Note: This is the first of two pieces I shall be writing referencing BeliefNet, a resource I think I shall come to use quite often. Because of a crazy, hectic day, I doubt I shall get to part ii until tomorrow.
Over at BeliefNet (a new link, by the by), there is this article by Richard Dawkins, writing in opposition to "religion" because of the danger it poses, in his view, to science. He cites the current head of research at some creationist institution in Dayton, TN (where the Scopes "Monkey Trial" took place) as a "casualty" of the conflict between faith and science, a promising young geologist who surrendered his scientific integrity for a fundamentalist Christian faith. Dawkins dismisses the idea that he is a fundamentalist because, of course, he is a scientist and all he believes is based upon evidence and a willingness to change his mind about what he believes. As a fer-instance, he cites a scientist who taught his students certain "facts" concerning a cellular organ, even as the scientific community was coming to understand the function of this organ, and, after years of struggle, accepted the change.
One hesitates to begin, because there are so many points of entry. First, I do want to agree with something Dawkins says, to whit, that a little philosophical understanding is a dangerous thing. He is tired, he says, of discussing philosophical issues - such as the epistemological status of the underpinnings of scientific knowledge, the validity of the truth claims of science, and the ontological status of religious claims over and against those of science - because, of course, he is much more knowledgeable about these things than his interlocutors (especially those he dismisses as relativists). I must say, I am glad I never encountered him when I was a student. With a mind as closed as his, so utterly convinced of his own correctness and the imbecility of those who might question him, his views, his assumptions, or even his choice of tie, how can any learning take place? From his mouth to his students' ears, with grateful acknowledgement to be in the presence of so brilliant a man.
(I would apologize for the sarcasm, but there in reading the article, this is the conclusion that is inescapable)
I guess I shall just go right to the heart of the matter, since I don't want a ten-thousand word post here. "Religion" is a human phenomenon of incredible diversity and wonderous power. There are Jains in India who weep over the bee that stung them because, in so doing, it has killed itself. There are Buddhist monks from Nepal who, after years of training and devotion, can actually vocalize multiple pitches simultaneously, creating chords with a single human voice. Serious Jewish scholars of Torah can place a pin through the cover of their book and recite the words on each page the pin has passed through. Christians refusing to surrender their faith to the prevailing political powers in China are harassed, lose their jobs, blacklisted, imprisoned, and killed. Muslims in the United States offer wonderful counterpoint to the hollow, "bourgois-fied", middle-calss "Christianity" professed by many of their fellow citizens, in their devotion to God, the tenets of their faith, and the seriousness of their commitment to a land that, in recent years, has become hostile to them. To somehow say that "religion" is a problem for science, for the growth of scientific knowledge, and for the sustaining of scientific imagination and curiosity is not just intellectually dishonest, it is just plain ignorant.
If one wants to argue, however, that a certain type of Christianity, imbued with a rationalistic devotion to Christian "truth" as they understand it, and convinced that one can, using the tools of the human intellect, provide conclusions to religous syllogisms, provided one accept certain statements as axiomatic, is hostile to another way human beings happen to come to understand the world they live in, and insist that, since they are competitors in the whole "figuring out the world" business, and that as such they are adamant that, based upon their axioms as to how the world is structured, what is true and not true about that world, they can show that they are correct and this other way of knowing (for lack of a better word) is not - this rather long, probably run-on sentence is a much more accurate description of what Dawkins is trying to describe. Dawkins plea for "rationality" shows that he has not, in fact, studied either the history or methods of fundamentalism, as one would be hard-pressed to find a more rationalistic, ideational way of coming to the faith. To claim that science is "rational" and, by default, faith is not is to misunderstand what rationality is and how it functions. Rationality is simply a way human beings have of thinking. It can be applied just about anywhere - religion, game playing, horseback riding, sex, you name it, there is a rational way to do it and discuss it.
These arguments are neither new, nor particularly interesting. They are, in fact, the kinds of arguments one would expect from a (ahem) sophpomore college student, suddenly emboldened by the left-Hegelians, Bertrand Russell, or perhaps (closer to home) Richard Rorty. The argument Dawkins makes is as old as the Enlightenment, and about as easy to refute, provided one understands the game. And it is a game, please make no mistake about it. No matter how serious the stakes, no matter how important the subject matter, in the end, such intellectual mumbo-jumbo as Dawkins provides, and I provide in response, is just a game that ignores the much more complex, interesting, confounding, enraging, and satisfying task of living one's life, and figuring out how to navigate between so many claims that insist they are total, but all end up being smoke and mirrors, passing from truth to falsehood in the blink of an eye.
I am a devout Christian. I not only believe, but profess the reality of God, the salvation of sin through the intercession of the crucified and risen Jesus, the Messiah. I anticipate the final resurrection of the dead. I would no more surrender that confession to an intellectual bully like Dawkins than I would surrender the testimony that our planet, formed not quite five billion years ago, has developed life over a long and torturous process called evolution, the exact mechanics of which are still difficult to figure out, if not to dismiss in a broad outline. As a scientist, would Dawkins admit that one refuting instance, one case where his entire understanding of what is and is not acceptable, rationally, brings his entire theory crashing down? I don't want to turn blue, pass out, and die, so I won't be holding my breath.
I will be praying for him, though.
