- Stimulus
I was recently presented with a quote from Richard Dawkins:
"The achievements of theologians don't do anything,
don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes
anyone think theology is a subject at all?"
- Response
This quote is a typical extract from Richard Dawkins' writings.
To put it into context, you probably need to read one or
two of his books - I would suggest 'The Selfish Gene' and a later
one, such as 'River Out of Eden'.
I keep promising myself that one day I will work through his
books and document the holes in his arguments - for a scientist,
once he moves any distance from his area of study he becomes
wonderfully opinionated and unscientific. He preaches
against religion with a religious fervour that commands admiration.
I often wish that I could believe as strongly as
Richard Dawkins does.
I imagine you have heard people argue that there is no God, and
He is to blame for all the suffering in the world. There seems to
be a very similar 'argument' concerning theologians. Since
many wars have been fought in the name of religion, and since it
is clear (of course, you don't have to demonstrate why it
is clear!) that the doctrines people are fighting about have been
invented and articulated by theologians, then it is obvious that
theologians don't affect anything, and are responsible for all the
wars in the world.
- The Effect of Belief
It is trivially easy to demonstrate the effect on people of
particular beliefs about God.
The Aztecs who engaged in human sacrifice, butchering hundreds
of thousands of people, were worshipping their gods, and following
the teachings of their theologians. "God wants you to
perform human sacrifice" is a doctrine about God. It is a
doctrine, taught - or denied - by theologians, which has a deep
impact on people's lives.
Similarly, "Love your enemies" is a piece of theology that
changes the way we live in a very practical way. If you
believe that God is love, and loves your enemy as much as He loves
you, then it is hard to follow through with the normal human
desire to harm or kill your enemy.
Since this point is so obvious, my best guess is that Dawkins
would seek to re-define his terms, rather than deny it outright.
Perhaps his response would go along these lines: the people
who create and spread ideas about God are not theologians, they
are social and political leaders who simply use theology as a tool
for manipulating people, one tool among many.
Certainly, there have been political leaders who have done this
- September 11 will stand for a long time as a reminder of how
people can use religious belief for political ends - but you have
to ask if every theologian, every religious thinker and leader,
was simply manipulating people. Was Jesus using theological ideas
this way? I'll let you judge.
- Belief and World History
The doctrines people believe do not just affect their
individual lives - they affect the societies they live in.
In history, it is a trivial task to trace the Reformation (a
major political shift) from the teachings of theologians like
Martin Luther and John Calvin. You can go on to trace the
Renaissance from the Reformation, and to trace the modern world
(including modern science and much of Richard Dawkins' own belief
system) from the Renaissance.
Again, it is a trivial task to trace the theological roots
of the Trade Union movement, or the American Civil Rights
movement. It would be a monumental act of blind faith to
claim that the Christian beliefs of the founders of most of the
world's charities have nothing to do with the work of these
charities.
In brief, theology changes the world!
The way people live is affected by what they believe - an
obvious truth that Dawkins seems to find deeply disturbing.
Which is odd, because his belief in Darwinism very clearly affects
the way he lives - it affects the things he writes about,
the way he spends his time. He writes to change peoples'
minds, to change their beliefs and thus make a difference to the
world. Why, then, does
he find it so hard to recognise that other people writing about
their beliefs, can also make a difference?
This is a guess. I suspect that, if Dawkins were
presented with this article, he would agree that the quoted
statement, as it stands, is not entirely true. But he would
probably say it is a brief summary of a bigger truth.
He might amplify his statement and turn it into something like
this: theologians, as people, can make ethical statements that
affect other people and change the world we live in. Their
ethical teaching is meaningful, but when they are teaching
theology (ideas about God), their statements are meaningless.
Following this line of thought: you can re-phrase some statements
about god into ethical statements - for example, "God wants you to
perform human sacrifice" really means "Human sacrifice is good."
From this perspective, these god-statements would be meaningful and possibly
important; but there will be some god-statements you cannot
re-phase in this way, and these statements are meaningless.
As I say, that is just a guess. The Logical Positivists
attempted this task in the early part of the last century, and
failed. But they carried a number of people along with them
for a while. It remains to be seen how many people Richard
Dawkins can carry along with him, in his foray into
metaphysics.