Good to see the BBC providing, in Did Darwin Kill God?, a well-made and well-presented balance to earlier programmes in the Darwin season which argued that evolution equates to atheism.
Executive Producer Jean Claude Bragard describes presenter Conor Cunningham's argument as being:
"that we have been witnessing an unnecessary cultural war between religion and evolution that is damaging to both religion and science. Cunningham reveals that since the early days, mainstream Christianity’s view of God and Creation has not been literal. The idea of reading the Book of Genesis literally is essentially a 20th century American phenomenon that had very little to do with science and religion and a great deal to do with the morality and politics of the time."
The programme specifically came from the realisation that, while Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' has fuelled a widespread perception that the theory of evolution makes belief in God redundant, it remans clear that many Christians have easily been able to reconcile their belief in God with the theory of evolution. So how is this possible?
This is the question that the programme explores and its answers are partly theological (the Church Fathers did not understand Genesis literally), partly historical (Creationism is a recent aberration primarily of Bible-belt Christianity) and partly critique of Ultra Darwinianism (the application of Darwin's theory beyond the domain of science to all aspects of life undermines the cogency of evolution as a science).
It is interesting to read some of the advance comments on the programme from atheists purporting to second guess and dismiss Cunningham's likely arguments. These reveal the extent to which prejudice, faith and lack of rigour characterise the arguments of some who hold atheistic beluefs, just as the same can be said of some holding Christian beliefs.
Having watched Did Darwin kill God? I don't think that the same can be said of Cunningham whose arguments add to the critiques of the New Atheists already raised by the likes of Flew, McGrath and Ward, among others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
King's X - We Were Born To Be Loved.
3 comments:
Agreed. It was a good analysis by Cunningham. Very effective. And good to see the BBC putting some reasonable intellectual viewing up for a change.
Hi. I don't think it's fair to suggest that the other shows in the BBC season have argued that 'evolution equates to atheism'. They've said that the theory of evolution puts paid to the account of creation of life in the Bible (which it does).
I don't think Darwinism *necessarily* leads to atheism, but this show simply erects a series of straw man arguments to knock down.
In general it is very elaborate version of the tired old argument: 'oh well that's not the god I believe in'. He says 'God is existance itself'. Well that's fine if you want to believe it, but that simply isn't the God of the Bible. It's such a vague and wishy washy definition that it's almost impossible to argue with. But the presenter then acts as though this is the normal understanding of god, and every religious person now and in history who has believed a more literal version (and fought wars, arranged their lives, punished their children, etc, according to which specific version they opt for) are the anomalies. Indeed the fact that he is himself a Christian, rather than a Muslim, Jew, Odinist, whatever, is itself at odds with his 'God is the universe' definition - why did he opt for Christianity rather than any of the other hundreds of options? The Muslim god can be watered down to the same vague generalities, so why not call himself a Muslim?
He also says that Dawkins and Dennett think that evolution means there 'cannot be a god'. This is simply not true. They both think there could be, but that there isn't - that there's no role for him.
I appreciate the attempt to show an counter-point the general pro-evolution tone of the season, but this show merely collects together weak arguments that have not only been answered before by many of its targets, but which could be despatched by any objective viewer given a few moments of serious thought. It is Cunningham's arguments that can be characterised by prejudice, faith and most especially a lack of rigour.
Gareth, it is fascinating to see someone making the claim that someone else's arguments "can be characterised by prejudice, faith, and most especially a lack of rigour" when this appears to be an accurate description of their own argument. It is a commonly acknowledged reality that people perceive in others faults that actually characterise themselves.
On what basis are you able to claim greater knowledge of Christianity, its beliefs and its history, than Cunningham?
Cunningham presented a systematic historical argument showing chronologically the points at which more literal understandings of the creation stories in Genesis entered Christian theology.
Are you able to refute that argument historically by demonstrating from Christian theology of the periods that literal understanding of those stories existed where Cunningham claims they do not?
Surely, if you are unable to do this then your paragraph dismissing Cunningham's argument must be characterised by prejudice, faith and most especially a lack of rigour.
You are essentially claiming a greater knowledge of Christianity than Cunningham without any demonstrable basis for making that claim.
Post a Comment