Posts
Dawkins on the Supernatural and Nature
The Ancestor's Tale, by Richard Dawkins, has very little to say about religion. There are a few warnings to creationists not to distort particular arguments, and he mentions Kenneth Miller's (religious and scientific) objections to intelligent design, but that is about it. There is, however, an interesting passage at the close of the book. (Spoiler Alert: What follows comes from the very end of the book. If this will bother you, don't read further.)
Continue Reading
At the closing of the book, Dawkins writes: I have not had occasion here to mention my impatience with traditional piety, and my disdain for reverence where the object is anything supernatural. But I make no secret of them. It is not because I wish to limit or circumscribe reverence; not because I want to reduce or downgrade the true reverence with which we are moved to celebrate the universe, once we understand it properly. 'On the contrary' would be an understatement. My objection to supernatural beliefs is precisely that they miserably fail to do justice to the sublime grandeur of the real world. They represent a narrowing-down from reality, an impoverishment of what the real world has to offer.
I suspect that many who call themselves religious would find themselves agreeing with me. To them I would only quote a favourite remark that I overheard at a scientific conference. A distinguished elder statesman of my subject was having a long argument with a colleague. As the altercation came to an end, he twinkled and said, "You know, we really do agree. It's just that you say it wrong!"
My guess is that what Dawkins says here will resonate with some, while others will find it mistaken at best and blasphemous at worst. Does Dawkins have a point here or is he mistaken? In what ways does religion tend to cheapen or enhance our view of the physical world and the universe?
2 comments:
I think that there are two ways in which Dawkins finds a religious view of reality to be insufficient. The first is epistemological and is a direct result of natural religion. Religion, in general, tends to teach people to be satisfied in their ignorance of the real world. "God did it" can cover any gap in our knowledge no matter how big or how deep. When science starts to close these gaps God starts to look more and more unemployed, thus this version of religion will tend to promote, if only in an indirect way, ignorance.
The other way in which religion can speak evil of the universe would be more ontological. The universe and its laws aren't good enough to accomplish anything on their own and always need the help of a divine agent to help things along. One can find no better example of this than in most critiques of evolution.
Thus we are left with a view of the universe in which the laws are always weak and insufficient, not to mention contingent upon God's will (but not in the Mormon view). And even if these pathetic laws could be known, its best that we don't so as to create more "faith".
Of course not all religious people suffer from these same symptoms to the same degree, but Dawkin's seems to think that all religious people DO have these symptoms to one degree or another. I'm not sure that he is really wrong on these points either.
Having resolved some time ago not to waste more money or time on books by Richard Dawkins, this review makes me think it's time to revisit that resolution. WIth respect to whether or not all believers display the weaknesses suggested by Dawkins and suspected by Jeffrey Giliam as possibly universal, I can only say that there are plenty of counterexamples. These are people well-grounded in a variety of disciplines (Polkinghorne, Peacocke, Barbour, Kauffman) who have engaged the difficult issues at the boundaries of science and religion without giving in to the temptations that Dawkins evidently thinks are unavoidable.
Post a Comment