Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Religious Studies – Anthology
149
the public arena, c ountering the c rude c aric atures, prejudic ial stereotypes and
blatant misrepresentations now being aggressively peddled by atheist
fundamentalis m.
For many years I gave a series of lectures at Oxford University titled "An
Introduc tion to Christian Theology." I c annot help but feel that these might have
been of some use to Dawkins in writ ing his book. As t he c ult ural and lit erary c rit ic
Terry Eagleton pointed out in his withering review of T he God Delusion: "Ima g in e
someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subjec t is the Book
of Brit ish Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like t o read Ric hard
Dawkins on theology."
Dawkins quotes with approval the views of his friend Nic holas Humphrey, who
suggests that parents should no more be allowed to teac h c hildren about the "literal
truth of the Bible" than "to knoc k their c hildren's teeth out." If Humphrey is
c onsistent here, he should be equally outraged about those who peddle
misrepresentations of religion as if they were the truth. Might he argue, I wonder,
that parents who read T he God Delusion aloud to t heir c hildren were also
c ommit t ing c hild abuse? Or are you only abusive if you impose religious, but not
ant ireligious, dogmas and delusions?
Faith is irrational
There is, I suppose, a lunatic fringe to every movement. Having been involved in
many public debates over whether science has disproved the existence of God, I
have ample experience of what I think I must describe as somewhat weird people,
often with decidedly exotic ideas, on both sides of the God-atheism debate. One of
the most characteristic feat ures of Dawkins's ant ireligious polemic is t o present t he
pat hologic al as if it were normal, t he fringe as if it were t he c ent er, c rac kpot s as if
they were mainstream. It generally works well for his intended audience, who can
be assumed t o know lit t le about religion and probably c are for it even less. But it 's
not ac c ept able. And it 's c ert ainly not sc ient ific.
Dawkins insist s t hat Christ ian belief is "a persist ent ly false belief held in t he
face of strong contradictory evidence." The problem is how to persuade "dyed-in -
t he wool fait h-heads" that atheism is right, when they are so deluded by religion
that they are immune to any form of rational argument. Faith is thus essentially
and irredeemably irrational. In support of his c ase Dawkins has sought out
Christ ian t heologians who he believes will subst ant iat e t his fundament ally
degenerate aspect of religious faith. In earlier writings he asserted that the third-
c ent ury Christ ian writ er T ert ullian said some part ic ularly st upid t hings, inc luding "it
is by all means t o be believed bec ause it is absurd." T his is dismissed as t ypic al
religious nonsense. "That way madness lies."
He's stopped quoting this now, I am pleased to say, after I pointed out that
T ert ullian ac t ually said no suc h t hing. Dawkins had fallen into the trap of not
c hec king his sourc es and merely repeating what older atheist writers had said. It's
yet another wearisome example of the endless recycling of outdated arguments
that has become so characteristic of atheism in recent years.
However, Dawkins now seems to have found a new example of the
irrat ionalis m of fait h—well, new for him, at any rate. In T he God Delusion he cites a
few choice snippets from the sixteenth-c ent ury German Prot est ant writ er Mart in