A hugely significant feature of western culture over the past few years has been the rise of the so-called ‘new atheists’. Through media attention, and through writing headline-grabbing books, people like Christopher Hitchens (‘God is not great’) and Richard Dawkins (‘The God Delusion’) have sought actively to turn people away from religious faith. Any cursory read on news websites of the comments left on religious or church stories shows the impact that they have had in our culture – many assume that atheism is the only credible intellectual position to adopt, and religious believers are immature and deluded.
Today at Swanwick, our particular group of
immature and deluded believers were treated to two presentations from Alister
McGrath. Alister is currently professor
of Historical Theology at
The morning session outlined our current cultural context, and reaffirmed the vital place of Apologetics as part of our mission. Apologetics has got nothing to do with apologising for anything (except by etymology), but means presenting a reasoned defence of the Christian faith – giving a reason for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15). This is hugely important, to equip and give confidence to church members, and also to persuade or remind our friends and neighbours of the reasonableness of the Christian faith. In apologetics, we have a huge advantage – we are not just presenting something that is true, but something that is also real – something that transforms lives and touches the heart. We don’t argue people into faith, but as we present verbally who Jesus is and what he has done, so we also bear witness to what Jesus Christ has done for us. We tell our story, and evoke the beauty and the glory of God.
With that confidence, Alister then tackled in more detail the claims advanced by Richard Dawkins in ‘the God Delusion’. Dawkins advances essentially four arguments:
1. Belief in God is irrational and infantile, like belief in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, and normal human maturing will mean people ‘grow out’ of faith. But Alister himself came to faith at 18 years old. So did I, with a conversion that was based on mature thought as much as the emotions and the heart – and I can never remember believing in Father Christmas! As a former lawyer, evidence (from reason and testimony, as well as science) is very important to me. God’s existence can neither be proved or disproved by rational argument, and atheism is just as much a faith position as religious belief.
2. Secondly, Dawkins argues that science shows us that there is no God – religious faith has been disproved. Has it? If so, why are so many scientists committed Christians? Apparently, real scientists don’t believe in God, but frankly that is a patronising assertion, disrespectful of many eminent women and men. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God – it is talking about different things. As a leading American evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould, who died in 2002, said, ‘To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time: science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.’
All it can do is begin to point one way or the other. My father came to committed Christian faith late in life, as a scientist and through his science, not despite it. Simon Conway Morris, Cambridge Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology, famously said, ‘If one compares the sequence of amino acids that go to form the protein haemoglobin, it becomes apparent that humans and chimps are identical and do not differ in a single site…nevertheless, as I never tire of pointing out to my students in Cambridge, chimpanzees do not play the piano, drink dry martinis, or erect temples to glorify the Creator.’
Dawkins’ position is perhaps a final blast from modernism, looking back to early twentieth century Logical Positivism, where every statement had to be tested against the criterion of mathematical or logical verifiability, thus excluding not just religious language but all art, culture and, most tellingly, love.
3. Dawkins has thirdly argued that science explains away the origins of religious belief as a virus of the mind, a 'meme' which transmits a psychological need to believe. The difficulty he faces here is that there is absolutely no evidence for these, and what he says about the virus of religious belief could equally well be applied to atheism.
4. Finally, and perhaps most dangerously, he claims that faith in God leads to violence. This view has gained far more credence since 9/11, and any believer must acknowledge that Christian history sadly contains many examples of violence done in the name of our faith. But to argue that all religious faith inevitably leads to such violence is simply nonsense. Christian history gives us the Crusades, it is true, but also has brought education, medical care, social reforms, peacemaking and human rights. Was William Wilberforce violent when campaigning to end slavery, or Mother Teresa violent on the streets of Calcutta as she cared for the homeless and unwanted? Of course not. Jesus did no harm, and was subjected to great violence. Indeed, the greatest violence of our era has been perpetrated by the ungodly fascism of the Nazis (reviving old pagan myths, coupled with Nietzsche's atheist nihilism) and atheist states like
the old Soviet Union, both of which actively persecuted the Church. In our day one need look no further than the brutal atheist dictatorship of
Alister McGrath – a brilliant mind and a gracious speaker. Go buy the book – here
(Amazon)