[asa] Richard Dawkins, atheism, and religious liberty

Not long ago we had a discussion about Dawkins' anti-religious bigotry, and
in this connection I strongly recommend the following article, from this
week's "Commonwealth" magazine:

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/print_format.php?id_article=1914

This is the type of thing that makes me wonder how Pim can possibly defend
Dawkins--how can anyone see Dawkins as not a hater of religious people? He
simply wants to take away fundamental religious liberties.

This type of hatred in the name of science is one of the foremost reasons
why ID is so appealing to many Christians, why an apparent "slam dunk"
against Dawkins and company is such an attractive option. And, frankly, if
it actually were a slam dunk I would likely sign up myself. I don't believe
that it is--I think one can always say, and sometimes with very good
reasons, that we simply don't know enough about a given piece of science at
this point to say that a given phenomenon can't be explained without an
appeal to design. And that, IMO, takes the slam out of the dunk. It leaves
room for faith--on all sides, including honest doubt about science as well
as honest doubt about those doubts. Some will use this doubt to proclaim
God (er, the intelligent designer); others will proclaim the complete
absence of design, despite the absence of complete knowledge; and others
will simply say that the case isn't closed.

I have for a long time felt that the key issue in the evolution/education
package is the First Amendment, and whether or not religious neutrality
requires secularism per se. I think we see here, with what is happening in
Europe, just why this is so important here in the US. The First Amendment
is an American thing, and the first part of the First Amendment *ought* to
mean that religious liberty, including the liberty to *practice* faith as
well as to believe privately, is paramount. Even here, that is a debatable
proposition, given what the courts have said in certain cases (for concrete
examples, see Steven Carter's book, "The Culture of Disbelief"). I fear and
pray for our Christian brothers and sisters in Europe. Understandable fears
about Islamic theocracy (in many places, there are more Muslims than there
are active Christians), coupled with sheer anti-religious bigotry, can
surely lead to the eradication of Christianity as a way of life.

This is serious stuff. The encouraging part (if there is one), is that
outside of the "West" Christianity is exploding, in places like China--where
I will be teaching a course on "Religion and the Rise of Modern Science" at
a university owned by a government that is still officially Communist,
whatever that may now mean. I'm delighted to do that for many reasons, but
esp by the very image of it.

Coming back now to ID and what they called "stuff shots" back when Wilt
Chamberlain was still young, one value of the more subtle approach (backdoor
layups?) taken by some TEs (such as those within the ASA, generally
speaking) is that it makes sense to good number of working scientists (this
is not to be seen, please, as a claim that ID does not also make sense to
some working scientists) who are or can be (thinking of younger ones)
influential voices on their campuses and in the larger culture. I think
sometimes the importance of this is missed, amidst the often heated
controversies about the role of religion in the academy and in the
construction of knowledge. Whatever people may want to say about Owen
Gingerich, Ian Hutchinson, or Francis Collins, they can't say that they are
stupid, ignorant, or immoral--at least most reasonable people aren't going
to believe that, no matter how loudly Dawkins says it. It just won't fly.
Now, those guys think evolution is basically true, but they don't think that
is the whole story--and here they have agreement from a wide range of voices
who are not in the same religious camp. They can't "prove" that there is
more to the story, any more than Dawkins and company can "prove" that there
isn't. But they can bear witness to the truth, which in their cases
includes a transcendent creator who has become incarnate within the world,
suffering to death for our sake. This isn't trivial, and it isn't mushy
accommodationism. If it's oxymoronic, as some might suggest, it's no more
oxymoronic than the whole idea of a crucified Messiah--which is to say, it
is foolishness to the Greeks, and also to quite a few geeks.

To the extent that this analysis is correct, IDs and TEs within the ASA and
otherwise have different visions of science as a Christian vocation. We
ought to be fine with that, frankly. I've said this before, but it doesn't
seem to be getting across clearly. There is no single vision, no single
biblically appropriate vision, of how to do science as a Christian vocation.
 What matters is how well it is done and how strongly one is committed to
it. Public witness in both cases may take somewhat different forms, but I
suspect they both have a lot in common in terms of the ordinary, day-to-day
living out of the gospel and its claims. If you think you can make those
dunks, and you want to run your offense around the low post, do it as
effectively as you can; but if you think that dunks are too easily blocked
and backdoor layups are more effective, that's what you need to run your
offense around. Both clubs are trying to win over the long haul. They may
not be the same team, but they need to see that they play in the same
league.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Apr 26 10:53:11 2007