Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Dawkins, McGrath & me

By John Warren - posted Friday, 14 October 2005


Resolving the debate

Alister McGrath was prompted to write his book 25 years ago when he read Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene. That book presented a modern picture of the natural material basis for the evolution of human beings. There was no need for believing that some supernatural force or being played a part.

Dawkins’ point, that God was irrelevant to the study of human evolution, obviously reawakened McGrath’s feeling that the very basis of his theology was under attack just as so many theologians of Darwin’s day had felt.

He, McGrath, should not have felt any surprise at Dawkins or other scientific investigators ignoring the existence of a supernatural force (or its personification as God) because he had spent some years researching biophysics himself. In that role I am sure that he never once felt the need to include a factor for the effect of the supernatural in his explanations. Neither have investigators in any other scientific discipline. Supernatural force is irrelevant to scientific investigations.

Advertisement

McGrath does point out that to conclude that a thing is irrelevant does not prove that it does not exist. True enough, but one can multiply irrelevancies without adding anything towards understanding a problem.

There is good reason to think that McGrath’s belief in God is an emotional attachment coming from his early experience in a loving religious family. Darwin’s studies led him to comment, in his book The Descent of Man, “That a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, while the brain is impressible, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct, and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason”. The same idea was also contained in the Jesuits’ saying, “Give us a boy and we will return you a man, a citizen of his country and a child of God”.

If any proof is required for the overwhelming role of early indoctrination and emotional attachment it can be found now in the self-immolation of Iraqis and Palestinians.

That early impressibility is one, perhaps the strongest, path by which cultural beliefs and attitudes are passed from one generation to the next. Once impressed in the early years, the impressed images have to be sustained as part of society’s norms so that stability is maintained. In the case of the Christian religion that personal attachment is constantly strengthened by the continuous use of emotional words. One only has to listen to the words of common hymns and prayers to recognise that the emotional content is centred on love and comfort and the satisfaction of earthly desires. Even the ultimate goal, heaven, is pictured as a beautiful, peaceful place to be shared in the loving company of the father.

The modern Pentecostals, with their displays of shouting, sobbing and falling at the touch of a preacher’s hand illustrate the emotional ecstasy which is generated and used in a mass ceremony of devotion.

At the beginning of his book McGrath says,“the real issue for me is how Dawkins proceeds from a Darwinian theory of evolution to a confident atheistic world-view ...” I would have thought that the irrelevancy of supernatural forces to the theory of natural selection would have provided that basis. It obviously does not convince McGrath and at the end of his book he asks for the debate to continue: “I’m sure that we all have much to learn by debating with each other, graciously and accurately. The question of whether there is a God, and what that God might be like, has not - despite the predictions of overconfident Darwinians - gone away since Darwin, and remains of major intellectual and personal importance.”

Advertisement

My own view is that the debate has been going on, without any sign of an agreement, ever since people have been recording their thoughts. The chance of a useful debating conclusion being reached now is remote. Scientific investigators (even those with religious commitment) will continue to explore the real world without recourse to supernatural forces. Non-scientists with religious attachment will only be shocked into facing reality and a recognition that human beings are alone in the world when they meet a personal or community crisis and realise that appeals to their God get no reply.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

This article was first published in the Australian Skeptic of Spring 2005, Vol 24 No.3.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

50 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

John Warren has retired from work in soil conservation, agriculture and horticulture.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by John Warren

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 50 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy