So I just finished The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. (Disclaimer: I am not promoting this particular book, though I do promote reading books with a perspective that differs from your own.) At one point, Dawkins lays out a 7-point belief scale, with #1 representing strong theism (100% certainty that God exists) and #7 representing strong atheism (100% certainty that God does not exist). Dawkins' own "rating" is between 6 and 7, and his stated goal for this book is to move people toward that end of the spectrum. This was frighteningly reminiscent of The Engel Scale I learned about in seminary, which rates an individual’s Christian faith (or lack thereof) on a scale from -12 to +4. The -12 value represented a posture toward God like that of Linda Blair in The Exorcist, while the highest rating was basically reserved for missionaries in Kazakhstan. The idea, I guess, was that even nudging someone to a -5 (Experience of Christian love) signified progress. Then Billy Graham or somebody else who knew what they were doing could take them the rest of the way. But here's my problem with both of these scales. Once you set out to move people toward some predetermined position, the temptation becomes overpowering to present only the evidence that supports said position, while dismissing conflicting evidence (or creating "straw man" versions of that evidence). I'm sure Dawkins would say that he is honestly weighing all available evidence, and maybe he is—but some of the pictures he paints of religious belief have the whiff of straw about them. Of course, Christians do the same thing. To cite a trivial example, I just heard a radio show presenting "scientific" evidence for a 6,000 year-old earth by discrediting radio-isotope dating. Talk about a straw man—this argument should audition for the Wizard of Oz. In the first place, scientists are well aware of the applicability and limitations of various forms of radio-isotope dating and would never use this technique in the way it was being presented. Secondly, I know of no scientists who are claiming that radio-isotope dating is the only (or the most compelling) evidence of the earth's ancient age. Wait, did I just yank this poor schmoe’s comments out of context and erect a straw man of my own? Maybe so. But as far as I’m concerned, he’s welcome to remain at whatever Dawkins/Engel rating he currently inhabits. Just keep an open mind about it, is all I’m saying.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Rating the Straw Men
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
A person must have conflicting evidence before he can begin "dismissing conflicting evidence". What evidence is there for Richard Dawkins to dismiss?
A fair question, decidenator. To give you an example, Dawkins evaluated the morality presented in the Bible by listing biblical heroes who engaged in horrible behaviors, such as Lot getting drunk and impregnating his 2 daughters, or Abraham's cowardly attempt to pass his wife off as his sister. However, Christian apologists are fond of pointing to these same stories as evidences for the faith, stating that the Bible makes no attempt to "whitewash" its heroes but insists on presenting them warts and all.
Dawkins makes a much stronger case when he refers to passages that portray God as ordering violence and genocide (as opposed to flawed humans doing dumb stuff). I have echoed this same point in other posts and comments on this very blog.
Second, while Dawkins rightly lists the many atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion, he gives short shrift to the positive role of religion in the civil rights movement, prison reform, hunger relief, and a host of other philanthropic enterprises. It is certainly open to argument where the balance lies, and I have no doubt that Dawkins wouldn't see this as conflicting evidence, but his case would be strengthened by presenting both sides more clearly.
Genesis, is it literal 6000 year old history or metaphor?
It doesn't matter or change things to me, if the story of Adam and Eve was literal or allegorical, the issues are the same, the teachings are the same, and the lessons we can learn from it are the same. In other words both non-literalists and literalists can learn from these passages the same things and not quibble over historicity.
While I personally am not a literalist, I do believe the story is true and conveys truth. In this case, the story tells us that "we" humans don't get to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, in other words we don't get to choose what good and evil is. So, what is, is. What is in our control is how we deal with it
Mysterium fìdei
Monk - I get what you're saying, but you may be in the minority. The literal history vs. metaphor debate does seem matter to a great many people--which leads to a lot of (to my mind) regrettable clashes between religion and science.
Post a Comment