An Angelic Riposte

	Book review on Darwin's Angel by Cornwell, John (2007) Reviewed by David Lorimer, 2008 published in Network Review No 96
	(order this book from amazon.co.uk)

At our recent God or Multiverse conference in Cambridge, Keith Ward commented that it is not so much that religions are dangerous, but rather that human beings are dangerous. The thesis - that religions are uniquely dangerous - advanced by Dawkins, Hitchens and others is essentially the same as that of Bertrand Russell  a hundred years ago. However, that was before Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot provided further evidence that Ward  is right and that atrocities can equally be perpetrated in the name of atheism. I remember this point being made at a conference by the veteran French biologist Remy Chauvin to Jacques Benveniste, with a furious denunciation from Jacques - ce n'est pas du tout la même chose - but it is. I wonder if the polemical tone of many new atheist tomes is a factor in their huge sales in relation to the careful refutations by philosophers  like Keith Ward.

John Cornwell takes a more oblique approach in this elegantly written and gently chiding contribution that  takes the form of a series of letters on key points of Dawkins' book. For instance, John wonders about the Dawkins Utopia in which there is no religion, no suicide bombers, no crusades, no 7/7 and 9/11, arguing that there is no necessary connection between religion and evil; there is a shadow side in human nature. Nor is Dawkins' definition of religion as 'a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence' in any way adequate. It partly derives from his contentious proposal that religious beliefs are analogous to scientific hypotheses. Indeed, the definition can be turned on Dawkins himself, given his reaction to Rupert Sheldrake's telepathy experiments: Dawkins maintains his persistent false belief that telepathy does not  exist 'in the face of strong contradictory evidence', which he is not prepared to consider (although I appreciate that he would reject this parallel).

Martin Rees puts the most serious point by asking why there is something rather than nothing. This is surely the ultimate mystery which, by definition, falls outside the scope of science.

There is no definitive answer to this question, whether scientific or philosophical. There can only be a quest for further dimensions of understanding of this God-question.

John makes the interesting point that religion cannot justify itself, nor survive, its reduction to philosophy when it is essentially grounded in experience. The fullness of mysticism cannot be grasped by purely rational categories.

The ineffable becomes a belief system, and therefore open to philosophical dispute and refutation. A different position is advanced by Freeman Dyson, who does not claim that the architecture of the universe proves the existence of God, rather that 'it is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays an essential role in its functioning.'

This is a more fruitful area for dialogue than the more absolute question of the existence or nonexistence of God. John prefers to use the language of relationship, and reminds us that many subtle theologians use apophatic terms to refer to their experience of God.

Needless to say, the deeper reaches of mysticism are a world away from the fundamentalist literalism attacked by Dawkins, and which many readers of this Review would equally deplore.

The 21 chapters raise too many other questions to be dealt with in a relatively short review. However, I will mention one more, which entails criticism of the limited sources on which Dawkins draws in his book - a point that John makes at greater length. John Hartung originally published an article in the Skeptic Magazine claiming that the injunction to love one's neighbour applied only to Jews, a position contradicted by the Bible itself and especially in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Christianity encourages us to show compassion, respect and love to all, even if this injunction has not been carried out by the institutional church in history. We come back to the flawed nature of human beings in general. This is a stimulating counterpoint that takes the reader more deeply into the issues raised in the current atheist debate.

 

 

(order this book from amazon.co.uk)