The God Delusion
A good critique of Richard Dawkins, Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching written by Terry Eagleton, Professor of English literature at Manchester University is found in the London Review of Books. He basically points out Dawkin's error in considering all religious beliefs irrational and to believe that all religiously motivated behaviour ressembles those of the 911 hijackers as opposed to those of Mother Teresa. Eagleton is a fairly prominent academic and does not believe in the Christian faith, but I highly appreciate his critique of Dawkins. Much more valuable criticism, dialogue and debate could emerge if only religious people took more time to understand atheists and agnostics, and if only atheists and agnostics took more time to understand religion. If we spent less time lunging and flailing at each other, maybe we can actually have a conversation, instead of a bloodshed.
4 comments:
Much more valuable criticism, dialogue and debate could emerge if only religious people took more time to understand atheists and agnostics, and if only atheists and agnostics took more time to understand religion. If we spent less time lunging and flailing at each other, maybe we can actually have a conversation, instead of a bloodshed.
Recently I've been in the grip of a heresy that has undermined views that I have held since college, when I studed Acts 17 under the auspices of an InterVarsity training camp.
The heresy is that perhaps Paul decided that the approach he took to proclaiming the good news in Athens was wrong, and that he completely reacted against that approach when he got to Corinth. Instead of shaping his message to speak to the culture and intellectual scene, he decided that he would "know nothing among [the Corinthians] except Jesus Christ and him crucified."
It seems to me that Paul is saying something like this in chapters 1 and 2 of 1 Corinthians. Perhaps I'm wrong, but my theory is that when he replayed the events in Athens, he realized that he had spent a whole lot of time softening up the Athenian intellectuals with his culturally sensitive and intellectually respectible presentation, only to be laughed at when he actually got to the part about Christ.
In other words, maybe trying to understand the viewpoints of those who don't follow God is all wrong; maybe we need to simply know, live, and speak our message, that of the cross as God's heart toward us made visible.
I still consider this a speculative interpretation, but I've repeated it to myself and to others enough times recently that I'm starting to believe it. I'm curious to know what others would say about it.
BTW, not to be contrary, but what is happening between Christians and atheists these days is conversation and not bloodshed. Acrimonious, perhaps; somewhat lacking in respect for the other party, maybe. But still dialog and not warfare.
I'm not sure if I agree with you but to clarify.... I was using bloodshed in the figurative sense :) And I don't call it conversation precisely because there's lack of respect for the other party. It's more monologue as opposed to dialogue.
Hmn, figurative.... :-)
I figured you were, but my point was that we aren't killing each other, in the literal sense, and that is a fragile and unusual state of affairs. Even more, there is enough dialog, in the figurative sense meaning that Christians read and interact with books and other material written by atheists, and (to some extent) vice versa, that you at least can easily write a brief summary of Dawkins' works.
Not only that, I was sensitized to the issue by having a guy at church yesterday start asking me about a Wired article called "The New Atheists" which mentioned Dawkins, a guy named Denning and another whose name slips my mind. So normal, non-intellectual Christians do grapple with these issues --- possibly even more than the normal atheist grapples with Christianity.
The thought that I've wrestled with lately, expressed in my original comment, is that maybe this dialog is a waste of time, maybe it distracts us from our message, maybe it tempts us to "overcontextualize," to betray our message by couching it in foreign terms with which it is decisively incompatible. Contextualization certainly involves walking a fine line even if we do it accurately and well.
To look at it from another angle, isn't the identification of Christianity with the politics of the Republican party a kind of overcontextualization, the failure of an attempt to embody Christianity in social forms? Don't we as a church make this identical mistake every time? Aren't intellectual forms and formulations just as big a trap?
I guess I do agree about the dialogue point-- there are plenty of atheists/Christians out there who are willing to engage themselves and converse. I guess I was overgeneralizing and thinking more specifically of people like Richard Dawkins or Philip Pullman, that kind of end up being lead spokespeople for atheists.
I'm not sure what I think about the overcontextualization-- will have to mull over it longer. My initial inclination is to say that it's the fine line between being in the world and being of the world.
Post a Comment