropriate term for the cut-throat world of nature, but we should hardly begin to moralise about the eating habits of carnivores. A killer lion is a perfectly good lion.
It is worth remembering that religious commitment has itself often been a significant motive for scientific endeavour. Indeed, Dawkins' commitment to the advancement of science must stem from his answer to the question about how he should live his life. He may not have needed the help of any religious tradition, but he is displaying considerable faith in the value of the pursuit of truth.
It will be interesting to see whether his respect for the value of truth will evolve to the point where he respects the possibility of finding truth in or through religion. So far, his attacks upon religion have failed because they have been misdirected. Dawkins may not ever become a religious person, but he has not yet given any reason for a religious person to lose faith.
Indeed, if the sole object of Christianity were indeed to provide a natural history, I would probably join him in dismissing the idea of God as a redundant hypothesis. However, God is not a scientific hypothesis and religion is not a substitute for scientific research. The object of Christian faith is to give us some guidance in the matter of how we should live our lives, and this is not something which can be achieved by any amount of scientific theory.
Yet the Bible does have something to tell us about the natural world, so how are we to understand it? My (far from original) suggestion is that the creation stories tell us three things (among others):
We are creatures along with the rest apes, fish, trees, and so on.
We have special responsibilities as a result of our power to manipulate nature.
The world we live in, and are part of, is essentially good and well-ordered.
I see nothing there that threatens Dawkins' world view sufficiently to motivate his dislike of religion. I have left out any mention of God, not because I have ceased to believe in God, but because there is clearly plenty of truth in the creation story whether you believe in God or not. People have wondered whether good' is an appropriate term for the cut-throat world of nature, but we should hardly begin to moralise about the eating habits of carnivores. A killer lion is a perfectly good lion.
It is worth remembering that religious commitment has itself often been a significant motive for scientific endeavour. Indeed, Dawkins' commitment to the advancement of science must stem from his answer to the question about how he should live his life. He may not have needed the help of any religious tradition, but he is displaying considerable faith in the value of the pursuit of truth.
It will be interesting to see whether his respect for the value of truth will evolve to the point where he respects the possibility of finding truth in or through religion. So far, his attacks upon religion have failed because they have been misdirected. Dawkins may not ever become a religious person, but he has not yet given any reason for a religious person to lose faith.
Source...