I enjoyed reading about “The New Atheism” in November’s Wired. Unfortunately, I think that a very important third perspective was left out of the article.
Belief in God is synonymous to the belief that the there is reason and meaning in the universe. And what better proof of reason and meaning than evolution? Scientific theories that explain basic truths about the way the universe works are demonstrations of the existence of God. Anyone (particularly any Christian) who does not understand this relation between science and religion understands neither science nor religion.
As for Mr. Dawson, clearly it would be difficult to argue that he lacks understanding. However, I propose that what he rails against I not truly religion, but is actually the misinterpretation of religion that today passes for the real thing. The personification of God in religion is intended to give people a means to discuss concepts that, previous to science, they had no other language for. Religious language is understood, by most thinking theologists, to be a representational language, not a literal one. For many theologists the word, “God” represents a complex idea, the idea of “everything that is and the meaning of its existence.” Understood in this light, denying the existence of God is like denying existence of the color “Red,” or “tasty.” “Red” is simply the name we give to the complex of ideas that comprise the concept, “Red.” It makes just as much sense to not believe in “Tree,” or “Math.” I understand why Mr. Dawkins feels the way he does about the issue. But, I think what he is arguing against is a misinterpretation of the idea of “God,” one in which God is not an idea at all but a supernatural being. No theologist worth his salt imagines God as a supernatural being. Unfortunately this misunderstanding is also shared by the vast majority of the religion’s practitioners, also.
If God is an idea, the proposition of “belief in God” is nearly meaningless, nonsensical. If the “belief in God” means anything, it means believing that the universe can be understood, that it is not random, that, “God does not play dice with the universe.” The universe is not random and meaningless—Uncertain yes, but not meaningless.
Of course, I don’t blame Mr. Dawson, or any other atheist, for this misunderstanding. Instead, I blame the practitioners of religion who, when speaking of “God” don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
The fact of the matter is that religion was humanity’s vehicle for inquiry before the language of science evolved. And, science is not opposed to religion—it is the evolutionary extension, the perfection, of religion’s spirit of inquiry.
Noah HelenihiAlbany, OR
