The great writer Philip Pullman was interviewed on the Jeremy Vine Show this afternoon (BBC Radio 2) and the piece can only be listened to for the next seven days – unfortunately. Pullman’s new book is published tomorrow and is called The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ. Obviously, I haven’t read it, but I have read and heard enough to make me want to read it.
According to the interview, the novel basically attempts to distinguish between the Jesus of the Gospels and the Christ appropriated by the Church: the former was a good bloke, but the latter went astray and got it all wrong. Several things can be said about this:
1. This isn’t new thinking. Many twentieth-century theologians tried to make a similar distinction between the ‘Jesus of history’ and the ‘Christ of faith’. Of course, the distinction was arbitrary and often a convenient way of dealing with the difficult or inconvenient bits of the New Testament. So, the reaction by some Christians to the idea of Pullman’s book simply demonstrates that they are a bit behind on their theology.
2. The Church should not feel the need to hide from its history and especially from its mistakes. Pullman and others often do us a service by shining a light on us that can only be directed from outside the Church – illuminating our weaknesses and inconsistencies. What is the problem with this? The Church has a good theology of failure (and redemption) and shouldn’t be scared of being seen as it is and as it has been. OK, Pullman is a bit preoccupied with it and not all his critiques stand much scrutiny, but some of it does.
The interview was interesting, dealing with the nature of the Gospels, the status of the Bible and the mindset of those nutters who threaten Pullman with death. Pullman respects the Gospels and the biblical text, but sees them as works of human inventiveness. What disturbs him is not the witness they bear, but the use made of them (for reasons of power) by subsequent generations of Christians. He acknowledges the apologetic power of the inconsistencies in the Gospels – particularly in relation to the resurrection accounts – and recognises that unified narratives would have been the product of propaganda.
However, the subtleties of biblical literature are clearly lost on some of those who then called in to comment on these matters (as, again, George Pitcher points out):
- ‘The Bible is just fiction’ demonstrates a stupid ignorance of both (a) what fiction is and (b) what the Bible is. The Bible is made up of a range of different genres of literature and (as one example) poetry cannot be read in the same way as prophecy or a New Testament letter. To write off the whole ‘book’ as ‘fiction’ just proves that the contributor hasn’t bothered to read it as it is written.
- ‘The Bible cannot be questioned or re-written’ is simply sad. I agree that it can’t be re-written (it is what it is) any more than Hamlet can be re-written without it becoming a different play. But if the Bible has to be protected from scrutiny, debate, argument or challenge, then it isn’t worth reading in the first place. Pullman stated that ‘the Gospels do not belong to the Church’ – and he is right. Jesus made it clear anyway that he was for the world, fulfilling what had always been the vocation of Israel: to live and give his life in order that the world might see who and how God is (and respond accordingly). The Bible must be able to stand in the marketplace or it cannot be what it claims to be. Jesus (and the Gospels) cannot be caged by the Church.
- ‘We wouldn’t do this to the Quran’ simply exasperates me. Do we really think Christians should consider emulating the worst of Muslim extremism? As George Pitcher admirably and clearly explained in yesterday’s Telegraph, we shouldn’t confuse the woeful (and often silly) ignorance of secularists and some atheists with some bizarre and inappropriate notion of ‘persecution’.
Christians are in danger of saying by their defensiveness that Christian faith and the Bible itself are so vulnerable that they must not be challenged and must be protected. As I have remarked in an article in the Easter edition of the Radio Times (no link available), we have no reason to be afraid of challenge or scrutiny – Christians need to be a little more confident and a little more intelligent in articulating their faith and their understanding of the story told by the Scriptures. As Pullman pointed out, a Christian notion of ‘inspiration’ is not the same as an Islamic one – but plenty of Christians treat the Bible as if it were.
The answer to Pullman is to write something better and more convincing – not to threaten him. Pullman is at least able and willing to have a reasonable and informed conversation with Christians – unlike some of the New Atheists he is often lumped in with.
Bishop Alan Wilson has an interesting ‘take’ on the interface between Christians and atheists in his comment on Peter Tatchell. Worth a look in conjunction with these observations on Christian confidence when in engagement with writers like Philip Pullman.
March 31, 2010 at 12:40 am
‘Dear Nick,
I just wanted to let you (and the readership of your website) know about a campaign to get Delirious (writers of songs such as I could sing of your love forever and Majesty) to number 1 in the UK pop charts this Easter Sunday!
This is the perfect time of the year to make a positive impact through actions that are both cheap (Under £2 to download both versions of their single) and cheap (can be done in under 5 minutes).
They have released a song called History Makers (live and studio versions)which is currently number 10 in midweek position but we have until Sunday to get it higher, and get people talking about God, at Easter…rather than the usual pop tat!
Info here; http://www.invadetheairwaves.org.uk
Song can be bought here;
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/dmusic/ref=sv_dmusic_2
or here;
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewTop?id=130&popId=1&genreId=34
All versions of the song count towards the final chart position, the more buys, the higher it gets!
Thanks and God Bless,
Phil
March 31, 2010 at 5:56 am
Dude, are you just doing a bit of moon light Book Publishing or what.!!
So far all I see is write ups on up and coming books.
What about the Greed, Ignorance, and general Woes of todays living. The constant Take Take Take, people are striving for.
The Arogance of the Churchs (Catholics Mainly). Whos own followers are angry people in general.
Whats Broken in Society. And is it somthing we Can Fix. Or are we all just doomed.
March 31, 2010 at 5:58 am
And another thing. If you want to Review something, Review Michael Moors latest film, Capitalism – A Love Storey. I see SOO many similaritys over here in the UK is worrying.
People Need to Wake Up. and Look Beyond the Big 3 parties when it comes to Polatics.
March 31, 2010 at 8:28 am
Wombat, you need read further! I write about what I want to write about – it’s a blog, not a newspaper. And… I publish plenty of books anyway.
There isn’t a great deal of arrogance in the churches at the moment – but to generalise as you do doesn’t demonstrate a great grasp of your subject.
Broken society? I have got into lots of trouble with various parties in the past for blogging about just these matters.
March 31, 2010 at 8:29 am
Phil, er, what is the point of this and how does it relate to the stuff on Philip Pullman?
March 31, 2010 at 9:28 am
Thankyou for your link to this interesting interview.
I enjoy Pullman’s books and his (mostly)intelligent approach to Christianity. He seems to me to be afraid of faith, and I wonder what it is that has frightened him – not his saintly Grandfather whom he loved.
When I read the His Dark Materials trilogy, I knew nothing about the author, and almost to the end I expected a turn around – for the dreadful ‘church’ to be exposed and true Christianity to be revealed(a deus ex machina?) It seemed to me to be a book that was so serious about religion that I couldn’t understand why Jesus was left out of The Magisterium’s version of ‘Christianity’, unless it was to make the point that they had got it wrong. I was very disappointed when I realised that Pullman had mounted his attack on a fake Christianity that had nothing to do with Jesus at all.
So why did he do it like that? Obviously, it wasn’t out of ignorance. In order to write his anti-Christian novel (which I still think is an interesting and engaging read) he had to put up an Aunt Sally of a religion, wthout Christ.
I think this essay by Michael Ward [author of Planet Narnia] about Pullman’s objections to the Chronicles of Narnia is a very interesting analysis.
http://www.planetnarnia.com/assets/documents/74/Lewis_and_Pullman.pdf
March 31, 2010 at 9:33 am
Hi Nick
As a retired primary school teacher I had to keep up with children’s literature.
Pullman was very critical of the Narnia series and maybe it has faults but I always found it excellent to read to the children, without talking any theology to them.
Pullman’s stories are extremely well-told and deserve their fame. But I always thought they were full of an underlying hatred. It seemed to me that the storyteller of the Narnia series was cheerful and optimistic, while that of the Dark materials was very negative, taking away all good and leaving nothing.
Just my own viewpoint.
Kindest Regards
HP
March 31, 2010 at 9:49 am
Really enjoyed this review Nick, I have still yet too read any of Pullmans work but have The dark materials in my book shelf for when the urge takes me (I have 3 kids under 13 so have always tried to read stuff they might encounter). This book sounds intriguing – the comments others have made which you remark on remind me of all the ‘bleating’ that went on when The Da Vinci Code was released, book and film. I quite agree with you about engaging with and not just defending after all He gave us free will, what right have we got to try and prevent the expression of that God given ability.
March 31, 2010 at 10:09 am
An excellent post, you’ve really nailed it for me.
May I request permission to cross-post on our blog with the appropriate link to you?
March 31, 2010 at 10:17 am
Stuart, yes. Thanks.
March 31, 2010 at 10:24 am
[...] thoroughly sensible approach from Bishop Nick Baines (Reproduced here with kind [...]
March 31, 2010 at 10:57 am
Hoi polloi, I find your views on the Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials series very hard to understand. In what way are the books full of ‘an underlying hatred’? It’s mystifying to me that you think they ‘take away all good leaving nothing’. I find the series very hopeful, and have been known to read it when feeling down, just like my other treasured childhood books (which include, of course, the Narnia series too!).
In His Dark Materials, the dead are freed from a concentration-camp-like underworld, a force of evil is defeated and last but not least, a young girl matures and falls in love. All of this is hopeful, surely? Admittedly it ends on a sad note when Lyra and Will have to separate to live in their own worlds. But even this is a hopeful act, as it means they will both be able to live full lives and continue to build and grow and help others. If you’ll allow me to quote from the ending of The Amber Spyglass, to show you a little of what I mean:
“We have to be all those difficult things like cheerful and kind and curious and brave and patient, and we’ve got to study and think, all of us, in all our different worlds, and then we’ll build…”
Her hands were resting on his glossy fur. Somewhere in the garden a nightingale was singing, and a little breeze touched her hair and stirred the leaves overhead. All the different bells of the city chimed, once each, this one high, that one low, some close by, others further off, one cracked and peevish, another grave and sonorous, but all agreeing in their different voices what the time was, even if some of them got to it a little more slowly than others. In that other Oxford where she and Will had kissed goodbye, the bells would be chiming too, and a nightingale would be singing, and a little breeze would be stirring the leaves in the Botanic Garden.
“And then what?” asked her daemon sleepily. “Build what?”
“The republic of heaven,” said Lyra.
That, to me, does not strike a note of ‘underlying hatred’, and it astonishes me that you think it does! Perhaps – and let me try to state this as politely as possible – you are a little blinkered? There is a prevalent, fundamentalist idea that these stories are evil because they attack aspects of the Christian Church. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The stories are not evil, they are not full of hatred, and I for one will enjoy reading them to my own children in years to come.
March 31, 2010 at 11:10 am
Hannah, thanks for putting a thoughtful response so clearly. I think hoi polloi was right in the sense that Pullman does hate the church (particularly the Roman Catholic Church) and sees it as a monstrous institution which would benefit the world by its absence. The positing of the Republic of Heaven over against the Kingdom of God is clever, though not exactly subtle, and rests on an assumption about human autonomy with which CS Lewis would strongly have disagreed.
I think you are both right: Pullman needs to be (constructively) critiqued, but his mastery as a storyteller needs to be celebrated. I have read all the Dark Materials books and found them more compelling than Narnia – perhaps because they are more ‘contemporary’.
March 31, 2010 at 11:38 am
Having just come across your blog, courtesy of The Radio Times, I would just like to say how wonderfully refreshing it is to read words from a churchman, and a senior one at that, who is not afraid to engage in debate and is willing to admit mistakes. You are human!
I believe one of the main reasons for the decline in churchgoing and the church’s influence is its crippling insistence on infallibility. This has been the greatest obstacle to my slow and sometimes difficult return to the Christian religion.
Thank you for your great contribution to understanding and for work to turn heat into light.
March 31, 2010 at 11:41 am
Hey Nick,
I haven’t read a huge amount about this, though I remember reading a couple of newspaper articles. Is it likely to be well-researched historically, or a fictionist taking advantage of a theologically/historically apathetic public (i.e. Da Vinci Code)?
Calum
March 31, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Hi Nick,
A bit of a nonsensical comment on your blog- I have just read your article in the Radio Times and wandered over, with some trepidation, to see what it was you were blogging about.
I have to admit I thought that it would be some senseless, arrogant ramblings of a clergyman isolated in his own thought! However, I was absolutely wrong; what I found was a haven of intellectual thought. Although, undoubtedly, your faith biases you (as my morality and partial faith bias me) I feel that you are an excellent writer and you don’t force yourself on anyone.
Keep up the good work! I’m very impressed and will visit regularly.
Joff
March 31, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Hi Hannah
It’s true that I have yet to learn how to engage in a literate way, and I apologise for this.
Some years ago, when I was involved with the Unitarians, I was advised to try again with the Dark Materials. While recognising the superb storytelling I was still left with this nasty taste in the mouth, a sense that I was being propagandised.
Now I am not a fundamentalist — my friends would say that I am close to being heretical — and some books like the da Vinci code (which has been mentioned here) I found very enlightening without agreeing with the central theme.
But my personal reaction to Pullman is still quite negative. But I may be wrong, so I WILL have another look.
Kindest Regards
HP
March 31, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Hello, I read your article in Radio Times. I cannot disagree with most of what you write, but do you really feel that Richard Dawkins is “awful … at thinking”? If so, do you include A.C. Grayling, & Bertrand Russell in your group of unthinking people? I disagree with Dawkins in many ways, but to suggest he is “awful at thinking” is bizarre. (I’m sure I have misunderstood the point you were making.)
I was also puzzled about your indirect reference to ‘fundamentalist atheists’. Can you explain what a ‘non-fundamentalist’ atheist would be? Faith has many shades of grey (theism, deism, pantheism, young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism) but atheism is far simpler, there is no god, not even on a Sunday. I wonder if you are confusing fundamentalism with eloquence?
Finally, on a lighter note, your closing remark “the worst they can do is crucify us”. I don’t know when the last christian was crucified, or fed as livebait to a lion, but I think the last person to be murdered by the christian church for blasphemy was an 18 yr old called Thomas Aikenhead, in Scotland, in 1697.
KK
March 31, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Joff, than you. Do feel free to pitch into the discussions when the mood takes you.
March 31, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Hello Michael and welcome as a new reader!
I doubt the heirs of Henry VIII are making many claims to infallability but I’ll leave that one to “the Management”!
Nick, I have been reflecting for some time on the problem of how to present the Bibel to the contemporary world.
Plainly we are past the quasi- Quranic position of the “infallible dictated word of God” and I have tended to argue that the Bible needs to be read not as a book but as a library with sections of history ethics law poetry letters narrative biography etc.
Recently I have been playng with the more contemporay idea of Bible as Wikipedia!
Many contributors, an interactive element
God /Man – Man/God – Man/ Man, an editorial team of the knowledgable, an incomplete project etc.
I do not think this is any more complete than any other model of a complex collection of writings but do you think this approach has “legs” for a modern audience?
March 31, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Kevin, I think that Dawkins is a bad thinker in a way that Philip Pullman is not. Richard Dawkins deliberately (it seems to many of us) pays no attention to theology or philosophy (he has often asked why he should waste his time on fairy stories) before rubbishing them. Terry Eagleton (an atheist) took issue with him on just this when he critiqued The God Delusion. So, Dawkins ridicules rather than argues – whilst accusing religious people of being irrational. I wish it weren’t so – a rational conversation with him would be interesting, but we never seem to get there. (A.C. Grayling and Bertrand Russell are not like Dawkins in this respect.)
That also feeds into the rather shorthand term ‘fundamentalist atheists’. Fundamentalism is a human problem, not a uniquely religious one. Some religious people crave fundamentalism because they can’t live easily with grey areas or uncertainties. But the same is true of some atheists who make a series of un-argued for assumptions about the world and reject (without consideration) any other potential starting point. This then leads us into the debate about human meaning and whence it derives: the mere existence of ‘us’, or something more? So, I suppose I am using the term (provocatively) out of the frustration of not being able to engage rationally with some atheists because of their own dogmatic fundamentalism. So, although I laughed when I read your alternatives (‘fundamentalism’ or ‘eloquence’), I am not confusing them.
Your final paragraph is silly. People have been persecuted and executed for all sorts of reasons (some religious) even since 1697. Should I write off all atheism because of what Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao got up to?
March 31, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Martin, I think we need to find imaginative ways (such as yours) to think differently about the Bible and how to engage people with what it actually is rather than what they assume it to be. The ‘incomplete project’ is partly what Tom Wright represents as the church being actors on stage, playing out the fifth act of a play – consistent with what has gone before, but writing the script as we go.
March 31, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Thanks for the reply. Can you say more about..
“But the same is true of some atheists who make a series of un-argued for assumptions about the world and reject (without consideration) any other potential starting point.”.
What are the un-argued assumptions & starting points?
Thanks for the help
Oh, and in regard to my last paragraph, I did say it was on a lighter point. Personally, I try not to accuse people who I disagree with as ‘silly’.
KK
..
March 31, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Interesting that Tom Wright has used the Theatre analogy – which I have not come across from him. Tim Gorringe, now at Exeter University, wrote a book likening God to a theatre director ( he was at Oxford with Sir Peter Hall)and wrote at length about God interacting with his people and bringing out the best in his cast. His model seems to be more Mike Lee than Alfred Hitchcock.
March 31, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Dear Nick,
Only recently heard of your blog and am pleased someone is prepared to stick their neck out. I am a returnee to faith, albeit one which has changed a great deal whilst I was away in some respects but is much the same in others. I find the attitude of the church is more accepting of ‘otherness’ in an official way but the congregations often give the impression of polite acceptance but still remain distant to those who are not ‘us’. However, I recently got into discussion, via a messageboard, with a Muslim and exchanged several interesting ‘conversations’. The young man asked about the Trinity, since it was not mentioned in the OLd Testament, and as a follow-up, the Divinity of Jesus and how could he possibly die if he was God; who would sustain the universe? Not to be too grand – I mentioned Abraham’s reception of the one Lord in three persons as a prefiguration of the Trinity – and agreed that Jesus was not praying to himself but set an example in his human state to all of us. What is fascinating is that many of the comments on the various (Yahoo) message boards are blatantly racist, homophobic and Islamophobic – yet among that noise it was possible to hold a serious discussion and explore ideas: Nevertheless, I became bored with the mindless opinions and stopped responding after several weeks. To some extent I missed the occasional intelligent exchanges.
Best wishes
March 31, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Out of curiosity, is there actually a version of the Bible online that is cross-linked as thoroughly as Wikipedia is? Why not have “See also Isaiah, Jeremiah” by the bits of 1 Corinthians that are talking about the wisdom of God being greater than human wisdom? Why not also link to Wikipedia articles on various concepts and characters? I know of NETBible, which seems to be quite good, but not so much for external references. And of course it’s yet another translation, due to copyright issues.
March 31, 2010 at 8:51 pm
You echo Stanley Hauerwas and other theologians who have a high view of narrative in your final comments – “to write something better and more convincing” goes along with “outnarrating” the “opposition”.
My one quibble with this is that the ultimate truth of Christianity (which we know at Easter) is not a story told, but a life lived – and even if our only access to the life is through the story (and there is a question of our doctrine of the Holy Spirit implicit in this, as there is with all language) – the life is always more than the story can ever be.
March 31, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Further to my previous comment there is also the Wikisource Bible, which though incomplete is in a more familiar wiki format than NETBible.
April 1, 2010 at 1:35 pm
How Dare You Sir! I have just read your article in the 3rd April Issue of the Radio Times. It is one thing to wallow in your make believe world of mysticism and myth. I wish it were possible in a free society to do more to prevent your kind from destroying rational thought. But when you accuse Richard Dawkins of being bad at thinking, you demonstrate such an incredible lack of comprehension of logical thought, that it is clear that you are an interlectual imbecile shut in your own fantasy world.
Richard Dawkins demonstrates in every sentence of every one of his books that he is one of the worlds greatest thinkers currently alive, with a grasp on rationality which is second to none.
If I believed in the concept of blasphemy, I would say that you statement is so blindingly and obviously untrue to the rational free thinking mind, that it is tantamount to being a blasphemous statement
You have amply demonstrated to me that your thoughts and comments are totallly vacuous.
April 1, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Tony Peters, you have amply demonstrated to readers of this blog that you are a little too credulous when it comes to uncritically accepting what Richard Dawkins has to say – especially about thoelogy and philosophy which he admits to having no interest in. So, I do dare. It might also help, if you wish to insult my intelligence, if you spell the words correctly.
April 1, 2010 at 2:30 pm
I believe that there’s a gnome made out of chocolate living under my bed. He only wakes up on Tuesdays. He likes oranges but won’t drink apple juice because it gives him spots. He tells me that rain is bad for the atmosphere and doesn’t like classical music because he says it’s inspired by the pinky fairies and they want to eat him because he’s made of chocolate.
April 1, 2010 at 4:01 pm
How interesting that your blog on a novel generated 31 almost immediate responses – shame that world/political situations and/or the Bible don’t do the same!
Anne.
April 1, 2010 at 8:55 pm
On the discussion following Jeremy Vine’s interview there seemed to be confusion as to what Pullman has done. Although I haven’t read the book, it’s clear that he has used the idea of Mary having twins named Jesus and Christ, as a literary device to flag up what he perceives as the difference between the historical Jesus and the iconic figure built around Him by the Church. I’m quite sure Pullman isn’t attempting to re-write even the Gospels, let alone the whole Bible.
Nevertheless, I’m always a bit uneasy about the use of fiction to get across a contentious point. Fiction necessarily involves the suspension of disbelief, to some extent; and allows the author much more wriggle room than a formal treatise. Of course, Jesus used parables, and C.S. Lewis spoke of creeping past watchful dragons, although in the case of Narnia thre was clearly no attempt to portray the story as historical fact. My concern is about the way that some of these ideas, expressed as plausible fiction, have diffused into public consciousness (Knights Templar and the descendants of Christ).
April 1, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Oh drat, sorry I could have chosen a better nickname!
April 2, 2010 at 8:42 am
Richard Dawkins is very interested in both theology and philosophy, but on an interlectual level. I am interested in theology as a concept, but that doesn’t mean I have to believe in God.
If you wish to mention my spelling mistakes in order to sidestep the point of my letter, please note that that Theology is spelt thus, not Thoelogy
April 2, 2010 at 10:01 am
Tony, RD is not interested – by his own addmittance – in theology. He has asked why he should waste time reading fairy stories. It is precisely his lack of intellectual curiosity that is bewildering. I do not think he should know some theology in order to (automatically) believe in God; he should know something about theology in order to represent it properly (which is an intellectual duty) and know what it is that he is trying to refute. Simply setting up aunt sallies in order to knock them down is not a very intellectually clever way of tackling things.
April 2, 2010 at 10:19 am
Kevin K, sorry for the delay in responding – trying to cope with inundation of correspondence while doing the day job in a busy week.
I’ll offer two examples of RD’s assumptions: (a) that the universe is a closed system of cause and effect – and that there is no inherent human significance or morality; (b) that the different types of literature in (for example) the Bible can be read off the page as if it were monolothic. Hence, he wants a coherent and intelligent view of science (and he is right to demand it), but is satisfied with an illiterate assumption about religion/Bible.
Sorry to be brief. And sorry to have used the word ‘silly’.
April 3, 2010 at 12:14 pm
You are, quite simply, wrong about RD’s interests. He has stated, and demonstrated, many times that his interests are varied and include an interest, rather than belief, of religion. Without a wide interest in many things he simply could not have written the books that he has.
Dawkins does admit that he finds no interectual substance in fairy stories, but that is simply because his interests lie in reality, not myth and superstition.
As always, it is impossible to have a logical argument with one who has had his thought processes cut down through the desease of religion, and although I know that you will interpret my future silence as if I have no argument to offer, I intend to make no further comment here.
April 3, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Tony Peters, you need to climb down from your ‘RD infallibility’ pedestal and listen to what he has actually said. I won’t interpret your silence as anything.
April 3, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Im not convinced there are ‘inconsistencies, especially regarding the resurrection accounts” – Mr Pullman should read John Wenham’s book ‘Easter Enigma – Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict?’ It certainly provides a reasonable view.
Peter Culbert
April 3, 2010 at 11:16 pm
I too have just read your article in the Radio Times and must admit to being irritated by your accusation that Richard Dawkins is awful at thinking.
I would have thought it was obvious this is not the case given the fact that he has written numerous books and articles expressing various arguments which have clearly been well thought out. Even if you disagree with these arguments (presumably the ones relating to religion), it is surely preposterous to denounce him as someone who lacks the ability to think whilst simultaneously admitting that he excels in biology, a subject for which he has contributed well regarded interpretations of natural selection (see The Selfish Gene).
Dawkins has not been so unfair when arguing against religion. I have heard him state several times that while (in his view) many people are perfectly logical and rational in all other areas of life, this way of thinking deserts them when it comes to religion. Notice that he does not simply claim religious people to be awful at rational thinking, but only criticises them in a specific area.
Regarding your comments on “atheist fundamentalism” and their “un-argued for assumptions” I must again take issue. If there are atheists out there asserting a belief that God does not exist without evidence to back this up, then I would of course agree that they are mistaken to do so, although it would still seem a bit heavy handed to accuse them of fundamentalism given the fact that many moderate religious people assert God’s existence without being classed as fundamentalist.
However, my own view and that of many atheists I have seen accused of “fundamentalism” (or “militant atheism”!) is simply that there is a lack of evidence in favour of there being a God and so there is no reason to actively believe in one, much as Bertrand Russell postulated with his Celestial Teapot. Far from making un-argued assumptions about the universe it would seem far more reasonable to admit that there is a huge amount we do not know and that if we wish to know we should strive to find out through Science (which is the only thing thus far to bring us concrete answers), even if in practice we never actually succeed. This obviously does not rule out a creator, as that is still a possibility, but God should not be invoked as an explanation for any unsolved mystery, instead it should be left as a “don’t know”.
Dawkins has always been intellectually honest about this, even setting up a scale of belief in “The God Delusion” in which he states that technically he would have to be called an agnostic, but that he uses the word atheist in the same sense that we would be ateapotists, i.e. not asserting with 100% certainty that the teapot does not exist, but merely that there is no evidence for its existence.
However, despite the above essay (sorry!) I do appreciate that you are willing to discuss these issues rather than simply expecting to preach to the flock. I think it is a good thing that instant respect for arguments from authority has been eroded, although I do agree that the culture replacing that is far from ideal. Although we should be able to criticise arguments freely, there is no reason for common courtesy and respect for individuals themselves to disappear along with that – something which seems all too common in society today. I try and respect the individual, although not necessarily their beliefs.
April 4, 2010 at 8:10 am
Gavin, You are not alone in being irrtated and I think it would have been wiser not to use that particular shorthand about RD. One of the frustrations for theists is the cavalier way in which he simply dismisses religion and religious people on the basis of aunt sallies set up in order simply to knock them down. The ppoint I (obviously) failed to convey is that RD applies ways of rational thinking to other areas of life (science), but that this deserts him whenever he comes to religion – and succeeds in irritating a good number of atheists in the way he does this.
But, that said, I do understand the irritation – as can be seen from the thread of comments. Thanks for your observations – and please never apologise for an essay when it is worth reading.
April 4, 2010 at 10:03 am
Dear Nick:
p.p. ‘atheist fundamentalists’ : the lack of evidence, not the lack of proof, is indeed the key. In any court of enquiry we have to feel that your case rests on nothing but hearsay.
On this Easter Sunday can I request your attention to a salient point for many atheists, which in another court of enquiry weighs the historical good of religious belief in its moral/cultural context against its more destructive consequences. The scales seem finely balanced, and while it is easy to dismiss some of Old Testament stories (Cain and Abel as institutionalized persecution of the harder to control nomadic herdsman tribes, Abraham and Isaac as the necessity for blind obedience to divine law, and by extrapolation the elite priesthood interpreting it) the historical Jesus gives us more difficulty, even pain maybe. Many atheists – while being somewhat cynical perhaps about any religion founded by a reformed tax collector – I think would acknowledge the intrinsic moral good of Jesus’ teachings. What sticks in the gullet are the magical elements – the miracles, the virgin birth, and most particularly the bodily resurrection. Where does the contemporary church stand on these issues, and, overarchingly, on the question of the Trinity? What is the debate within the church? Are some events viewed symbolically and does this water down the message? Atheists may flirt with agnostism at the core issue – many of us I am sure love religious art, music and architecture, and would like to believe in some kind of a benevolent God if we werent so confounded in the rational argument – but the bald statement (and how did Jesus put it, exactly?) that ‘I am God made flesh’ sounds like the cry, in the end, of a deluded meglomaniac. For athiests such as I, Jesus is still lost in the wilderness.
April 4, 2010 at 11:22 am
Tony Lambert, it largely depends on what you rule in or rule out as ‘evidence’. That’s a point that needs reasonable discussion. The people I refer to as ‘fundamentalist atheists’ are those with whom it is impossible to have a rational or reasonable discussion – the point being that this sort of lazy fundamentalism is not the sole preserve of Christians or other religious people.
You ask good questions about how Christians believe/understand elements of their faith, but I fear I can’t do justice to a response here – mainly because fo the volume of response I am getting to the RT article (and the RD comment in particular). I will try to do a proper post on it when I can. I would just say that Jesus did not make the explicit statement you cite, but I think I know where you have got it from.
To be continued…
April 4, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Hello Gavin Docherty,
Yes, yes, and thrice yes.
I wonder if the Radio Times article has drawn many atheists into this blog ??
KK
April 4, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Kevin K, the answer is ‘yes’! Some are more reasonable than others. I have only declined to approve a couple and mildly edited one. The trouble is the comments have appeared on several threads, so the conversation has become disjointed. We probably need to move on.
April 4, 2010 at 6:00 pm
I appreciate the response, thanks. If you’d said in your article that he was “awful at thinking about some things, such as theology and philosophy” I’d have disagreed but would not been annoyed about it. However, I see that you were only using shorhand and didn’t mean what I took you to mean.
Thanks again.
April 5, 2010 at 3:19 pm
[...] posted a couple of days ago about Pullman’s new book, The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ, [...]