Like everyone, I have a list of resources I utilize online. One of these recently pointed to an ironic situation in which Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion and world-class geneticist), for the 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible, will be reading a chapter from The Song of Solomon.
A couple of things struck me at Dawkins' remarks.
1) The British have such a lovely accent, and very nearly anything they say sounds beautifully elegant. I much prefer it over other accents!
2) Concerning the nature of his remarks is when I push back. What Dawkins is seeking to do is equate the Bible with any other important literature in the history of English culture. His premise is that our culture is inexplicable outside of the context of a Biblical World-view, and that we use a lot of the phrases found in the King James. Like Shakespeare, the Bible is just good writing and demands attention.
Here is where Mr. Dawkins is mistaken. His understanding of the Biblical World-view is atrophied as he fails to notice that his very occupation owes to the foundations that the Biblical World-view creates.
The Biblical understanding of Science does not fear questions, evidence, or answers. These answers, firmly rooted in the methods of Science--and this is key, sorted with an eye of objectivity--point directly to a Creator/Creation distinction. In other words, science done correctly points straight to God. (e.g. the Big Bang; Teleology; Dawkins' own field, genetics and the 'message' in the cell, etc, etc.)
It is when Science done subjectively is not really Science at all. When scientists, without conducting a single experiment, have already ruled out certain parameters, they have failed to remain scientists and has become foolish experimenters out to get people to agree with them. Mr. Dawkins and others have brought certain presuppositions to their field of study (i.e. there is no God, materialism is the only way to find truth, etc.) and this clouds the very beginnings of any sort of discovery of, well, anything. These people are claiming metaphysical answers while using physical methods.
Besides, Mr. Dawkins is making some claims of English Literature that are far outside of his field of study. He is no C.S. Lewis (known for his Christian apologetics, Lewis actually claims that his very best book--his Magnum Opus, was English Literature in the 16th Century, available in hardback).
Sir Isaac Newton, another Englishman, put this perspective this way: "Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my best friend is truth."
Where ever Truth leads.
1) The British have such a lovely accent, and very nearly anything they say sounds beautifully elegant. I much prefer it over other accents!
2) Concerning the nature of his remarks is when I push back. What Dawkins is seeking to do is equate the Bible with any other important literature in the history of English culture. His premise is that our culture is inexplicable outside of the context of a Biblical World-view, and that we use a lot of the phrases found in the King James. Like Shakespeare, the Bible is just good writing and demands attention.
Here is where Mr. Dawkins is mistaken. His understanding of the Biblical World-view is atrophied as he fails to notice that his very occupation owes to the foundations that the Biblical World-view creates.
The Biblical understanding of Science does not fear questions, evidence, or answers. These answers, firmly rooted in the methods of Science--and this is key, sorted with an eye of objectivity--point directly to a Creator/Creation distinction. In other words, science done correctly points straight to God. (e.g. the Big Bang; Teleology; Dawkins' own field, genetics and the 'message' in the cell, etc, etc.)
It is when Science done subjectively is not really Science at all. When scientists, without conducting a single experiment, have already ruled out certain parameters, they have failed to remain scientists and has become foolish experimenters out to get people to agree with them. Mr. Dawkins and others have brought certain presuppositions to their field of study (i.e. there is no God, materialism is the only way to find truth, etc.) and this clouds the very beginnings of any sort of discovery of, well, anything. These people are claiming metaphysical answers while using physical methods.
Besides, Mr. Dawkins is making some claims of English Literature that are far outside of his field of study. He is no C.S. Lewis (known for his Christian apologetics, Lewis actually claims that his very best book--his Magnum Opus, was English Literature in the 16th Century, available in hardback).
Sir Isaac Newton, another Englishman, put this perspective this way: "Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my best friend is truth."
Where ever Truth leads.
Posts
I ran across the 2011 Trust site a month or so ago and fell in love with Patricia Routledge's reading of John 20. I don't remember if it was that site or another where I read Dawkins saying that we have to keep the religious types from monopolizing that great cultural resource, but I about laughed coffee out of my nose.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure he's a good biologist, but every time he sticks his head out of the lab he says something ridiculous.
And I could have sworn that Hitchens said his family reads the AV together to give the children a grounding in British culture as well. Strange ...
Thanks for your thoughts, Chris! I will have to check out that reading of John 20... it is one of my favorite chapters in all of Scripture.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that there must still be hope for ol' Mr. Dawkins, eh? If they are putting the Holy Word into their heads, it is not too far of a distance to get to the heart; God has saved worse!