(revised 15/6/05 - just to say that I didn't mean to give the impression below that my uncle had thrown the McGrath book against the wall and not read every word.)
What books would you give to a clever militant atheist top astro-physicist Marxist early retired guy with no background in philosophy or formal logic but a good grasp of practical maths and theoretical physics, the gift of the gab, an enjoyment of good books, a passion for truth and understanding and time on his hands? What is the best single book on (1) God and Science (2) Introducing what Christianity really is? Dr Jeffery, Rev’d Dr Field, Dr Ovey, Dr Birkett – any suggestions?
My uncle went and bought Rev’d Dr Alistair Mc Grath, (PhD in molecular biophysics, Oxford University personal chair Professor of Church History, sometime Principle of Wycliffe Hall evangelical Anglican vicar factory) Dawkin’s God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life (Blackwells Publishing, Oxford, 2005) on this own initiative from Blackwells, without any leads, that he might understand how clever people can be fundamentalists when science has solved every question in the world. He was excited that this was the book that should solve the puzzle. McGrath seemed uniquely placed to do so. He was probably right, on paper? But he was badly disappointed. He saw the book as silly and sloppy and probably stupid and trying to pull a fast one. He said it was rubbish and he wouldn’t particularly reccomend that I bother reading it.
I’ve tried to encourage my uncle to write a review of the book for publication and I hope to correspond with him on the subject. We could use a really tight 1.2.3.1.3(c) therefore 6.4.1(a) not 7.5 nor 1.3.4(b) etc. type argument on the subject not circular heat after a few glasses of red wine and good food when my aunt and sister would rather have a nice chat about something relaxing.
My uncle’s basic view is the same as Dawkins’ (evolutionary biologist, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford). Dawkins is so so similar to McGrath its weird: a serious scientist popularising and campaigning. An evangelist.
Dawkins has a real bee in his bonnet about Bible Christianity for some reason.
In Dawkins’ view Christianity is a virus that must be stamped out. The virus (evangelical Christianity) is spreading fast in China and Africa. It is influential in the world Hyper-Power, the US. It is marginal but stable in much of the UK – growing in London, assumed in the countryside. 70% of the UK population describe themselves as Christian in the census but have little understanding of what that means.
For Dawkins Religion (inc. Christ’s) has made the world immeasurably worse not better and is a bad thing. Dawkins is clearly demonstrably wrong here: family, charity, economic progress, work, hospitals, schools, education, learning, maths, science are all beyond question historical products of the Biblical world view in the West. But that’s not the point here – nor does Dawkins seem to care about that.
My uncle’s assessment of McGrath is a bit unfair. McGrath is able and clever. He knows some science and some theology. He is an expert on Reformation Church history. He wrote a good introduction level guide to it (Reformation Thought (Blackwells Academic). His PhD, Iustitia Dei on the history of the doctrine of justification in magisterial. McGrath probably tries to do too much. He is prolific. He is notorious for giving short lectures and tutorials and leaving early. He travels much. He depends too much on secondary sources and probably on research students who don’t know their stuff that deeply. I think he uses his own self-publishing set up software, so his books are ready for publication fast.
(N. T. Wright might be a better model of prolific quality production – 20 years solid preparation seems to be needed – then 20 years of fruitful maturity – then you can die gloriously and full of years with a grey haired crown of a righteous life).
I imagine McGrath is mainly responding to lay misunderstandings of Dawkins. Mac Garth knows that Dawkins doesn’t think “Science” has “disproved God”. They both agree that the scientific project is useful, meaningful hypothesis (explanations / theories), repeatable experimental tests to try to falsify (not prove) the hypothesis. Refine hypothesis. Repeat till understanding complete (and we know the mind of God even as we are fully known!). Dawkins knows science can’t prove a thing and he admits it. But it is still worth saying as Dawkins doesn’t say it loudly, often or proactively enough. We are after all dealing with the public (mis-)understanding of Science.
Dawkins and my uncle are agreed that God is an unnecessary hypothesis. We do not need him. He has no explanatory power. The universe is simpler and more elegant without him. Ockham’s razor has cut out God. You can believe in God if you like, but you might as well believe that the world is held in space by millions of invisible pixies. You can’t disprove it but its not true and you’d be stupid to believe it or live your life on that basis.
On the other hand, the Biblical Christian says that if God didn’t exist, we’d need to invent him. There can be no existence, rationality, discourse or morality without Him.
He might suggest Pascal’s Wager: bet on God – if you are right, you win all; if you are wrong, you lose nothing good; the stakes are so high (eternal death and agony or eternal bliss) you’d be a fool not to plight your all on the remote forlorn hope of Christ.
But in fact there is the most convincing evidence for Christianity. The ordinary historical real life legal type beyond all reasonable doubt evidences of eyewitnesses of the Resurrection and an overall case. Anyone who really wants to know the truth should read the gospels in his modern mother tongue or the original languages and ask God, if he be there, to convince him of the truth and promise with God’s help (if he be) to humbly follow where the truth leads, whatever the cost.
By definition you cannot prove Jesus by experiment. My uncle said the government is bound to fund an experiment that could prove God, if I could design one. Of course no such experiment is possible because of the limitations of the scientific method and the greatness of God. That’s fine and not a problem. We believe all sorts of things on the basis of this kind of evidence.
For example, I believe that my future wife loves me. I have no absolute reason for doing so. It is possible I am wrong. In one way in the cosmic scheme of things it is trivial – we are but star dust on a tiny planet in the corner of an insignificant galaxy. But boy does it matter! I am going to give my all to that belief till I die for better or for worse, no opt outs, whatever. Same with me and Jesus: I’m committed to him, I know I’m right, I can’t prove it to you. You know I’m right.
Yes, deep down at some level in some way we all know the God of the Bible exists. He has to. We live like it: like we and others matter. We know there is an infinite Creator God of Power and Love. Yet we don’t want God to be our God. We want to be our own deciders – our own Gods – gods - whatever. It’s my life. You are not the boss of me. I’ll do it my way!
Atheist evolutionists have not explained to me to my complete understanding and satisfaction:
(1) the origins of existence / the universe / something not nothing OR the eternality / necessity of the same
(2) human consciousness and if humans are anything more than higher apes / chemical machines – which we know intuitively / foundationally / ineradicably
(3) why logic and reason work – how they know anything – how they understand this sentence – why it all works by chance
(4) the anthropic / anthropocentric principle of life adapted to precisely this human world – or is this circular
(4) why they care and why I should?
(5) how shall we then live? Why shouldn’t I rape and murder babies if I want to and it will please me in the long term and nothing bad will happen to me? If that is me, maybe I am a malfunctioning machine – a sociopath – but still, what is the basis of morality? Should we put down malfunctioning machines? What is the meaning of any “should” / “ought” sentence over and against any “will” / “is” sentence?
And no doubt more if we thought about it some more.
Hope those points make sense.
What I am saying is that: atheistic science is useful foundation-less incoherent nonsense and does not correspond with reality. What we need is Biblical Christianity and science thinking God’s thought after him, studying the Book of Creation and working to rule the world. Jesus, who is on offer, perfectly knows, governs and made all things. All things are from him and by him and for him and his Kingdom and name shall ever reign.
On the great final day God will judge the secret thoughts and all the actions of men with justice by the man he has appointed, the Lord Jesus Christ. His enemies will be ruined and put to shame and held is scorn. And Jesus will be vindicated and blessing will overpower the whole universe and the earth will be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea. Don’t miss out. Don’t leave it too late.
If there is even the remotest possibility that Jesus is Lord you must drop everything immediately and find out the truth with all your might until you know that Jesus Christ cannot be Lord or he is your Saviour, Master, Friend, Brother, King. But if Jesus is not Lord then you might as well kill yourself or eat and drink and be merry for tomorrow we die, fiddle while Rome burns or do whatever. Whatever. Just carry on any old how and make believe, make the best of a hopeless, pointless job. Nothing matters anyway. Or does it? What do you really think? Will you act on it?
Right to reply - comments - questions - crits most welcome
Posts
