Deluded About God (Mcgrath)

Home , Alister McGrath, Keith Ward, The God Delusion

KNOWING & DOING A Teaching Quarterly for Discipleship of Heart and Mind This article originally appeared in the Spring 2007 issue of Knowing & Doing. C.S. LEWIS INSTITUTE Deluded About God? A Reﬂection on Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion by Alister McGrath Professor of Historical Theology, Oxford University, and President of the Oxford Center for Christian Apologetics

he God Delusion has something deeper here, often overlooked in the established Richard heat of debate. The anxiety is that the coherence Dawkins as the world’s of atheism itself is at stake. Might the unexpected TT most high-profile athe- resurgence of religion persuade many that atheist polemicist, who directs a ism itself is fatally flawed as a worldview? withering criticism against ev- That’s what Dawkins is worried about. The ery form of religion. He is out shrill, aggressive rhetoric of his God Delusion to convert his readers. “If this masks a deep insecurity about the public credibil- book works as I intend, reli- Alister McGrath ity of atheism. The God Delusion seems more de- gious readers who open it will signed to reassure atheists whose faith is faltering be atheists when they put it down.” Not that he than to engage fairly or rigorously with religious thinks that this is particularly likely; after all, he believers, and others seeking for truth. (Might this suggests, “dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are im- be because the writer is himself an atheist whose mune to argument.” Along with Daniel Dennett faith is faltering?) Religious believers will be dis- and Sam Harris, Dawkins directs a ferocious ti- mayed by its ritual stereotyping of religion, and rade of criticism against religion in general and will find its manifest lack of fairness a significant Christianity in particular. In this article, I pro- disincentive to take its arguments and concerns pose to explore two major questions. First, why seriously. Seekers after truth who would not con- this sudden outburst of aggression? Second, how sider themselves religious may also find them- reliable are Dawkins’ criticisms of religion? selves shocked by Dawkins’ aggressive rhetoric, Let’s begin by looking at the first question. Ev- his substitution of personal creedal statements for ery worldview, whether religious or not, has its objective engagement with evidence, his hector- point of vulnerability. There is a tension between ing and bullying tone towards “dyed-in-the-wool theory and experience, raising questions over the faith-heads,” and his utter determination to find coherence and trustworthiness of the worldview nothing but fault with religion of any kind. itself. In the case of Christianity, many locate that It is this deep, unsettling anxiety about the fu- point of weakness in the existence of suffering ture of atheism which explains the high degree of within the world. In the case of atheism, it is the dogmatism and aggressive rhetorical style of this persistence of belief in God, when there is suppos- new secular fundamentalism. The dogmatism of edly no God in which to believe. the work has been the subject of intense criticism Until recently, western atheism had waited in the secular press, reflecting growing alarm patiently, believing that belief in God would sim- within the secularist community about the dam- ply die out. But now, a whiff of panic is evident. age that Dawkins is doing to their public repu- Far from dying out, belief in God has rebounded, tation. Many of those who might be expected to and seems set to exercise still greater influence in support Dawkins are running for cover, trying to both the public and private spheres. The God De- distance themselves from this embarrassment. lusion expresses this deep anxiety, partly reflect- To give an example: The God Delusion trumpets ing an intense distaste for religion. Yet there is the fact that its author was recently voted one of 2 Deluded About God?

the world’s three leading intellectuals. This survey polemical construction, devised to discredit ideas took place among the readers of Prospect magazine that Dawkins does not like. in November 2005. So what did this same Pros- So are all ideas viruses of the mind? Dawkins pect magazine make of the book? Its reviewer was draws an absolute distinction between rational, shocked at this “incurious, dogmatic, rambling, scientific, and evidence-based ideas and spurious, and self-contradictory” book. The title of the re- irrational notions—such as religious beliefs. The view? “Dawkins the Dogmatist.” latter, not the former, count as mental viruses. But But what of the arguments themselves? The who decides what is “rational” and “scientific”? God Delusion is often little more than an aggrega- Dawkins does not see this as a problem, believing tion of convenient factoids, suitably overstated to that he can easily categorize such ideas, separat- achieve maximum impact, and loosely arranged ing the sheep from the goats. to suggest that they constitute an argument. This Except it all turns out to be horribly complicat- makes dealing with its “arguments” a little prob- ed, losing the simplicity and elegance that marks lematical, in that the work frequently substitutes a great idea. For instance, every worldview—reli- aggressive, bullying rhetoric for serious evidence- gious or secular—ends up falling into the category based argument. Dawkins often treats evidence of “belief systems,” precisely because it cannot be as something to shoehorn into his preconceived proved. That is simply the nature of worldviews, theoretical framework. Religion is persistently and everyone knows it. It prevents nobody from and consistently portrayed in the worst possible holding a worldview in the first place, and doing way, mimicking the worst features of religious so with complete intellectual integrity in the sec- fundamentalism’s portrayal of atheism. ond. In the end, Dawkins’ idea simply implodes, Space is limited, so let’s look at his two core falling victim to his own subjective judgment of arguments—that religion can be explained away what is rational and true. It’s not an idea that is on scientific grounds, and that religion leads to taken seriously within the scientific community, violence. Dawkins dogmatically insists that re- and can safely be disregarded. ligious belief is “blind trust,” which refuses to The main argument of The God Delusion, take due account of evidence, or subject itself to however, is that religion leads to violence and examination. So why do people believe in God, oppression. Dawkins treats this as the defining when there is no God to believe in? For Dawkins, characteristic of religion, airbrushing out of his religion is simply the accidental and unnecessary somewhat skimpy account of the roots of violence outcome of biological or psychological processes. any suggestion that it might be the result of politi- His arguments for this bold assertion are actually cal fanaticism—or even atheism. He is adamant quite weak, and rest on an astonishingly superfi- that he himself, as a good atheist, would never, cial engagement with scientific studies. ever fly airplanes into skyscrapers, or commit For example, consider this important argu- any other outrageous act of violence or oppres- ment in The God Delusion. Since belief in God is sion. Good for him. Neither would I. Yet the harsh utterly irrational (one of Dawkins’ core beliefs, by reality is that religious and anti-religious violence the way), there has to be some biological or psy- has happened, and is likely to continue to do so. chological way of explaining why so many peo- As someone who grew up in Northern Ire- ple—in fact, by far the greater part of the world’s land, I know about religious violence only too population—fall victim to such a delusion. One of well. There is no doubt that religion can gener- the explanations that Dawkins offers is that be- ate violence. But it’s not alone in this. The history lieving in God is like being infected with a con- of the twentieth century has given us a frighten- tagious virus, which spreads throughout entire ing awareness of how political extremism can populations. Yet the analogy—belief in God is like equally cause violence. In Latin America, millions a virus—seems to then assume ontological sub- of people seem to have “disappeared” as a result stance. Belief in God is a virus of the mind. Yet of ruthless campaigns of violence by right-wing biological viruses are not merely hypothesized; politicians and their militias. In Cambodia, Pol Pot they can be identified, observed, and their struc- eliminated his millions in the name of socialism.1 ture and mode of operation determined. Yet this The rise of the Soviet Union was of particular hypothetical “virus of the mind” is an essentially significance. Lenin regarded the elimination of Deluded About God? 3

religion as central to the socialist revolution, and Many Christian readers of this will be aston- put in place measures designed to eradicate reli- ished at this bizarre misrepresentation of things gious beliefs through the “protracted use of vio- being presented as if it were gospel truth. Yet, lence.” One of the greatest tragedies of this dark I regret to say, it is representative of Dawkins’ era in human history was that those who sought method: ridicule, distort, belittle, and demonize. to eliminate religious belief through violence and Still, at least it will give Christian readers an idea oppression believed they were justified in doing of the lack of any scholarly objectivity or basic hu- so. They were accountable to no higher authority man sense of fairness which now pervades atheist than the state. fundamentalism. In one of his more bizarre creedal statements There is little point in arguing with such fun- as an atheist, Dawkins insists that there is “not damentalist nonsense. It’s about as worthwhile as the smallest evidence” that atheism systematically trying to persuade a flat-earther that the world is influences people to do bad things. It’s an aston- actually round. Dawkins seems to be so deeply ishing, naïve, and somewhat sad statement. The trapped within his own worldview that he can- facts are otherwise. In their efforts to enforce their not assess alternatives. Yet many readers would atheist ideology, the Soviet authorities systemati- value a more reliable and informed response, cally destroyed and eliminated the vast majority rather than accepting Dawkins’ increasingly te- of churches and priests during the period 1918-41. dious antireligious tirades. Let’s look at things as The statistics make for dreadful reading. This vio- they actually stand. lence and repression was undertaken in pursuit In the first place, Jesus explicitly extends the of an atheist agenda—the elimination of religion. Old Testament command to “love your neighbor” This doesn’t fit with Dawkins’ highly sanitized, to “love your enemy” (Matthew 5:44). Far from idealized picture of atheism. Dawkins is clearly endorsing “out-group hostility,” Jesus both com- an ivory-tower atheist, disconnected from the real mended and commanded an ethic of “out-group and brutal world of the twentieth century. affirmation.” As this feature of the teaching of Dawkins develops a criticism that is often di- Jesus of Nazareth is so well known and distinc- rected against religion in works of atheist apolo- tive, it is inexcusable that Dawkins should make getics—namely, that it encourages the formation no mention of it. Christians may certainly be ac- and maintenance of “in-groups” and “out-groups.” cused of failing to live up to this demand. But it is For Dawkins, removing religion is essential if this there, right at the heart of the Christian ethic. form of social demarcation and discrimination is In the second place, many readers would to be defeated. But what, many will wonder, about point out that the familiar story of the Good Jesus of Nazareth? Wasn’t this a core theme of his Samaritan (Luke 10) makes it clear that the teaching—that the love of God transcends, and command to “love your neighbor” extends far subsequently abrogates, such social divisions? beyond Judaism. (Indeed, this aspect of the Dawkins’ analysis here is unacceptable. There teaching of Jesus of Nazareth seems to have are points at which his ignorance of religion ceas- resulted in people suspecting Jesus of actually es to be amusing, and simply becomes risible. In being a Samaritan: see John 8:48). It is certainly dealing with this question he draws extensively true that Jesus, a Palestinian Jew, gave priority on a paper published in Skeptic magazine in 1995 to the Jews as God’s chosen people, but his def- by John Hartung, which asserts that—and here I inition of who was a “true Jew” was radically cite Dawkins’ summary: broad. It included those who had excluded themselves from Judaism by intimate collaboration Jesus was a devotee of the same in-group moral- with Roman occupying forces. One of the main ity—coupled with out-group hostility—that was charges leveled against Jesus by his critics with- taken for granted in the Old Testament. Jesus was in Judaism was his open acceptance of these out- a loyal Jew. It was Paul who invented the idea of groups. Indeed a substantial part of his teaching taking the Jewish God to the Gentiles. Hartung can be seen as a defense of his behavior towards puts it more bluntly than I dare: “Jesus would them. Jesus’ welcome of marginalized groups, have turned over in his grave if he had known who inhabited an ambiguous position between that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs.” “in” and “out,” is also well attested in accounts 4 Deluded About God?

of his willingness to touch those considered by of delusion. For the gullible and credulous, it is his culture to be ritually unclean (for instance the confidence with which something is said that Matthew 8:3, Matthew 9:20-25). persuades, rather than the evidence offered in its So what are we to make of this shrill and petu- support. Dawkins’ astonishingly superficial and lant manifesto of atheist fundamentalism? Aware inaccurate portrayal of Christianity will simply of the moral obligation of a critic of religion to lead Christians to conclude that he does not know deal with this phenomenon at its best and most what he is talking about—and that his atheism persuasive, many atheists have been disturbed by may therefore rest on a series of errors and mis- Dawkins’ crude stereotypes, vastly over-simpli- understandings. Ironically, the ultimate achieve- fied binary oppositions (“science is good, religion ment of The God Delusion for modern atheism may is bad”), straw men, and seemingly pathological be to suggest that actually atheism itself may be hostility towards religion. Might The God Delusion a delusion about God. actually backfire, and end up persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant, doctrinaire, and Note 1 disagreeable as the worst that religion can offer? For a good discussion, see Keith Ward, Is Religion Danger- As the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse com- ous? Oxford: Lion, 2006. mented recently: “The God Delusion makes me Alister McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford embarrassed to be an atheist.” University. He has co-authored the forthcoming book The Dawkins Dawkins seems to think that saying some- Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine thing more loudly and confidently, while ignoring (InterVarsity Press) with his wife, Joanna Collicutt McGrath, who is a psychologist. McGrath has also authored the standard account of Dawkins’ or trivializing counter-evidence, will persuade views on the relation of science and religion: Dawkins’ God: Genes, the open-minded that religious belief is a type Memes and the Meaning of Life. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004.

______

C.S. LEWIS INSTITUTE Discipleship of Heart and Mind

  

In the legacy of C.S. Lewis, the Institute endeavors to develop disciples who can articulate, defend, and live faith in Christ through personal and public life.

   