For me, Collins’ writing is more accessible and kinder (more politically-correct) than Dawkins’, although Dawkins’ emotional and carefully worded rant (which I’m sure most but the very open religionists would find highly offensive) at times is quite amusing to read.
Collins simplifies several major ‘players’ in the big debate of God vs. Science as such:
- Atheism and agnosticism (when science trumps faith) – where Dawkins is obviously one of the main proponents.
- Creationism (when faith trumps science)
- Intelligent Design (when science needs divine help)
and proposes the fourth position: BioLogos (science and faith in harmony) – where he is one of the main proponents.
While Collins’ attempt to seek balance between and to certain extent justify his (and help others justify their) position as a scientist and a believer may hold its virtue in bridging the opposing players, in my view, he is probably more successful in convincing believers about science than he is in persuading scientists (and atheists and agnostics) to become believers. This is mainly because he does not really bring in a new argument to the table, but simply reinforces C.S. Lewis’ logics (and quotes his words throughout the book), specifically his questioning in “Mere Christianity” of where does human morality comes from (if not from God).
Dawkins’ response to “why are we good” question is:
“First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in ‘anticipation’ of payback. ... third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth, ... the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising” (Dawkins, 2006: 219-220).
I have my own reason why morality should not be defined as closely aligned with religion, as it would almost ‘allow’ those without religions to be immoral.
And as offensive as Dawkins can be for religionists, his closing response to the TIME Magazine debate is worthy of contemplation:
“My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis [Collins]. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed” (my italics).
2 comments:
Hi, great blog!
I tend to agree with Dawkins' closing statements.
In addition, I just listened to Dawkins' 'four horsemen' discussion yesterday, and it amplifies my concern that religion is more and more used as a mere tool for personal gain.
Moreover, religion also corrupts our young.
This is because the so-called theologian and philosophers 'do' agree that there are inconsistencies and things that are just plain wrong in the koran or bible. And they admit those flaws when debating with each other or proponents of atheism.
But when it comes to educating the masses, it seems that these 'learned' people prefer to cover up the messy details. They only tell the masses that whatever their problems are they are God's plan and if their problems are solved, then halleluyah! How can we call a lesson 'Pendidikan Agama' or 'Filosofi dan Teologi' if the people in it just won't seem to get 'stupidity' and 'ignorance' out of the equation?
This is wrong. I think that we should teach our children ALL religions. But more importantly, we should teach them the effects of religion on people, good or bad. In my opinion that is the 'proper' way of teaching religion.
But of course, with recent events, teaching religion would mean showing children images of beheadings and blown buildings. So I think the better solution is to teach children NOT to use religion to decide what to do in their lives ;)
Kevin
Hi Kevin,
I completely agree with you that we should teach children ALL religions. Why this is not happening, I think, is unfortunately because on one hand most people belief their religion to be the best, but on the other, I do think that most people are insecure about their own faith that they don’t want other people as well as themselves questions some of the most fundamental beliefs for their very beings and lives.
I recently met with an educator in an Islamic school who questions the fundamental practice in religion education. He wants religion education to be stripped off of dogmatic beliefs, but rather to discuss more about moral values. But he admits openly that he has his own fear to pursue such questioning of his own religion, for himself as well as for his students. He has undergone major resistance from his colleagues in his own school. Imagine if this is happening across different religions. I think only people who are very open minded could openly discuss religions, suspending their own beliefs during the process, while respecting other beliefs. But I do believe this is one of the most fundamental issues that need to be discussed more openly in our increasingly polarized society.
Post a Comment