As for ‘atheistic evangelism’, as I wrote in Unintelligent Design, most of us don’t think about God from one month to the next. Atheism is not a campaign of recruitment. Nor is it an absence of something, like the loss of a leg or a sense of smell.
And science can offer a means of understanding how a moral code can develop with altruism at its core. It is perfectly fair for Dawkins to be impatient with the Bible’s ethical code when he asks which part is to be the source-’the one demanding stoning to death or the plucking out of an eye, or the part offering love and forgiveness?’
Where I differ most from Richard Dawkins and his views on God is over the old chestnuts of first causes and multi-universes. Answering the question about where the universe came from by saying God made it should not be followed by the retort, ‘Who made God?’ Such regressions are demeaning. Why is there something rather than nothing? We just don’t know.
After barely 400 years of modern science, it is hardly surprising that there are many curly questions left to answer. The origin of the world is one of the biggest, and we may have to wait a long time for a convincing reply to come from anyone. Making one up as a debating point is silly. As for the puzzle of why our universe seems so suitable for life, we are told by some astrophysicists, such as Martin Rees, that this can be explained by there being countless parallel universes which are wholly hostile to life, so ours isn’t such a fluke. But until someone can prove these ‘multiverses’ exist, this is merely another sleight of hand.
Meanwhile, Paul Davies has sidestepped all this in his latest book, The Goldilocks Enigma. He doesn’t offer an explanation for the origin of the universe but does suggest why its laws may vary and need not be God-given. Davies sees the world as a kind of vast computer where different software (scientific laws) comes into play depending on its state. Thus, in the very first moments after the Big Bang or at the nano level, the laws are different from those at the mature state or macro level. There would be no need for a Great Physicist to have laid down the laws of nature before setting the grand scheme on its way.
This makes sense and gives convincing hope that there are good leads, scientifically, to be followed up. But we may still never know the ultimate astrophysical answer.
As for religion and society: Dawkins may be a trifle too ready to invoke science for my comfort, but this may well come from his living with Dr Who’s second most celebrated assistant, Lalla Ward.
My main reason for joining this debate last year had little to do with God himself. We are both resigned to constructive mutual neglect. What gave me outrage was the new transmogrification of creationism in the form of intelligent design (ID) and its stated attempt to replace science.
This attempt to invade schools in America, Britain and Australia may appear to have been dealt a death blow by the opinion handed down by Judge John E. Jones at the conclusion of the Dover case in 2005. But the resilience of the ID movement should never be underestimated. Its future is amazingly and disconcertingly bright.
Consider: only 40 per cent of Americans now accept the idea of evolution (down from 45 per cent in 1985); this puts the US 32nd out of a league of 33 mainly European countries (Science, 11 August 2006). Consider: in Britain, 48 per cent of the population accept evolution but 39 per cent prefer ID or creationism. Fifty-nine UK schools are using ID materials ‘as a useful classroom resource’. Consider: 11 per cent of Italians want Darwin removed from curricula (Nature, November 2006). Consider: the Discovery Institute in Seattle, from which the ID push is promulgated, is now funding a research lab called the Biologic Institute, where qualified scientists seek evidence for ID (New Scientist, December 2006). This institute is doing arcane-sounding research on protein folding and amino acids, and claiming it confirms non-Darwinian ideas. Other scientists say this is nonsense. The aim of Biologic, however, is to allow the ID movement to claim that, yes, they are part of science proper-and therefore should be allowed into schools as part of science courses. Devious!
Whatever one’s views of a pluralistic society, it is clear that many countries, most of all the US, have pushed hard-line religious attitudes and systematically placed right-wing Christians at the centre of administration, including that of scientific institutions.
Garry Wills gave a detailed analysis in the New York Review of Books in late 2006. This is an extract giving an indication of the takeover:
Bush promised his evangelical followers faith-based social services… He went beyond that to give them faith-based war, faith-based law enforcement, faith-based education, faith-based medicine, and faith-based science. He could deliver on his promises because he stocked the agencies handling all these problems, in large degree, with born-again Christians of his own variety. The evangelicals had complained for years that they were not able to affect policy because liberals left over from previous administrations were in all the health and education and social service bureaus, at the operational level. They had specific people they objected to, and they had specific people with whom to replace them…
It is little wonder that we have had a corresponding efflorescence in Tehran and other Muslim capitals of similarly tub-thumping evangelicals. But the extent of the operation in Washington is still not fully appreciated.
Wills goes on:
It is common knowledge that the White House let lobbyists have a say in the drafting of economic legislation in matters like oil production, pharmaceutical regulation, medical insurance and corporate taxes. It is less known that for social services, evangelical organizations were given the same right to draft bills and install the officials who implement them. Karl Rove [George W. Bush’s senior adviser] had cultivated the extensive network of religious-right organizations, and they were consulted at every step of the way as the administration set up its policies on gays, AIDS, condoms, abstinence programs, creationism, and other matters that concerned the evangelicals. All the evangelicals’ resentments… were now being addressed.
The evangelicals knew which positions could affect their agenda, whom to replace, and whom they wanted appointed. This was true for the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, and Health and Human Services-agencies that would rule on or administer matters dear to the evangelical cause.
Despite this comprehensive takeover, the Christian right would complain that the President had not gone far enough.
When I was in my teens I met the Rev. Michael Scott. He was a delightful and unostentatious figure, often dressed more like a gardener on his way to the allotment than like a priest. Scott spent his time sailing boats directly into the intended sites of nuclear bomb tests. His bravery and commitment were astounding.
Bishop Trevor Huddleston I saw briefly. His stand in South Africa fighting apartheid was legendary. Huddleston persevered through the worst of the brutality and when it was unfashionable to be against the system. The Rev. Dr David Millikan, a former head of ABC Religion, has spent decades trying to understand why our children join cults and helping them recover from the experience. These men represent the heart of what the Church does best. Many women have done the same; many non-Christian religions as well.