Book Reviews
Can God stop being God? his much touted claim of faith being A review of ‘unjustified belief’ is itself without Dawkins’ God: Genes, warrant. Theologians well before Memes, and the Dawkins, McGrath notes, have tackled Meaning of Life this straw-man by demonstrating that by Alister McGrath faith is inextricably associated with the Blackwell Publishing, intellect and is conviction supported by Oxford, 2005 adequate evidence. Far and away the most effective counter-argument in the book is McGrath’s analysis of ‘memes’, Marc Kay Dawkins’ fanciful and unempirical ‘units’ which serve as cultural hen I was provided the replicators and ideas (pp. 119–138). Wopportunity to review this book McGrath handles this comprehensively, I experienced a genuine frisson: here for he astutely recognises this as an was a book which potentially, judging Achilles’ heel. The intangible products by its cover, was a very long nail into of the mind’s activity, namely ideas Richard Dawkins’ coffin. Having been and culture, require explanation. awarded a doctorate in biophysics and But the genetic reductionism of Nevertheless, Dawkins understands an honours degree in theology from evolutionary atheism, even for a that even awkward or false ideas must Oxford (Dawkins’ own university), hardened materialist like Dawkins, is address the Principle of Sufficient Alister McGrath certainly possesses not entirely satisfactory. The meme Reason: everything that is, has a reason the academic qualifications to provide is putatively analogous to the gene, why it is so and not otherwise. The a robust critique of Dawkins’ ideas; passing on culture and the like from impasse is ostensibly removed when yet, despite this, by the time I was less generation to generation. Its existence belief in God is understood to be an than a quarter of the way through, I would apotheosize Darwinism by infecting ‘God meme’ and that theism had realised that the author’s theology raising it from mere explicator of specifically is a ‘parasitic virus of the was effete and had acquiesced to the phenotypes to that of a panacean meta- mind’ (p. 121). It is at this point that materialistic Zeitgeist. McGrath’s theory. McGrath excels in rebuttal. What’s book fails, and fails spectacularly, As it turns out this is somewhat good for the goose is good for the because he declines to engage fully misleading because his case isn’t a gander: if theism can be reduced to a with the atheist mind-set and, more forthright capitulation to a dualist meme, so must atheism! importantly, misunderstands God’s vision of reality, for he returns rather quickly to his customary monolithic nature. The bad materialist view of the world: ‘A McGrath apparently wants to The good meme’, Dawkins proposes in his The Extended Phenotype, ‘should distance himself from the proponents of The book is not entirely without be regarded as a unit of information the Argument from Design because he merit. The first chapter contains residing in a brain … [and] has a views its use in Christian philosophy, an interesting biographical sketch definite structure’ (p. 123). principally Paley’s version, as a failure of Dawkins, though this dwells ‘But why bother’, you may ask, (pp. 70–72). It was swept away, far too long on the details of his ‘proposing an unsighted, quasi- according to McGrath, because of the doctorate thesis while disappointingly metaphysical construct to explain counter-argument that claimed the merely alluding to the potentially ideas and the like?’ Well, there is one existence of pain and suffering in the more fertile aspects pertaining to ‘idea’ that Dawkins asserts runs not world was a foil to the existence of a his Anglican religious upbringing just counter-intuitively to the whole benevolent and intelligent God, despite and youthful attraction to Teilhard Darwinian demand of maximising the intellectual vitality of Paley’s idea. de Chardin’s apostatic Hegelian survival, but is outright inimical to But more importantly, McGrath insists, marriage of evolution and Christianity. human existence. It is, of course, belief Darwinism eventually gave clear Elsewhere McGrath critiques Dawkins’ in God (‘All those religious wars!’ evidence and argument that nature anemically misrepresentative definition of course overlooking the far greater itself (though God, McGrath stresses, of ‘faith’ (Dawkins views it as ‘a kind death toll from atheistic Marxist and is present but once removed from the of mental illness’), pointing out that evolution-based fascist régimes). products of nature) could provide
26 JOURNAL OF CREATION 20(1) 2006 Book Reviews
sufficient mechanism, in the form as an object of real intellectual authority by listing some well-known of mutations and natural selection, beauty. It was not the fantasy of theistic evolutionists followed up by for the diversity and intricateness of crackpots but the fruits of creative a quote from Stephen Jay Gould that nature. However, McGrath attacks genius.’1 makes the same vague point. McGrath, Dawkins for incorrectly assuming that Another disappointment was apparently, holds that Darwinism, to this argument traditionally provided the repetitive inclusion that Darwin echo Dawkins’ own claim, mutatis substantial buttress to Christianity’s was, at some stage, an orthodox mutandis, has enabled him to be an claims, and, ad nauseam, rebukes Christian, and that his incredulity intellectually fulfilled Christian. Dawkins for his insistence that the concerning God’s existence didn’t This ‘real issue’, as McGrath truth of evolution in no way necessarily arise until well after the 1840s. This labels it, of Dawkins not establishing eliminates God’s existence. too is problematic because Darwin, a bridge between the existence of Momentarily leaving aside the when he did attend church consistently, evolutionary biology and the necessary problematic point that evolution does spent his early married life at the elimination of God is identified quite not requisitely banish God, McGrath Unitarian Chapel, London, and, from early (p. 10). McGrath, from this nevertheless displays very poor form his great-great-grandson’s account, point onwards, is clearly apoplectically at this point; for in some measure it is Charles’ own family was Unitarian. frozen in the shadowland of word normative for Christianity, specifically, Furthermore, before his 1839 marriage, magic, a pagan world where it is and theism, generally, to propose the he had concluded that since the earth believed that to speak about a thing, Design Argument because creation is was unimaginably old, the Genesis can actually, somehow, reify that the first act of God. McGrath seems account of creation was untrustworthy, thing. This is the chimeric realm to be unaware of, inter alia, thus impugning the other historical where immovable objects clash with • Cicero’s statement of it (1st century episodes of the Old Testament, and, irresistible forces and square-circles bc) in his De Natura Deorum ipso facto, the New Testament was lurk side-by-side with supra-logical • Minucius Felix’s and Gregory to be rejected because the Christian gods. It is also an affliction of mind of Nazianzus’ use (3rd and 4th claim of truth rested on the historical which strikes Christians whenever they centuries respectively) of the veracity of the earlier Testament. He insist that God, a teleological being, is argument also informed his future wife Emma able to, and does, utilise non-teleology • Sir Isaac Newton’s clear statements of this, contrary to his father’s advice, (chance) in order to bring life and the 2 about how the order in the solar in 1838. Also, his own grandfather, cosmos into existence. system points to an all-wise Erasmus Darwin, wrote a book on One can very well imagine, as 3 Παντωκράτορ (pantôkrator) or evolution. Frederick Copleston told Bertrand ‘Universal Ruler’ Russell in their 1948 debate on BBC • Kant’s attack on the idea, prior … and the ugly radio, anything and everything, but to Paley, in his Critique of Pure McGrath believes that Dawkins’ imagination is neither a promissory note Reason, thus implying its well- syllogism ‘If evolution is true, theism nor a substitute for robust argument or established existence is false’ is a non sequitur and thus ontological reality. Notwithstanding • the 18th century Scottish philosopher chastises him for tacking his ‘atheism that the mere syntactical grafting Thomas Reid’s address of Hume’s … onto his evolutionary biology with of teleology onto non-teleology is scepticism and who argued for intellectual velcro’. This is the book’s oxymoronic, I can’t even begin to bring ‘marks of intelligence’ in nature, single worst intellectual oversight to understanding how non-teleology and because McGrath, as an unapologetic can be manipulated purposively and • Paul’s seminal use of the argument evolutionist, offers no argument as to still remain loyal to its definition, in Romans 1. why he believes that ‘Darwinism can be that of non-purposiveness and non- One further wonders why held to be consistent with conventional direction. Alternatively, what exactly McGrath would disparage Paley so religious beliefs, agnosticism, and is this teleological being existing for much given that the atheist philosopher atheism’ (p. 80). Unsurprisingly, he when it stops doing what it necessarily of biology Elliott Sober wrote the follows this jejune assertion with an exists for? following concerning its formulation: equally beggarly ‘[i]t all depends Due to a noticeable dearth of detail ‘Before Darwin’s time, some on how these terms are defined’. one can only speculate at what McGrath of the best and brightest in both What McGrath means is, I suspect, really believes God does. However he philosophy and science argued since atheism and agnosticism are does mention John Polkinghorne who, that the adaptedness of organisms unambiguous terms, it all depends on like McGrath, is a theistic evolutionist can be explained only by the how Christianity is defined. Theistic but, unlike him, isn’t so reticent, and hypothesis that organisms are evolutionists, just when they should, who, elsewhere, confidently invokes a the product of intelligent design. serially fail to bring substance to this neo-Platonic theodicy. Polkinghorne’s This line of reasoning—the design assertion. The best McGrath does is feckless rejoinder to the creationist argument—is worth considering to lamely rely on an argument from young-earth model is marked by
JOURNAL OF CREATION 20(1) 2006 27 Book Reviews
a god who surrenders his wisdom and creative capacity and allows an Paley: still interplay of chance and necessity to produce physical suffering in the world. This, Polkinghorne believes, relevant is a ‘great good’ and its necessity is further denoted by a fecundity of death A review of and extinction that enabled the world Natural Theology or the to produce us.4 Evidences of the Existence Theistic evolutionists have little and Attributes of a Deity wiggle room. The consequences of by William Paley McGrath’s belief that God can, and Coachwhip Publications did, use evolution can be read from Landisville, PA Polkinghorne’s writings. This entails a ubiquity of death, struggle and misery, and is a Mephistophelian barter that Jerry Bergman says goodbye, forever, to a revelation of the God who is love and who would As Darwin’s Origin of Species is use wisdom over happenstance. considered the bible of evolutionary McGrath’s book is a veiled naturalism, likewise William Paley’s apologetic for a very pagan and Natural Theology is considered paralogical idea. It also wants the the bible of both Creationism and teaching. Christian to believe that an atheistic Intelligent Design. Once required Paley’s Natural Theology inspired pseudo-scientific explanation of a reading in British Universities for a set of eight treatises (10 volumes) cosmos emptied of God can somehow several decades, it was a highly published in the 1830s.3 The set was be shanghaied into the service of influential work for generations.1 First commissioned in accordance with the Christianity, without providing an iota published in 1802, it has been out of Last Will and Testament of the eighth of argument as to how it is possible to print for many years. Now available in Earl of Bridgewater to illustrate ‘the accomplish this act. In the very least rare book shops only, a copy typically Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of it hubristically implies that atheism costs hundreds of dollars (if one can God, as Manifested in the Creation’. doesn’t even understand its own be located). Many printings and The main goal of these volumes, ideas. editions of Paley exist. My copy is collectively known as the Bridgewater the 1835 edition, and is too expensive References Treatises, was to demonstrate God’s (and fragile) to study. A 1997 edition, existence from a careful detailed study 1. Sober, E., Philosophy of Biology, Westview, edited by Bill Cooper, was abridged of nature.4 Several of the volumes Boulder, CO, p. 29, 1993. Quoted in: Dembski, and the language updated.2 The W., Intelligent Design, IVP, Downers Grove, were ‘written by leading scientists of IL, p. 71, 1999. edition reviewed here is a low-cost, the period, including William Whewell newly-typeset, paper-bound reprint 2. See Keynes, R., Darwin, His Daughter, and (who coined the term scientist) and Human Evolution, Riverland Books, NY, pp. that allows this classic to again be William Buckland (one of the period’s 47–48, 54, 59, 2002. read (and appreciated) in its original foremost geologists)’.4 3. Grigg, R., Darwinism: it was all in the family: form by modern readers. This edition It was Paley’s Natural Theology Erasmus Darwin’s famous grandson learned contains a list of print resources that that greatly impressed Darwin when he early about evolution, Creation 26(1):16–18, support design arguments grouped by 2003;
28 JOURNAL OF CREATION 20(1) 2006