Alistair McGrath is another scholar that believes that religion and science can coexist together and can offer each other theories and ideas. He wrote a book in 2007 called ‘The Dawkins Delusion’ to counter Richard Dawkin’s controversial book called ‘The God Delusion’, published in 2006. Alistair McGrath criticizes Dawkin’s very harsh, blunt, and hostile ideas about the very concept of religion, and that because Dawkins has no phycology training he is not in the place to condemn religion because it is difficult for him to understand the true meaning of faith. McGrath disagrees with Dawkins when he says that God is “a petty unjust, unforgiving control-freak” saying that in the New Testament Jesus shows that God was a kind and forgiving God, and that Jesus was “the object, not the agent, of violence.” McGrath also as well as combatting Dawkin’s view that religion has not been modernised or interoperated for modern times, he also speaks of postmodernism which is the cynical view of religion and arts.
Richard Swinburne also believes that science and religion are companionable. He wrote “the existence of God” in 1979. The core idea in the book is that if there is a God, then there is a motive for him to create the universe and the laws of science and nature which lead to the creation of the earth and the perfect and extremely precise conditions for which humans can evolve. He also ties this in with the design argument, saying that because all these finely tuned and exquisitely engineered systems and beings exist, there must be a designer, God. This theory completely agrees with science, and makes it perfectly easy to comprehend science and this theory together, because science can explain how our finely tuned universe, solar system and planet allow us to exist, but religion can explain before this, why they all happen to be so coordinated and harmonised – God took the role of setting out the circumstances which were suitable for the universe to originate.
Charles Darwin was a, at the time, controversial geologist and naturalist who developed the theory of evolution. He was perceived by many people at the time to be a radical extremist, because he did not fit into the majority of other people’s beliefs at the time that we were created in the likeness of God, as was nature and animals. His theory of evolution was developed by looking at many species and variants of plants and said that he could identify common characteristics between them and animals, and this suggested that they had a mutual ancestor – meaning they evolved from a former species. Darwin’s theory goes against the diehard beliefs of orthodox believers, that we were all individually created to the smallest detail by God, and this is why he was viewed as very controversial back in his time. However, with a hint of irony, as time has moved on and people have become more liberal, modern day religious organisations and communities accept his theory and have integrated it with their own theory, whatever variant it might be for different institutions.
And we now come back to our controversial acquaintance, Mr Dawkins, and his famous work, the “God Delusion” in which he, without hesitation, gives his blunt views on the very concept of religion. It has achieved so much fame and attention because of how strongly he conveys his strong-held controversial beliefs. He says that the “God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust unforgiving control freak. He then goes on to use a metric mile of synonyms to show his view on God. He also has strong-held views on religious culture and upbringing, “A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents of a child of Muslim parents.” He essentially says that children in religion are quite often put under pressure to accept the religion that their ancestors have grown up with, and he points out that this is immoral, and that we should be giving children a choice for themselves. They are not given a direct choice, and they are not choosing to go down that particular religious path, and are doing it simply because they are told to. Dawkins is also critical of people’s behaviour towards religion, that we are trying to “gain God’s approval and reward” and to avoid his “disapproval and punishment.” He says that it is “not mortality”, that it’s “just sucking up, apple-polishing”, without asking why we should behave in this way to God.
Dawkin’s other very famous book is called “The Blind Watchmaker” and this work sees Dawkins directly criticising the design argument that William Paley had propagated with his example of the watch. Dawkins provides a broad depiction of all the evidence that points towards a universe that was not designed, countering the argument of design that people like Alistair McGrath make. Examples of this evidence range from pointing out that everything in the universe is and has changed, however slowly, and that humans have only been here actually pretty recently, and that billions of years ago we were not a flicker in one’s imagination. Instead of the design argument, Dawkins uses natural selection, saying that if everything has been perfectly designed, then why is it that when environmental conditions change only some survive, why other animals have to eat other animals? That is not a perfect design, more of a bodge job, a temperamental system put in place because something better had not been thought of.
My own personal opinion is one that both Science and Religion can coexist together, in harmony, and more importantly they can both be of a benefit to each other, rather than a hindrance. I agree with people like William Paley, where Science and Religion can both work together to prove one amazing answer, seen in the design theory. As you may have gathered, I am not one to necessarily agree with the way Dawkins lords his beliefs and ideas about the concept of religion and rains on the parades of those involved in religion, however I do believe that for example children need to be given a genuine and unbiased choice as to whether they believe from the heart in a religion, not just being a part of the religious organisation because their ancestors were. This is how people can become radicalised, which ties in rather well with the current affairs situation, as of January 2016, with IS over in Syria. Their mantra is in no way really related to Islam, and it is being used as an excuse to do what they are doing. Because people are growing up with this around them, they assume it’s true as they have no choice to believe differently.
by
ciaranwebb0gmailcom (student)
