One here which I wrote in September 2011. Although the book in question is a couple of years old now, I think the overall content is as relevant now as it was when I wrote it.
Richard Dawkins' latest book will not achieve his aim.
Richard Dawkins, the well known evolutionary biologist and prominent atheist, has written a book. This is hardly a novel thing in itself, except that this book, his latest attempt to persuade people to give up their religious beliefs, is intended for children.
Talking to Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight last week he discussed the new book (The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True) and his reasons for writing it.
As a scientist, Dawkins is concerned to present provable facts and observable reality. For him this does not allow space for any notions of God, of course. He compared religious beliefs to childhood fairy tales where children are taught to suspend their disbelief in unlikely events such as a pumpkin turning into a carriage. His view was that fairy tales were colourful, enjoyable and often reassuring and as such were on the same level as religious mythology. He stated though that truth always made the better story in reality.
Now, when it comes to evolutionary biology, there can be little doubt that Professor Dawkins knows what he is talking about and on one level, his wish for children to be well informed and taught facts rather than be corrupted by misinformation is laudable. On another level though, his wish to influence people in how they should think is surely more dubious. During the interview he stated that people who believed in creation were "stupid and ignorant". He stated firmly that he saw only two positions which could be taken on what to believe, namely the right one and the wrong one.
Whatever the truth of that, this seemed a somewhat arrogant position to take: effectively it said (as the good professor tends to do) 'if you do not think like me you are clearly stupid'. One might also ask what right Professor Dawkins has, regardless of his scientific expertise, to be the arbiter of the correct way of thinking.
Dawkins' consistent position over the years has been that science is the opposite of religious belief: a simple matter of fact versus superstition. From his writings and interviews it is clear that he believes that a person can be religious only if he is blind to the fact of evolution.
As his example of the obviously nonsensical nature of religion he cited the biblical account of creation in only seven days which features light being created on the first day but the sun (the source of light) not being created until the fourth day.
There are problems with his view though. Evolutionary biology is his speciality and it is natural to focus on what you know best. However, in doing so he risks seeing only that which is most directly in opposition to his own subject. During the Newsnight interview he talked of religious belief only in terms of belief in creation stories and seemed to see these as the fundamental basis of such belief.
However, the biblical account of creation occupies only the first four chapters of Book of Genesis, which itself is only the first of sixty six canonical books of various lengths in the Christian bible. Added to this, is the fact that English translations of Genesis always refer to seven days of creation, whereas in the original Hebrew account, the word translated as 'day' has a far more general meaning which can just as easily be taken to mean 'era'. Although professor Dawkins may have been unaware of this, many Christians, perhaps the majority, are well aware of it. Furthermore, and perhaps more significantly, an examination of the structure of Genesis strongly suggests that it was originally four distinct works which were later brought together as one volume. Although the account of the creation is the first thing the reader encounters, it is only a very small part of it and is not connected in any meaningful way to anything else in the bible. It is not until chapter twelve of Genesis that we begin to find material which leads directly into the other biblical books, meaning that for the majority of Christians in most westernised countries, the contents of Genesis 1-4 have little or no bearing on the rest of the bible and what they choose to believe.
Professor Dawkins also belittles religious people when he describes them as superstitious and ignorant of facts. The vast majority of the parents he is concerned will infect their children with nonsensical beliefs have been through a western secular education system where, like him, they learned the basic principals of biology and evolution in science lessons. Therefore, for the majority of religious adults (who according to census figures make up the vast bulk of the population) evolution is a fairly easy concept to grasp. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu parents are not exclusive groups living apart from society in caves. They are normal people with normal jobs and normal life experiences. Even if a proportion of them choose to reject the scientific information, most of those who do are not doing so from a position of total ignorance.
Given that most Christian and Jewish parents at least, would find little problem with accepting that God chose to use evolution as His means of creation, the problem Dawkins is trying to tackle is only likely to be an issue for a reasonably small proportion of parents, who in any case will be highly unlikely to buy his book for their children. In many Christian households (and in all likelihood the houses of other religions too), his book will happily find itself alongside books on dinosaurs and prehistoric animals already sitting, with no sense of conflict, next to the children's Bibles.
In seeing science as naturally opposed to religion and labelling people who hold religious beliefs as stupid and ignorant, he also ignores the fact that many eminent scientists are committed Christians and see no such conflict. Amongst these are Francis Collins, one of the world's leading geneticists and head of the Human Genome Project, and Sir John Houghton, Co-chair of the Scientific Assessment Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Even amongst my own acquaintances I know of a respected particle physicist and an award winning cancer specialist (who are also not mutually acquainted as far as I am aware) who are both committed Christians, as well as two biological chemists who are both Muslims. Would Professor Dawkins suggest that any of these individuals are either stupid or ignorant of science?
No-one would seriously debate Richard Dawkins' knowledge and understanding of evolution or his status as a respected evolutionary biologist. However, by trying to suggest that all religion is dependent on accepting divine creation as the explanation for the physical universe he is missing the mark considerably. Allowing children a greater understanding of evolution may well have little or no effect on their religious beliefs. Accepting the first four chapters of the book of Genesis is not the requirement for religious belief he thinks it is and if he really wants to try to disprove the existence of God he will have to advance well beyond the creation/evolution debate, just as most Christians outside the American 'Bible Belt' did decades ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment