There's nothing new under the sun.....
Last night (on C4) it was Richard Dawkins attacking religious faith in general, this morning (on R4) it was David Starkey attacking Paul as a corruptor of Jesus' simple and attractive Gospel. There's nothing new in either of these.
Dawkin’s attack is along lines that would have been familiar to the Greeks. If you accept an authority by faith, you cannot be reasoned with. You will have such certainty that eventually (and I think he thinks inevitably) you will begin attacking (often physically) others who don't agree. There's no doubt he managed to find some fairly stereotypical fundamentalists. And, at least in his inevitably edited version of the interviews, some of them came across as either a bit mad, or a lot dangerous. He contrasted their unreasonableness with the rigour, transparency and sheer reasonableness of "the scientific method".
Of course if I was a militant a-scientist (which I'm not as you can see from my links) I might claim that science was in the pocket of big business, that scientists cannot be trusted because a lot of them make up their data, and that science should be banned because it has brought us nuclear and biological weapons, factory farming (and bird flu with it), and the prospect of Hitler being cloned somewhere in the Far East (haven't you heard, the Koreans have cloned humans already - 'cept they haven't). None of this would fair, accurate or reasonable. Dawkins version of religion is about as fair, as accurate and as reasonable.
Consider just one small point. There have been attempts to set up societies which eradicated if not belief in God, at least organised religion. One of the more familiar attempts was Stalinist Russia. And about 30 million Russians didn't survive to tell the tale. I’m prepared to accept the possibility that religion (a human institution) has played its role in stirring up violence. Although I suspect that attributing any given violent act to religion as opposed to psychosis, politics, culture or upbringing may be a bit tricky. But I really don’t fancy the atheist alternative – not that there is one.
David Starkey we rehashing the line that Jesus was quite a nice tolerant man, perhaps even a great moral teacher, but His teaching was distorted and corrupted by Paul. This idea is hardly new. Nor is it sustainable, as his expert witnesses tried to point out a couple of times. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
What’s slightly disconcerting is not that these views are being put forward. It’s the way bold claims are being communicated authoritatively by “experts”, in such a prominent way. If suspect one would not be allowed to make a documentary about the Gospel, that sought to proselytise the way Dawkins does. This despite there being bags of evidence that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is surprisingly good for you. And that’s before we get anywhere near trying to establish whether it’s right or not. And their expertise is suspect into the bargain. Dawkins can speak authoritatively on certain aspects of the scientific endeavour with authority. But when it comes to religion, he cannot even speak as a dispassionate observer. The scientific method is not applicable (even if it exists), he’s not measuring anything, there’s no proper hypothesis to be tested. He’s just ranting. Starkey is perhaps on stronger ground. He is at least a trained historian. But since when was theology simply religious history? In both of these examples, and agenda is being prosecuted. I wonder to what extent the viewer or listener is aware of that?
Last night (on C4) it was Richard Dawkins attacking religious faith in general, this morning (on R4) it was David Starkey attacking Paul as a corruptor of Jesus' simple and attractive Gospel. There's nothing new in either of these.
Dawkin’s attack is along lines that would have been familiar to the Greeks. If you accept an authority by faith, you cannot be reasoned with. You will have such certainty that eventually (and I think he thinks inevitably) you will begin attacking (often physically) others who don't agree. There's no doubt he managed to find some fairly stereotypical fundamentalists. And, at least in his inevitably edited version of the interviews, some of them came across as either a bit mad, or a lot dangerous. He contrasted their unreasonableness with the rigour, transparency and sheer reasonableness of "the scientific method".
Of course if I was a militant a-scientist (which I'm not as you can see from my links) I might claim that science was in the pocket of big business, that scientists cannot be trusted because a lot of them make up their data, and that science should be banned because it has brought us nuclear and biological weapons, factory farming (and bird flu with it), and the prospect of Hitler being cloned somewhere in the Far East (haven't you heard, the Koreans have cloned humans already - 'cept they haven't). None of this would fair, accurate or reasonable. Dawkins version of religion is about as fair, as accurate and as reasonable.
Consider just one small point. There have been attempts to set up societies which eradicated if not belief in God, at least organised religion. One of the more familiar attempts was Stalinist Russia. And about 30 million Russians didn't survive to tell the tale. I’m prepared to accept the possibility that religion (a human institution) has played its role in stirring up violence. Although I suspect that attributing any given violent act to religion as opposed to psychosis, politics, culture or upbringing may be a bit tricky. But I really don’t fancy the atheist alternative – not that there is one.
David Starkey we rehashing the line that Jesus was quite a nice tolerant man, perhaps even a great moral teacher, but His teaching was distorted and corrupted by Paul. This idea is hardly new. Nor is it sustainable, as his expert witnesses tried to point out a couple of times. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
What’s slightly disconcerting is not that these views are being put forward. It’s the way bold claims are being communicated authoritatively by “experts”, in such a prominent way. If suspect one would not be allowed to make a documentary about the Gospel, that sought to proselytise the way Dawkins does. This despite there being bags of evidence that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is surprisingly good for you. And that’s before we get anywhere near trying to establish whether it’s right or not. And their expertise is suspect into the bargain. Dawkins can speak authoritatively on certain aspects of the scientific endeavour with authority. But when it comes to religion, he cannot even speak as a dispassionate observer. The scientific method is not applicable (even if it exists), he’s not measuring anything, there’s no proper hypothesis to be tested. He’s just ranting. Starkey is perhaps on stronger ground. He is at least a trained historian. But since when was theology simply religious history? In both of these examples, and agenda is being prosecuted. I wonder to what extent the viewer or listener is aware of that?
posted by Paul at 9:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home