DOCSLIB.ORG

Deluded About God (Mcgrath)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Deluded About God (Mcgrath) 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 athe- ist 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The God Delusion Debate . Discussion Guide
    The God Delusion Debate . Discussion Guide . 1 THE GOD DELUSION DEBATE A DISCUSSION GUIDE compiled by Bill Wortman We take ideas seriously THE PARTICIPANTS Richard Dawkins, FRS at the time of this debate held the posi- tion of Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. He did his doctorate at Oxford under Nobel Prize winning zoologist, Niko Tinbergen. He is the author of nine books, some of which are !e Sel"sh Gene (1976, 2nd edition 1989), !e Blind Watchmaker (1986), !e God Delu- sion (2006), and most recently !e Greatest Show on Earth (2009). Dawkins is an atheist. John Lennox is a Reader in Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green College, University of Oxford. He holds doctorates from Oxford (D. Phil.), Cambridge (Ph.D.), and the University of Wales (D.Sc.) and an MA in Bioethics from the University of Surrey. In addition to authoring over seventy peer reviewed papers in pure mathematics, and co-authoring two research monographs for Ox- ford University Press, Dr. Lennox is the author of God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (2007). Lennox is a Christian. Larry A. Taunton is founder and Executive Director of Fixed Point Foundation and Latimer House. Like Fixed Point itself, Larry specializes in addressing issues of faith and culture. A published author, he is the recipient of numerous awards and research grants. He is Executive Producer of the !lms “Science and the God Ques- tion” (2007), “"e God Delusion Debate” (2007), “God on Trial” (2008), “Has Science Buried God?” (2008), “Can Atheism Save Eu- rope?” (2009), and “Is God Great?” (2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Atheism AO2 Handout Part 1
    Philosophy Of Religion / Atheism AO2 Atheism AO2 Handout Part 1 New Atheism successfully shows the incompatibility of science and religion. Evaluate this view. 1. New Atheists seem to argue that scientific theories are based only on evidence, whilst religion runs away from evidence. The claim is that atheism is rational and scientific while religion is irrational and superstitious. Faith is not an element of science since evidence for a correct conviction compels us to accept its truth. As Dawkins says “Faith is a state of mind that leads people to believe something – it doesn’t matter what – in the total absence of supporting evidence. If there were good supporting evidence, then faith would be superfluous…” However, Alister McGrath points out that such a view “fails to make the critical distinction between the ‘total absence of supporting evidence’ and the ‘absence of totally supporting evidence’.” It is true that some facts about the world have been proved (e.g. the chemical formula for water) but the bigger scientific questions such as is there a Grand Unified Theory that explains everything rely on answers based on the best evidence available but they are not certainties. In future years they may well change as new evidence is considered. As Gauch concluded “Science rests on faith”. Dawkins in his book “The God Delusion” does argue that the existence of God is a testable hypothesis and concludes that the hypothesis is falsifiable. Therefore the hypothesis is open to the scientific method. So here is a New Atheist proponent arguing that that the existence of God is a meaningful hypothesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Science, Reason and Religion 19.09.12 Professor Keith WARD Introduction: Revd Scott S
    OPening ADDReSS: Science, ReASOn AnD ReligiOn 19.09.12 PROfeSSOR Keith WARD introduction: Revd Scott S. McKenna Good evening. Welcome to Mayfield Salisbury Parish Church. This is the first of five events which make up our Festival of Science, Reason and Religion. When we wrote to each of our invited guests, we said: In our view, the Church has never fully or adequately responded to the 'challenges' of science or reason and, in the present day, the Church is perceived to be anti-intellectual, superstitious, bigoted and homophobic, at times not without justification. We said: We are spiritual seekers after truth and recognise that there may be more than one truth. Our festival will be an honest, intellectually rigorous and, we hope, enjoyable exploration about the nature of reality and what it means to be human. This evening’s opening address is being delivered by Keith Ward. We were delighted when Keith accepted our invitation. Keith Ward is a philosopher, theologian and a priest in the Church of England. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and has over 25 books to his name. Keith graduated from the University of Wales. Through the 60s and 70s, he lectured in Logic at Glasgow University, then Philosophy at St Andrews. He has also lectured at King’s College London and Trinity Hall Cambridge. Finally, in 1991, Keith was appointed Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, a post he held for 13 years. In his retirement, if I may put it that way, he has written much and lectured across the world, from Calcutta to Auckland and Philadelphia to Bellagio.
    [Show full text]
  • Christianity, Islam & Atheism
    Christianity, Islam & Atheism Reflections on Religion, Society & Politics Michael Cooke 2 Christianity, Islam & Atheism About the author Michael Colin Cooke is a retired public servant and trade union activist who has a lifelong interest in South Asian history, politics and culture. He has served as an election monitor in Sri Lanka. Michael is the author of The Lionel Bopage Story: Rebellion, Repression and the Struggle for Justice in Sri Lanka (2011). He has also penned when the occasion demanded a number of articles and film reviews. He lives in Melbourne. Published 2014 ISBN 978-1-876646-15-8 Resistance Books: resistancebooks.com Contents 1.Genesis............................................................................................5 2.The Evolution of a Young Atheist .............................................13 India...................................................................................................................... 13 Living in the ’70s down under.............................................................................. 16 Religious fundamentalism rears its head............................................................. 20 3.Christianity: An Atheist’s Homily ................................................21 Introduction – the paradox that is Christianity................................................... 21 The argument....................................................................................................... 23 It ain’t necessarily so: Part 1................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Idea of God: a Chronological and Philosophical View of Theism, Atheism, and the War Between the Two Nicholas Jensen
    The Idea of God: A Chronological and Philosophical View of Theism, Atheism, And the War between the Two Nicholas Jensen Jensen 1 Christianity has shaped the world for the past two thousand years. According to the CIA World Factbook, one-third of the world practices some sort of denomination of Christianity.1 The problem with this listing from the Factbook is that it does not take into account the schisms of faith that have fractured the faith from the Enlightenment, the Reformation, and every point leading to the formation of Christianity itself. In addition, the proliferation of Atheism is an important concept to view when discussing religion. Originally starting as a product of searching for truth, we see Atheism evolve into something that stands vehemently against any form of religion in modern society. When looking chronologically at the Christian faith, we see ourselves with a drastically different example of theology upon examination of ancient origins to the modern “everyone is saved” mentality of the current church. This paper aims to examine the transformation of the Christian religion, as well as examining the conflict between modern atheism and modern Christianity. Before jumping into the examination of sources, some terminology needs to be explained. Of prime importance is the concept of transcendence. To be transcendent is to be beyond any possible understanding in the eyes of man. No matter how hard one tries to focus on a transcendent ideal, they will not come to understand it, simply because of it being something so far beyond the possible understanding of man. In the concept of ancient religion, God was a transcendent being, one that man could never fully understand, or process how he worked.
    [Show full text]
  • Vision of Universal Identity in World Religions: from Life-Incoherent to Life- Grounded Spirituality – John Mcmurtry
    PHILOSOPHY AND WORLD PROBLEMS – Vision of Universal Identity in World Religions: From Life-Incoherent to Life- Grounded Spirituality – John McMurtry VISIONS OF UNIVERSAL IDENTITY IN WORLD RELIGIONS: FROM LIFE-INCOHERENT TO LIFE-GROUNDED SPIRITUALITY John McMurtry University of Guelph,Guelph NIG 2W1, Canada Keywords: atman, breath, Buddhism, capitalist religion, civil commons, death, dream model, dualities, externalist fallacy, false religion, God, the Great Round, I- consciousness, idolatry, illusionism, integral yoga, invisible hand, incentives, Islam, Jesus, Krishna, Lao, life necessities/needs, life-coherence principle, prophets, sacrifice levels, self/self-group, social orders, spiritual ecology, structures of life blindness, suffering, Sufis, sustainability, Tantric, theo-capitalism, Vedas/Vedanta, war Contents 1. Understanding False Religion across History and Cultures 1.1 Spiritual Consciousness versus False Religion 1.2 Variations of Sacrificial Theme 1.3 The Unseen Contradictions 2. From Life Sacrifice for Selfish Gain to Offerings for Renewal of the Great Round 2.1. Sustainability of Life Systems versus Sustainability of Profit 3. The Animating Breath of Life: The Unseen Common Ground of the Spiritual Across Religions 4. Sacrificing Self to Enable Life across Divisions: The Ancient Spiritual Vision 5. What Is the I That Has a Body? Rational Explanation of the Infinite Consciousness Within 6. Counter-Argument: How Analytic Philosophy and Science Explain Away Inner Life 7. From the Soul of the Upanishads to the Ecology of Universal Life Identity 8. Reconnecting Heaven to Earth: The Inner-Outer Infinitude of Spiritual Comprehension 9. Re-Grounding Spirituality: From the Light-Fields to Universal Life Necessities 9.1. Why the Buddhist Reformation of Hinduism Still Does Not Solve the Problem 9.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Alister Mcgrath's Anti-Mind-Body Dualism: Neuroscientific and Philosophical Quandaries for Christian Physicalism Brandon Rickabaugh* I
    TRINJ40NS (2019) 215-240 ALISTER MCGRATH'S ANTI-MIND-BODY DUALISM: NEUROSCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL QUANDARIES FOR CHRISTIAN PHYSICALISM BRANDON RICKABAUGH* I. INTRODUCTION Here is a staggering truth: the ontology of the human person currently embraced by the most vocal Christian scholars working on this issue is a view that almost no Christians thought plausible only 100 years ago. Until recently, the dominant view among Christian thinkers has been various forms of mind-body dualism (hereafter, dualism), according to which the human person comprises body and soul.1 In stark disagreement, many contemporary Christian scholars vigorously advance antidualism and defend physicalism (reductive or nonreductive), understanding the human person as fundamentally physical.2 These Christian physicalists proffer the strong impression of a uniform rejection of dualism across the neuroscientific, theological, and philosophical communities, as if dualism has been defeated, just as phlogiston was in in the 1770s. Here is another staggering truth: this certain-defeat-of-dualism narrative is demonstrably false. There is, in fact, a growing resurgence of dualism in philosophy. The recent Blackwell Companion Brandon Rickabaugh is a PhD candidate in the Department of Philosophy at Baylor University. This paper won the 2018-2019 Harold O. J. Brown Award for Student Scholarship. aSee Paul Gavarilyuk, "The Incorporeality of the Soul in Patristic Thought," in Christian Physicalism? Philosophical Theological Criticisms, ed. Keith Loftin and Joshua Farris (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2017), 1-26; and Thomas Atkinson, "Christian Physicalism: Against the Medieval Divines," in Loftin and Farris, Christian Physicalism?, 27-42. This isn't to say that dualism was the only view, as there is a tiny minority of Christian physicalists in the history of the church.
    [Show full text]
  • The God Hypothesis
    CHAPTER 2 The God Hypothesis The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next. RALPH WALDO EMERSON THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 31 The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, fili- cidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror. A naif blessed with the perspective of innocence has a clearer perception. Winston Churchill's son Randolph somehow contrived to remain ignorant of scripture until Evelyn Waugh and a brother officer, in a vain attempt to keep Churchill quiet when they were posted together during the war, bet him he couldn't read the entire Bible in a fort- night: 'Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud "I say I bet you didn't know this came in the Bible ..." or merely slapping his side & chortling "God, isn't God a shit!"'16 Thomas Jefferson - better read - was of a similar opinion: 'The Christian God is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.' It is unfair to attack such an easy target. The God Hypothesis should not stand or fall with its most unlovely instantiation, Yahweh, nor his insipidly opposite Christian face, 'Gentle Jesus meek and mild'. (To be fair, this milksop persona owes more to his Victorian followers than to Jesus himself.
    [Show full text]
  • Griset Lecturer: Keith Ward Spring 2016 (1 Unit)
    Religion 329: “Science and Religion: the Great Debate” Griset Lecturer: Keith Ward Spring 2016 (1 unit) Class Meeting Times: Tuesday February 23 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Wednesday February 24 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Monday, February 29 7:00 (Public Lecture: Christ and the Cosmos—Attendance Mandatory) Tuesday March 1 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Wednesday March 2 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Monday March 7 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Tuesday March 8 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Units of Study: 1. Can there be a debate? Has there really been a war between science and religion? Can we define ‘science’ or ‘religion’, anyway? Has science killed both religion and philosophy, as Stephen Hawking has claimed? 2. How the universe began. Scientific and religious accounts of the origin of the universe. What do Christians mean by ‘creation’? Does this compete with modern cosmology? 3. How the universe will end. The scientific revolution in quantum physics. Can there be purpose in a scientifically understood universe? Is the universe pointless? 4. Is there a problem with evolution? How the theory of evolution began as a religious doctrine, why it came to be seen as anti‐religious, and why it is still such a contentious theory. 5. Has science eliminated miracles? Are there absolute laws of nature? Is science on the way to explaining everything? 6. The ‘hard problem’. Why does consciousness exist, and how does it relate to matter? Can rational animals (i.e.humans) survive death? These sessions will be a combination of lecture and discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Alister Mcgrath Is the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University, and Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion
    Alister McGrath is the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University, and Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion. He holds Oxford doctorates in both the natural sciences and Christian theology. McGrath has written extensively on the interaction of science and Christian theology, and is the author of many books, including the inter- national bestseller The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine (SPCK, 2007), and the market-leading textbook Christian Theology: An introduction (Wiley, 2016). McGrath also serves as the Gresham Professor of Divinity, a public professor- ship in the City of London, established in 1597, that promotes the public engagement of theology with the leading issues of the day. ENrichiNG Our VisioN OF RealiTY Theology and the natural sciencess in dialogue Alister McGrath First published in Great Britain in 2016 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge 36 Causton Street London SW1P 4ST www.spck.org.uk Copyright © Alister McGrath 2016 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. SPCK does not necessarily endorse the individual views contained in its publications. The author and publisher have made every effort to ensure that the external website and email addresses included in this book are correct and up to date at the time of going to press. The author and publisher are not responsible for the content, quality or continuing accessibility of the sites.
    [Show full text]
  • So Let Me Begin by Thanking Professor Dennett for Writing a Very Interesting
    The Spell of the Meme Alister McGrath A speech given at the Royal Society of Arts on Monday 13 March 2006, in response to Professor Daniel Dennett’s book Breaking the Spell. I would like to begin by thanking Professor Dennett for writing a very interesting book, which I am sure will generate much debate. He writes well and engagingly, and has a nice sense of humour. I cannot hope to engage with the entire contents of the book, so I will just have to look at some of its aspects that I believe are particularly important. To begin with, I would like to set the context to the points I am going to make. Why hasn’t religion died out? A few months back, the World Congress of the International Academy of Humanism took place in upstate New York. Its organizers had no doubt of the urgency of their theme. Religion is regaining the ascendancy. Humanity is facing a new dark ages! Speakers such as Richard Dawkins, Britain’s best-known atheist, tried to work out how to get rid of the “God Delusion” – one of the many barriers that need to be swept away if humanity is to finally come of age. It’s a fascinating glimpse of the crisis of confidence which is gripping atheism. As Guardian columnist Madeleine Bunting pointed out,1 when commenting on Richard Dawkins’ recent TV programme on Channel 4, it shows a deep loss of faith among atheists: 1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1681235,00.html 1 Behind unsubstantiated assertions, sweeping generalisations and random anecdotal evidence, there’s the unmistakable whiff of panic; they fear religion is on the march again.
    [Show full text]
  • The Quest for Ultimate Reason Transcript
    The Quest for Ultimate Reason Transcript Date: Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 12:00AM THE QUEST FOR ULTIMATE REASON Professor Keith Ward Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza; the age of Rationalism. If there is one philosophical view that is almost universally disparaged in the modern world it is 'Cartesian Dualism'. Everyone knows it is wrong, and some philosophers are scandalised by it. 'Dualism must be avoided at all costs', writes the American philosopher Daniel Dennett. And most psychologists and neurologists, even when they talk about and seem to admit the existence of, consciousness and its contents - dreams, images, sensations, thoughts and feelings - hasten to add, 'But of course I am not a Cartesian dualist'. This is very sad, because Descartes was trying to respond to the scepticism of writers like Montaigne, who held that we could not know anything. He was trying to find at least one thing of which we could be absolutely certain. As we all know, he found it in the proposition, 'I think, therefore I am'. But the modern world not only finds it possible to doubt that proposition. It completely rejects it as incoherent. I will say straight away that I am not part of this modern world. I find Descartes' arguments convincing. But I have to say that furtively, for fear of the scorn of my philosophical colleagues, 'No wonder that man became a theologian', they say, 'He was, after all, a Cartesian dualist'. However, there is no safety in theology either, since most theologians, also, have nothing good to say about Descartes. 'Humans are psycho-physical unities', says one of the most respected physicists and theologians, John Polkinghorne.
    [Show full text]