I don't follow Harper's Magazine closely but it, along with The New Yorker and The Atlantic Monthly (and a number of others) are the first magazines I browse when I have one of those luxurious 10 minutes in front of a newstand. Because I've been following Barak Obama for the last little while I couldn't help but pick up the lastest issue with the cover article, "Buying Barak Obama." But it was the article by Marilynne Robinson (Marilynne Robinson is the 2005 Pulitzer Prize winning author of Gilead) that convinced me to buy the magazine. The front cover declared, "In Defense of Religion: Marilynne Robinson on Richard Dawkins's Hysterical Scientism."
In defense of religion? Hysterical Scientism? Harpers? Wow!
Her review is remarkable. While I have not read, The God Delusion, I have certainly heard a lot about it, and the review itself is so revealing. It seems the main thrust of the book is that religion is dangerous and the cause of human suffering and we would all be better off without it. While I am one of the first to acknowledge the danger of religion and the host of atrocities committed against humanity and creation in the name of religion, the claim that all religion is bad seems a bit over the top. According to Robinson, Dawkins employs a rhetorical devise familiar to all Adventist evangelists: compare the best of our stuff with the worst of someone else's. Dawkins approach is to compare bad religion to good science. While, of course, acknowledging the amazing progress that has resulted from good science, Robinson helpfully points out that there is also bad science. Here's a memorable quote:
The gravest questions about the institutions of contemporary science seem never to be posed, though we know the terrors of all-out conflict between civilizations would include innovations, notably those dread weapons of mass destruction, being made by scientists for any country with access to their skills. Granting for the purposes of argument that Dawkins is correct in the view that the majority of great scientists are atheists, we may then exclude religion from among the factors that recruit them to this somber work. We are left with nationalism, steady employment, good pay, the chance to do research that is lavishly funded and, by definition, cutting edge — familiar motives of a kind fully capable of disarming moral doubt. In any case, the crankiest imam, the oiliest televangelist, can, at his worst, only urge circumstances a degree or two farther toward the use of those exotic war technologies that are always ready, always waiting. If it is fair to speak globally of religion, it is also fair to speak globally of science.
It seems the fundamentalisms abound; even atheistic fundamentalism. When will we realize that science and religion are not enemies. This kind of "rant" from one of the world's leading scientists is not helping the world move toward a peaceful and diverse coexistence. You should really read the entire article. It's available online here (thought I don't know if the person posting it has done this legally - can you just post the entire text of a copyrighted article on your blog?)






Recent Comments