Dawkins is Blinded by Science?
Near the end of Dawkins’ second chapter in The God Delusion, he reveals what I believe to be a fundamental problem with his entire book: his inability to see the difference between science and religion. He states:
“Why shouldn’t we comment on God, as scientists? Any why isn’t Russell’s teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, equally immune from scientific skepticism? As I shall argue in a moment, a universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without. Why is that not a scientific matter?” (78)
Now, no one is saying Dawkins can’t comment on God. The problem is that he believes that since he is a scientist that that somehow qualifies him to speak authoritatively on religion. His problem is that he thinks that all religion is doing is making objective, scientific claims about the universe—and therefore, since he is a scientist, he can comment on religion.
Of course, “religion,” or Christianity more specifically—or even more specifically, the Bible—is not primarily concerned with making “scientific claims.” Furthermore, Christianity isn’t trying to “prove” the existence of God as part of the natural world. Christianity teaches that God is beyond the natural world, and is not part of it—that point alone renders Dawkins’ scientific credentials irrelevant, for science deals with examining the natural world.
If you want to say it this way: Christianity is making metaphysical claims that are derived from historical events. But Christianity is not “doing science.” That is why Dawkins’ comments are so shocking: he apparently doesn’t even understand what the job of science is. This can be seen when he takes issue with the claims of even other scientists who say that science can only answer the “how” questions of the natural world, but that theology seeks to answer the “why” questions. Dawkins asks, “What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot?” (79).
That’s an easy question to answer: theologians aren’t attempting to answer cosmological questions. Theologians start with the presupposition that a “God” exists and has interacted in some way with humanity, just as Dawkins starts out with the presupposition that there is no God and therefore there couldn’t possibly be any interaction in the first place. In any case, theologians study the texts that claim to be a witness to that interaction. Now, if such texts really are a witness to God’s interaction with humanity, then theologians are certainly in a better position than scientists to discuss theological matters, because theologians have studied the texts.
So when Dawkins asks, “Why are scientists so cravenly respectful towards the ambitions of theologians, over questions that theologians are certainly no more qualified to answer than scientists themselves?” (80), the answer is obvious: theologians are more qualified in their field, just as a biologist is more qualified to discuss biology than an artist. Dawkins objection is therefore just as nonsensical as if an artist said, “Why can’t my opinions on biology be just as accepted as those of a biologist? After all, I can paint!”
Dawkins Doesn’t See the Purpose…of Purpose
Dawkins’ next comments prove to be very revealing: “It is a tedious cliché (and, unlike many clichés, it isn’t even true) that science concerns itself with the ‘how’ questions, but only theology is equipped to answer ‘why’ questions. What on earth is a ‘why’ question?” (80). The very fact that he doesn’t even know what a “why” question is should tell us something about his view of the universe. “Why” questions are questions that deal with purpose and meaning—but obviously Dawkins does not believe there is purpose and meaning in the universe. But if that is the case, then why is he so fanatical in his crusade against religion? If he does not believe that the universe has any ultimate meaning or purpose, then his personal views of purpose and meaning are just as meaningless as those religious views he seeks to destroy.
Dawkins poses another question: “Perhaps there are some genuinely profound and meaningful questions that are forever beyond the reach of science. …But if science cannot answer some ultimate question, what makes anybody think that religion can?” (80). If you think about this statement, it should be quite shocking. Dawkins clearly believes that the only way to ascertain reality and find meaning is through science. Such a view automatically discounts not only religious faith, but also all poetry, music, art, and human creative expression. For science cannot quantify or dissect any of these, but not only are they part of reality, but these are the things that give life a sense of purpose and meaning. By holding to the notion that science is the “be-all-end-all” of reality, Dawkins actually discards the very part of reality that makes us human.
Ah, the Good Ole “Creation vs. Evolution” Canard
If Ken Ham obscures any clear thinking about the “creation/evolution debate” from one end of the spectrum, Richard Dawkins is just as guilty of such obfuscation on the other end of the spectrum. Indeed, when it gets right down to it, his ultimate goal is to show that evolution proves atheism and discounts religion, specifically Christianity. In the process of trying to make that case, though, he ends up making some quite startling claims. At one point in his book he says,
“A universe in which we are alone except for other slowly evolved intelligences is a very different universe from one with an original guiding agent whose intelligent design is responsible for its very existence.” (85)
Let me just ask a simple question: how does Dawkins know that a universe with a Creator God would be vastly different than a universe that contained creatures that evolved over time? He never addresses this. I’m assuming he would say, “If there was a God, then the universe would be ‘perfect.’ There would be no need for thing to evolve—He would have just made everything perfect.” To that, I would have to say, “Congratulations, you’ve proven yourself to be Ken Ham’s doppelganger once again.”
Both men assume that God would have had to have created everything “perfect” all at once, right from the very beginning. If you read my posts on the early Church Father Irenaeus, you will find out that such assumption was not the view of the early Church. Both Ham and Dawkins are basing their arguments on an assumption about God and His creation that simply was not held in the early Church as far back as the 2nd century.
For that matter, how does he account for the growing number of Christian scientists like Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, and the Biologos Foundation who argue that there is no contradiction between believing in evolution and still being a Christian? These highly credentialed and respected scientists argue, in fact, that this universe is both the work of God and a product of evolution. This universe really is big enough for both ideas.
Dawkins, the Pope, and Evolution
In any case, another frustrating thing about Dawkins is his “I’ll damn you if you do, I’ll damn you if you don’t” mentality when it comes to Christianity. Take for instance a few years ago when Pope John Paul II openly endorsed Darwinism—the Catholic POPE declared that the biological theory of evolution did not, in fact, contradict Christianity. One would think that Dawkins would stand up, applaud, and say, “I’m so glad to see Christians are starting to come around on this topic!” But no—instead of applauding, Dawkins actually found a way to twist it into another condemnation of Christianity. Dawkins included Michael Russe’s comments about his reaction:
“When John Paul II wrote a letter endorsing Darwinism, Richard Dawkins’s response was simply that the pope was a hypocrite, and that he could not be genuine about science and that Dawkins himself simply preferred an honest fundamentalist.” (92)
It is simply amazing to me that, from one side of his mouth Dawkins can say, “You Christians are idiots for not accepting evolution!” and then from the other side of his mouth he can also say, “You Christians are hypocrites if you accept evolution!” It seems to me that Dawkins’ response reveals that he is not so much interested in truth than he is interested in destroying faith at all costs.
Yet there is one more thing Dawkins’ response reveals about him: he simply has no understanding regarding what Christianity is even about. Pope John Paul II’s statement should have made it perfectly clear that the whole “creation/evolution” debate ultimately is irrelevant when it comes to the heart and soul of the Christian faith. Nowhere in the Old Testament does it ever say, “God entered into a covenant with Abraham so He could prove he really created the world.” Nowhere in the New Testament do we ever find, “Jesus came, died on a cross, and rose again so he could disprove Darwinian theory.”
While it is true that the Evangelical community in America has traditionally opposed evolution the fact is that when it comes to worldwide Christianity, they are in the minority. Evolution, properly understood, is accepted within Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and a majority of Protestantism. It is only a small sliver of worldwide Christianity that opposes it. Yet, that is the group Dawkins seems to believe represents historical Christianity.
Let’s be clear: Richard Dawkins has more in common with young creationist Ken Ham than he would like to admit. Both men present the “creation vs. evolution debate” as the cornerstone of the Christian faith, and both men are completely wrong. Both men are a threat to clear thinking.
