Finding myself with time to get back to the books recently, I picked up a second hand copy of Alister McGrath’s The Dawkins Delusion.  

I had wrongly assumed that McGrath’s scientific perspective on matters of philosophy and religion would be the usual pseudo-theological ranting of a Christian convert on a personal crusade to justify their change of heart.   

I was interested to discover, though, that McGrath’s writings on religion, atheism and Christianity are actually studied to some extent as part of degree level philosophy, and are generally received positively in philosophical circles.  Although he sells himself as a Christian scientist (to somehow lend weight to his faith position by pointing out his professional relationship with logic and reason perhaps?), McGrath is a very well qualified academic theologian and respected Christian spokesperson, supported by the approach and tone of his book The Dawkins Delusion.

Having read Dawkins’ The God Delusion with great interest some years ago, my predominant sense was one of enjoyment that the God Question was finally being discussed at a wider level.  I consider the ultimate questions (as they are known; life after death, how we exist, why we exist, etc) so fundamental to the human experience that I am constantly surprised by our ability as individuals and communities to sweep them under the carpet.  The very public ‘outing’ of an atheist perspective through Richard Dawkins, and The God Delusion in particular, made questions around  atheism and religion acceptable topics for discussion for the everyday thinker.  This book helped the non-religious find identity in the atheist camp, and forced religious readers to engage in the debates and be made to defend their beliefs in the frustrated face of questioning agnostics and atheists.

Of course, there are as many problems with The God Delusion as there are benefits.  Sadly Dawkins does clearly mix a handful of valid philosophical and theological arguments with sweeping stereotypical views of “religion” (whatever that may be) and attempts to use his own scientific-biological view to engage in matters of the supernatural.  In doing so much of his argument is lost in the poor theological understanding, awkward bitterness and red mist.

As a fan, generally, of Dawkins and his cause, and as a convert from Christianity to (passive – not evangelical or aggressive) atheism,  I was keen to read McGraths Christian perspective critique of The God Delusion to see what he took issue with in particular.  For friends who share my interest in the a/theist debate, I am summarising points below that I felt were the most interesting or significant from those which McGrath raises in The Dawkins Delusion:

       1.  Crude Theology

Dawkins’ engagement in discussions about god and religion are very simplistic.  McGrath highlights the obvious fact that Dawkins clearly has no theological or philosophical background to his writings.  As a result, Dawkins’ arguments are aimed at outdated and, to some extent, irrelevant versions of a stereotypical idea of the Judeo-Christian god and ‘religion’.  He is unable to really critique the existence of god arguments on any deep level, having little or no grasp of what Christians and believers really believe what they do, nor of philosophy of religion at an academic level.

One example is Dawkins’ assumption that Christians all believe in a Paley’s watchmaker/design argument.  In reality of course a teleological argument may be just a small part of a modern believers’ faith, and is a theological position generally confined to RE textbooks and the dusty debates of the past.  Dawkins presents no real argument against the design argument since he doesn’t appear to really understand it, neither is it really an argument worth going after to attempt to derail a modern concept of Christianity or belief in god.

I sympathise with McGrath’s point.  While I can see why Dawkins might want to tackle some of the famous defences of belief in god, like the teleological argument, his dealings with them is a little too much like someone in the room simply saying “well that’s madness!” –  not hugely useful as an academic engagement with the philosophical debate.

       2.  Hiding Behind “Science

McGrath raises the point that Dawkins may be demonstrating ‘scientism’ in is approach; believing there is no limit to what science can explain.  The opposite view is to ask how questions of the supernatural and philosophical meaning and purpose can be answered by science at all.  While it might be able to address questions about existence and how we came to be, the ‘there is no god or philosophical purpose to human life’ suggestion of atheism and Dawkins is not actually evidenced by science as such.   McGrath points out that Dawkins makes assumptions about the necessity for scientists to be atheist, which are unfounded and indeed disputed by many Christian scientists.

Going further McGrath reminds us that atheist scientist will often be atheist not because of their science, but for some other reason outside their work.  To be a scientist might suggest an automatically more logical and reasoned approach to life and the ultimate questions, but even with this assumed predisposition, atheism is often a subject outside the arena of a scientist’s work.  

Dawkins is presenting “science” as the polar opposite of “religion”, and in doing so is ignoring the fact that most open minded people- scientists included - will often place themselves on a moving scale of agnosticism.  The polarising approach also alienates science from religious communities by presenting it as aggressively atheist, which really helps no one’s cause.

3. Not Defining “Religion”

Here McGrath highlights the fact that Dawkins is clearly very angry about “religion”, whilst also not being clear about what he means by this.  He seems to be offended the most by the three biggest organised religions – Christianity, Judaism and Islam – but not to explain how these “religions” are any different from other ‘worldviews’, atheism for example, nor does he address how non-theistic religions (like, the increasingly popular, Buddhism) fit into his picture.   Again this reflects a kind of theological ignorance and a confused approach.

In addressing Dawkins’ rather clever (I thought) concept of ‘memes’ (which of course is now understood on the internet as something quite different from the original idea), McGrath suggests that this is Dawkins’ attempt to create a biological explanation for our human tendencies towards belief in the supernatural and organised religion.   In short, Dawkins suggests that religion itself is a ‘meme’, a cultural trend which passes through generations and has a kind of Darwinian existence - in that our ability to replicate memes (be they fashion, memory, ideas, etc) presents us as one of the ‘fittest’ who will therefore go on to mate and our genes to survive.   Questions arise when this theory is looked at from a scientific perspective.  McGrath tells us that if this were a real biological explanation and not just a nice idea, we would of course find physical evidence to support it.  We would also find anthropologists, psychologists and sociologists running to support and thank Dawkins for his incredible discovery.

As it is, the rather fluffy idea of ‘memes’ as a biological concept is not supported by the social-anthropological or psychological scientific communities.  Dawkins’ meme idea does not go very far in explaining away the human tend towards the supernatural.  Moreover, the idea of religion as a meme doesn’t actually address the non/existence of God…

4. Selective View of Religious Evils

McGrath makes the point that the god Dawkins describes (of rage, horrors and torment) is a god no one believes in!  While Dawkins’ account of this Old Testament god is an accurate one in terms of its recalling what the scriptures say, this is of course only one part of the complex nature of god – one that theologians have been debating for centuries and that modern ‘lay’ believers  will all have different views on and experiences of.  You could also suggest that there’s a huge Buddhist elephant in the room…  Dawkins attack here seems to be directed predominantly at the Judeo-Christian god.

Taking it further still, and writing in the light of 9/11, Dawkins goes on to suggest atheists would never perform such atrocities as suicide bombing, etc.  McGrath counters this by pointing out the atheist violent actions of Lenin during the rise of the Soviet Union, who believed the elimination of religion was central to the socialist revolution.  He also tells us that research shows suicide bombers are motivated chiefly by political reasons, not religious.

Naturally Dawkins does not give credit to the positive elements of religion, including the millions of charitable organisations born from religious perspectives on peace and equality.  McGrath also points out that Dawkins’ idea of a perfect world without religion is obviously unrealistic.  If religion ceased, other social factors would arise as divisive in its place. He accuses Dawkins of using religious stereotypes, which seems a fair accusation – supported more recently by the sweeping accusations and attacks Dawkins levels at religious people via his Twitter account.

In all, the points raised by McGrath seem obvious.   I was pleased to see that his critique was not overly ‘Christian’, nor was he as academically obtrusive as I think he arguably has a right to be. 

Has McGrath changed my view on god and religion?  Not really.  Has he forced me to rethink some of the criticisms of religion raised by Dawkins?  I think so.

Interestingly Dawkins has been fairly quiet in responding to The Dawkins Delusion.  His main comments were, firstly, that McGrath was trying to make fame and career off Dawkins’ back.  And secondly, pointing out the irony or hypocritical nature of McGrath’s criticisms in accusing Dawkins of not relying on evidence, when McGrath believes in a god who clearly cannot be evidenced.

I suspect that, should a formal response ever be written and the dialogue between the two continued, it would likely just repeat existing points and turn messy.  Perhaps in their own debate, between the theologian and the scientist, they add weight to Dawkins’ idea of a polarised ‘logic and reason verses the supernatural’ stance after all.  

This week, I have been watching Werner Herzog’s documentary mini-series, ‘On Death Row’.  It’s a brief insight into the world and mindset of a few inmates in American prisons awaiting murder by the State.

I was shocked in Werner’s introduction to hear that 34 USA jurisdictions (now 33 since the programme was made) still have capital punishment. (And by the way, the term capital originates from the Latin capitalis, literally “regarding the head”, referring to execution by beheading.)

Since 1976, to October 2011, a total of 1,291 people have been executed in the US, one of 19 countries in which the death penalty is currently used.  Which sounds like an awful lot. (Although, if you look at the murder statistics, in 2009 alone 13,756 people were murdered in America.)   In the US at the moment, there are roughly 3,000 people on death row.  You have to wonder what made these 3,000 stand out so much from the 13,000 murderers go through the judiciary system each year.

Like Herzog, I disagree with capital punishment. I don’t see how a murder can be justified by a murder.  I don’t understand a political, ethical, or justice system which rules with the threat of execution if you disobey the given law. Be it Halakha (Jewish law), Sharia (Islamic law), or America’s so called ‘Christian’ law.  As a Brit, I am pleased to be ruled by a justice system which does not assume the rulers have the right to kill its countrymen any more than I do.  But for our friends over the pond, it seems the landscape, opinion and clearly the reality of capital punishment is quite different.

In 2011, a Gallup poll showed 61% of Americans favoured the death penalty (in cases of murder), with 35% opposed.  Even this statistic actually reflects the lowest level of support recorded by Gallup since 1972.  So what exactly are the Americans legally killing people for?

It seems there are a few options available for those with an interest in suicide by State.  You can pick from this menu:

• Murder.
• Felony murder; (if you commit a “serious crime”  - rape, arson, robbery, kidnapping, etc – and as a result someone dies, what is usually ‘manslaughter’ is escalated to ‘felony murder’).
•  Treason; (criminal acts against one’s sovereign or nation), against the United States, as well as treason against the states of Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Washington.
• Use of WMD resulting in death.
• Espionage.
• Terrorism.
• Certain violations of the Geneva Conventions; (four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of the victims of war).

And if these aren’t to your tastes, you could always hop to a specific State for one of these:

Aggravated rape in Louisiana, Florida, and Oklahoma; extortionate kidnapping in Oklahoma; aggravated kidnapping in Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky and South Carolina; aircraft hijacking in Alabama; drug trafficking resulting in a person’s death in Connecticut and Florida; train wrecking which leads to a person’s death, and perjury which leads to a person’s death in California.

In practice though, no one has actually been executed for a crime other than murder or conspiracy to murder since James Coburn was executed for robbery in Alabama on 4^th September 1964.

To my eyes, it seems incredibly unethical to assume a State has the right to kill someone if they see fit, however despicable a crime or dangerous that person may be.  I’m constantly surprised by the ability of America to be the ‘leader of the free world’, whilst also upholding some incredibly outdated and perilous moral behaviour. 

I have to ask why people, many people – and not just in the USA, do support the death penalty.  As far as I can work out, most advocates fall roughly under one of the following:

1.  Death penalty as a deterrent for committing serious crime/murder.

Despite the ‘greater good’ appearance of this argument, the research just doesn’t add up.   It would seem if you intend to commit murder, or if you murder as a bi-product or secondary intent within a crime, the threat of death penalty is not enough to put you off.  Possibly because most murders are the result of a spontaneous reaction, and in more contemplated murder cases, the murderer is often equally unperturbed by the possibility of death if they are caught.  

The April 2012 issue of New Scientist had the following comments on research relating to death penalty as a deterrent:

Does the threat of the death penalty discourage potential murderers? Dozens of studies over the past three decades have searched for an answer: yet all of them are flawed.

At least, so concludes a damning report published this week by the US National Research Council, which looked at all of the studies published since the US lifted a four-year ban on the death penalty in 1976. “The unfortunate conclusion is that we can’t learn anything from these studies,” says Charles Manski of North-western University in Evanston, Illinois, a member of the report committee.

The report found that none of the studies factored in the deterrent effect of other punishments, such as life imprisonment. Secondly, many researchers made unwarranted assumptions that potential murderers would be aware of, and act on, trends in the number of executions. Finally, many studies reached unjustified conclusions about whether individual executions subsequently altered homicide rates.

2.  Affirms principle of the sanctity of human life by imposing harsher penalties for crimes that destroy human life. 

“Indeed, the decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community’s belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death.”  Supreme Court of the United States of America

Again, I would argue  that ‘murder for murder’ is sending mixed messages and is a confused moral baseline.  How can destroying a life ever affirm the sanctity of life? 

3.  Financial – it’s cheaper to kill.

An American friend of mine, when I brought up the death penalty in conversation, jumped straight to this; “Well it’s cheaper to kill people than to keep them alive in prison for the rest of their lives?”  Of course, while this blunt perspective on the dry economics of the issue is a worthy comment, the questions is of course, how true is that?

And the answer, surprisingly perhaps, is that the process of condemning and conducting a death penalty is greater than a ‘normal’ prison conviction. In California in 2008, for example, the Report of the California Commission of the Fair Administration of Justice showed the annual costs of the present death penalty system to be an estimated $137 million per year. But the cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.  There are many, many similar stories.

My American pal also joked about how it’s the same people who advocate against abortion, who advocate for death penalty.  A good point.  But hardly surprising I suppose in the world of American Christian pseudo politics.

To finish, I found out an hour ago, that two people were executed by the State today.  You won’t see it in the news.  But while I’ve been writing this:

In Arizona,  a man has today been executed for the murder of a Hispanic man in 1992, from whom he stole $200 to purchase a handgun.  

In Texas, a man has today been executed by the state for the murder of a mentally handicapped  37 year old store attendant ten years ago, one of 3 staff members kidnapped by the man now executed.  He sexually assaulted one of the two female abductees, and, with his partner in crime shot at the two kidnapped women in an attempt at murder (both survived).  His partner in crime is also on death row awaiting execution.

Usually my morning bus stop wait is boring. One of the two 10 minute parts of my day where I’m limited to a phone screen for entertainment. My little window into the world is disturbingly small, and I find my 7am pre-caffeine brain really only able to cope with the 140 character global feedback from the twitterverse.

This morning, scrolling bleary eyed down the last few hours of comment, I notice a little link tweeted by the National Secular Society.  “Sentamu, front-runner to replace Rowan Williams as Archbishop attacks ‘aggressive atheism’”.  

My otheriwse nuetral opinion of Sentamu is addled and disappointed by his homophobia.  He was one of only four English bishops who refused to sign the Cambridge Accord, which was intended as a joint statement recognising the human rights and the equality of gay people. The man has more honorary degrees than the Queen has G&T’s on a Friday. Which clearly has not enabled him to educate himself on matters of basic human rights.

Later, Sentamu defends the right of Christian nurses to wear a cross at work;

“Asking someone to leave their belief in God at the door of their workplace is akin to asking them to remove their skin colour before coming into the office.” (Feb 2009). Really John? Aside from the fact that this statement doesn’t make sense, I’m fairly certain that if I wore my “Atheism Rockz!” necklace on a Monday morning, I wouldn’t lose any part of my true identity or suffer some horrific blood loss if I left it at the office door of the Christian charity I happen to work for.

Still, I am unusually frustrated with the comments from Sentamu on ‘agressive atheism’.  First off, a phraseologoy pet hate:  There is no way that Christianity is “under threat” - any more now than it ever has been.  Journalists who use the phrase “Christianity is under threat” should be immediately sent to the deepest religious depths of Vatican City, Venezuela, Colombia, Zambia, Ireland, Brazil….  When they come back, then they can write me an essay on why Christianity is under threat.

In fairness to our Sents, he didn’t actually explicitly say Christianity is under threat. But, he did say: “What we are facing isn’t so much secularism, it is what I call ‘aggressive atheism’ disguising itself as secularism.” 

Secularism, as I understand it, suggests that religion, - longstanding, popular, majority or otherwise – should not have any influence on how decisions are made on the welfare of people or the State. 

I see no reason why Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Witches, whatever, should have to make any decision affecting the UK explicitly influenced by their religious persuasions (wine free on the NHS since Jesus turned water into wine anyone?).  Secondly, though, I think it is impossible for them as individuals to not be intuitively influenced by their beliefs when they are taking decisions. As we all are!  Is true secularism really possible in a society where we are all aware of our own religious persuasions and definitions?  Am I really able to comment on my disgust that 34 States in the US still allow corporal punishment without knowing that my disgust is based on my humanist perspective?  Could my right wing Christian American brothers disagree with me without knowing that their desire for punishment and “justice”, even to the extreme of taking a life, is based on their religious viewpoint?

It seems to me, that the secularism these ‘aggressive atheists’ are ‘disgusing’ themsleves behind, is a bit of a false smokescreen? 

You may also find, Doctor Sentamu, that most of the aggressive atheists you encounter, would dismiss, - or even, be offended by, - the suggestion that they are hiding behind anything.  Aggressive atheism is by its nature in favour of ‘coming out’.  Indeed, Richard Dawkins in his ‘Out Campaign’ (http://outcampaign.org/) is precisely encouraging atheists to ‘come out’ and name their non-belief.

“It is time to let our voices be heard regarding the intrusion of religion in our schools and politics.” (Out Campaign website).  That doesn’t sound very ‘disguising itself as secularism’ to me, Archbishop?

In short, then:

1. Christianity, (a massive, ancient, and in many respects, growing, global religion), is not under threat.
2. Aggressive atheism does not hide behind anything,
3. And is not interested in a secular agenda (but an atheist agenda – priorities are atheist, not secular. For example; not, “what’s best for our education system?” But, “how do we remove god from our education system?”).
4. Christianity as a religion is not ‘facing’ anything it shouldn’t be able to handle. People asking questions and finding answers is no need to be afraid, John.

And finally, as an advocate and admirer of the genius Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury until later this year, I find Sentamu’s remarks in this tone to be ultimately unhelpful and in some ways detrimental to the part of the Christian religion which seeks to be inclusive and peaceful.  It is sad to see the man tipped to be Williams’ successor making divisive and awkward comments about a predominantly agnostic/atheist society, when Rowan Williams has done so much to try and bridge the gap and find harmony.  For this reason, I hope the Church of England, and of course HRH, can find a better suitor for the head of the Anglican Communion.