Harper's Magazine comes to the defense of religion!

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?)

Comments

[Tompaul]

A few decades ago social scientists were concerned to find that religious people were the most prejudiced and the "irreligious" the least. Further studies found that while a heavy dose of (extrinsic) religion created the most narrow-minded people, the intrinsically religious were the most open-minded.

The real culprit here is fundamentalistic thinking, which can take or leave religion, as in the anti-religious fundamentalistic thinking of Soviet Communism.

[Courtney Krudy]

I don't know if you were actually wanting an answer to the question if you can legally post an entire article to a blog or not, but as a future IP attorney (1 month 2 weeks 3 days 'til graduation) I think I can answer the question. Generally, no you can't post an entire article, as using the entire article would not qualify as fair use. However, the likelihood of being caught is very small and if the blogger has permission (from the actual copyright owner, and that might not be the author) then its perfectly legal. Just thought I'd pass that along.

[Ryan Bell]

Actually, I wasn't expecting an answer to that question, but I am really glad to have one. Either the person has permission or he did a whole lot of typing. Between interruptions it took me a while to read it, let alone type it.

Congrats on your upcoming graduation!

[Dick Larsen]

Francis Collins' book The Language of God, seeks to find middle ground between the "fundamentalists" on the extreme left and right. It's refreshing to lay the battle aside and see God in science.

[Steve Breen]

I've read a few of Dawkins' books, and I must say he's clearly a great scientist. I look forward to reading the God Delusion as well. Dawkins' anti-God angle is most curious to me - why all the rancor? Yeah, I've read his arguments enumerating the evil things done in the "name of religion" but surely that same tact could be used against his world view of Atheism with great success, no? Mass genocides, anyone? Oppressive regimes? There's a pretty long list of evil committed in the "name of atheism" which is hard to ignore.

So, to me, that line of reasoning is beneath a man of his stature. It has a "witch hunt" smell to it - the very mindset he seems to oppose. However, as much as I am confused by his approach (and who knows, maybe that will be eased a bit after I read the GD), I do have a lot of respect for his integrity and congruence towards his own beliefs.

It's rarely your cheerleaders that make you stronger, but rather your critics. So thanks Dawkins!

[Hewitt]

Robinson's main arguement is that science does bad things and religion does bad things, so science is not better. Never mind that she unfairly blames science for for war, the holocaust, and racism, even though one can more fairly blame religion for all three. Grant her premise and her argument is still nonsense. Science learns from its mistakes and builds up understanding, while religion cannot see its mistakes and institutionalizes them. Her argument is weak.

[Andrew]

You should read Terry Eagleton's review of The God Delusion in the London Review of books:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

[fan]

I think you meant *device* in the context:
"...a rhetorical devise..."

Unwavering belief in Spellcheck can cause mischief.