I can’t find God in my genes

Posted by admin on Sep 23, 2008 in Issues & Ideas | 0 comments

I picked up Richard Dawkins’ atheist manifesto The God Delusion for a light, edifying, evening read. I am always eager to hear a provocative critique of belief in God—the Delusion was no let-down. After weeding through Dawkins’ vitriol against religious practice and his sarcastic degradation of opposing beliefs, I was thrilled to find some statements about religion that were, interestingly enough, spot on. Unfortunately, the Delusion ultimately left the atheist position both inconclusive and vulnerable to the charge of (gasp!) close-mindedness.

Dawkins establishes some excellent critiques that must be addressed in any conversation about God. First, an unfortunate fact about the debate is that many religious folk have not thought critically about the existence of God. Religion, Dawkins observes, is all too often a flowerbed for ignorance, anti-intellectualism and even violent suppression. Secondly, this leads to the mistake of removing matters of faith from science and reason. Dawkins rightly notes that “the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question.” Thirdly, when proofs for God’s existence have been made they have been disappointingly weak. I agree when Dawkins says that, to date, there is no true “proof” of God’s existence based on science experiments. There probably never will be. Bravo Dick Dawkins!

However, just because experimental evidence for God’s existence is not around, it does not mean that there is not rational evidence of some other kind. Rather than a preconceived conclusion, a scientist must be committed to the evidence no matter where it leads, and it is here that Dawkins may not realize the burden of skepticism. The clue to this “other” evidence is alluded to in the annoying paradox Dawkins briefly comments on. It is the presence of his colleagues, who are scientific geniuses of the first order and full-blown orthodox Christians. John Polkinghorne, a theologian and a theoretical physicist renowned for his contributions to Quantum theory, is one of Dawkins’ prime examples of an exceptionally rational and deeply religious scientist. Dawkins confesses “after amicable discussions with all of them, both in public and private, I remain baffled.”

Dr. Edward Tingley, in “The Skeptical Inquirer,” offers an explanation for this paradox through the example of Blaise Pascal, a scientist he describes as a “skeptical theist.” Like Dawkins, Pascal also abandoned the traditional “proofs” and material “evidences” for God’s existence. Unlike Dawkins, Pascal did not give up on his search and settle into atheism. Being a true skeptic, Pascal wondered what reason we have to subordinate the possibility of God’s existence to the powers of the senses or scientific measurements. Why should we seek for material evidence for a clearly immaterial being? To paraphrase Tingley, God could present himself to us through some manner in which we are more deeply invested.

But where could that place be? Pascal states it is in the human heart, saying it “has reasons which reason does not know.” This does not mean that knowledge of God is irrational. It simply means we cannot come to know God through experimental science. Even more ominously, it means God has given us the freedom to deny Him in our hearts even before we see the evidence, which is exactly what the atheist does. He denies God in his heart by claiming “openness” to any evidence that fits his presupposed framework; he does not follow the evidence; he dictates it.