It’s been a few weeks since I’ve written anything substantial regarding this so-called Quest of mine, so to spark your memory, the Quest involves seeking to determine whether or not the Judeo-Christian worldview is a justifiable worldview. I’ve structured the Quest so that I examine the key assumptions of Christianity to see whether or not these assumptions are themselves justifiable. If too many assumptions become unjustifiable, then the whole thing spirals down like Dominos. The first assumption, obviously, is that God exists. “Is this a justifiable assumption?” That question’s propelled me into this gauntlet of books, and as of now I’ve got three under my belt. Here I want to give little reviews of the books I’ve read so far:
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Honestly, this wasn’t the best book to start off. It’s a national bestseller, popular to the masses, so I thought (and this, I think, was a good assumption) that it’d be a good launching-point. Not only until later did I learn that while popular to the masses, this book isn’t so well received among many scientists, especially among atheists. That should be telling. He litters good science with pseudo-science, draws conclusions where conclusions shouldn’t be so hastily drawn, paints up religion in such a grotesque way that even many atheists are made uncomfortable by it, and he advocates un-provable theories that cannot be justified by science. All this aside, there’s lots of great material in the book, even if Dawkins’ own agenda colors the picture at times. (Making judgments of a person’s character based upon a book is a bad decision, and as it turns out, Dawkins is quite a likable and respectful fellow, and he’s brilliant in the realm of evolutionary biology). The first half of his book focuses on the probability (or, rather, improbability) of God. He takes the line that the need for God is statistically negligible, and that since God is rendered optional, why must we assume him to be there in the first place? Again, assumptions drive his conclusions as much as they drive ours. My favorite part in this section were his excellent points made against Intelligent Design and Creationism, and he did a sweeping survey of the evidences of evolution, especially in the human body. Sadly, however, in the second half of the book, his condemnations on the pseudoscience of Creationism seem to be cast off when he starts advocating theories with no substance in scientific or cultural studies. His ranting against religion (or, rather, a caricature of religion) becomes long-winded and tiring to read, and he demonstrates his shocking ignorance of some of the basic tenants of not just Judeo-Christian theism but theism in general. So, to sum it up: the first half of the book was pretty decent, but it went quite downhill after that. The book would be perfect if I were looking for the agenda-skewed manifesto of a materialistic philosophical naturalist hell-bent on turning the world against theism. However, when it comes to taking an honest look at the issues, I’d have to give it a C (and did I choose that letter-grade with absolutely no forethought? I sure did. That’s how invested I am in these books reviews).
The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath. This book is written as a response to Dawkins’ The God Delusion. McGrath writes that the first half of Dawkins’ book is, essentially, a materialistic interpretation of the world grounded in the un-provable and thus unshakable assumptions of philosophical naturalism. Dawkins advocates this view as if it were the only legitimate option, and he rings in a parade of scientists who are also atheists. Because Dawkins’ book weighed such evidence heavily, McGrath parries back, focusing on the relationship of science and religion. He points out that there are other viable routes of relationship that are embraced by scientists, even by atheists. He writes on pages 45-46, “[Nature] is open to many legitimate interpretations. It can be interpreted in atheist, deist, theist and many other ways—but it does not demand to be interpreted in any of these.” Dawkins wants the world to know that atheism is the ultimate sign of intelligence and freethinking, and that anyone who isn’t an atheist is just downright mad, delusional, ignorant and idiotic. McGrath wants the world to know that there are many different ways of interpreting the world in an intellectual way, philosophical naturalism and the Judeo-Christian worldview both being justifiable in this sense: both can be held by intellectuals and make sense of the data as it presents itself. As Dawkins drew forth in parade fashion scientists denouncing religion, so McGrath cleverly draws forth a parade of atheist scientists denouncing Dawkins for making a mockery of atheism and trying to pass off pseudo-science as valid hypotheses. The second half of McGrath’s (short little) book is a dispelling of many of Dawkins’ and inaccuracies and misrepresentations of the major world religions, especially Christianity (since that is McGrath’s position), and he includes a stinging rebuke from Michael Ruse, a distinguished atheist philosopher, who wrote to fellow atheist and writer Daniel Dennett, “What we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues—neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with its ideas—its just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard [Dawkins] claims—more than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in the fight, not simply alienate everyone of good-will.” McGrath’s little book was far better than Dawkins’, and he lucidly and without being mean (a refreshing change from The God Delusion) challenges many of Dawkins’ assumptions and conclusions while defending his own worldview (and assumptions) from Dawkins’ attacks. And McGrath doesn’t write that those who don’t share his opinion are idiots, so that kinda makes me like his book more.
God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is an atheist I respect: he underwent water-boarding to protest its use as torture, his closest friends were thinking religious folk, and he faced his death with a cold courage rare to find these days. Hitchens brings far more to the table than Dawkins does, and his points against theism are far more challenging. While Dawkins’ book read like an atheist’s version of Edwards’ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, reading Hitchens feels like sitting at feet of a wizened old man beside a cackling fireplace, smoking an alabaster pipe and sharing his wisdom drawn from years of travelling, experiencing, and thinking. He travelled the world and had more experiences with religious folk and religion than anyone I know. While writing about how most of his good friends are religious, he doesn’t miss a beat in condemning religion as a force for evil in the world. Like Dawkins, he advocates the end of religion and the uprising of Logic and Reason to trump all superstition. Unlike Dawkins, he doesn’t seem to believe that all religious folk are fundamentalist nut-jobs with off-kilter moral compasses, and he writes fondly of religious people, both throughout human history and in his own life, who have been forces of good in the world. Many of his arguments are mirrors of Dawkins’ when it comes to the relationship of science and religion, and he’s of the position, too, that science, in discovering the way the world works, has pushed God to the margins and thus made God not merely optional but also ineffective: hanging onto God is something done out of nostalgia, or fear, or because of a psychological weakness rendering us unable to live in a world without an unseen crutch. Because of this, many of McGrath’s points against Dawkins can be drawn in as rejoinders to Hitchens’ arguments. For anyone interested in the tenants of atheism, and in reading a damned good portrait of it (and anti-theism, as well), then this may be an interesting starting-point. Although it’s tempting for me to start sketching out some conclusions drawn so far, I want to be careful of drawing conclusions too early. I’m not even halfway through the first assumption! I need to be patient, patience is key here. So I’m going to fight the urge to draw conclusions, and I’m going to fight the urge to convey my current thoughts, hypotheses, and conjectures regarding the subject, because these thoughts may very well change come the end of all this. But I promise to give decent feedback on this first assumption, whatever that might be, when the time is ripe (that is to say, when I’ve gotten through all the books on schedule).
