Rev Prof. Alister E. McGrath was an atheist
throughout high school in Northern Ireland. He
became a Christian in his first term at Oxford, as a
result of realizing that atheism was much weaker
intellectually than he had believed, and that
Christianity was both intellectually robust and
spiritually exciting. He is Head of the Centre for
Theology, Religion and Culture at King’s College,
London, having previously been Professor of
Historical Theology at Oxford University.
One of the core arguments of Richard Dawkins’ book
The God Delusion is that religious faith is irrational.
“Dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to
argument,” he opines. Faith is a “process of non-
thinking”, which is “evil precisely because it requires
no justification, and brooks no argument”. This is
typical of Dawkins’ swashbuckling style, which
mingles overheated rhetoric with a scant regard for
evidence and accuracy. So let’s look at things in a
little more detail.
Everyone agrees that science is one of the most secure
forms of knowledge we possess. How do we know
that the chemical formula for water is H2O? How do
we know the structure of DNA? The answer is simple:
because that’s what the scientific evidence tells us. I
don’t think anyone will quibble with this.
Dawkins is right to praise the sciences for their ability
to give clear, reliable answers to some important
questions, such as “how is genetic information
transmitted?” So far, so good. But look at another
question: “What is the meaning of life?” This is clearly
an important question. But can science answer it?
Dawkins’ answer is that science discloses no meaning
to life – and therefore that there is no meaning to life.
But is he right?
Let’s look at some wise words written by Peter
Medawar, one of Oxford’s most brilliant scientists,
who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work on
immunology. In a book titled The Limits of Science,
Medawar reflects on the question of how the scope of
science is limited by the nature of reality. Emphasising
that “science is incomparably the most successful
enterprise human beings have ever engaged upon”, he
distinguishes between what he calls “transcendent”
questions, which have to be answered by religion and
metaphysics, and questions about the organisation
and structure of the material universe.
With regard to the latter, he argues, there are no
limits to the possibilities of scientific achievement. He
thus agrees with Dawkins – but only by defining and
limiting the domain within which the sciences possess
such competency.
the limits of science
So what of other questions? What about the question
of God? Or of whether there is purpose within the
universe? As if pre-empting Dawkins’ brash and
simplistic take on the sciences, Medawar suggests that
scientists need to be cautious about their
pronouncements on these matters, lest they lose the
trust of the public by confident and dogmatic
overstatements.
Though a self-confessed rationalist, Medawar is clear
on this matter:
“That there is indeed a limit upon science is made
very likely by the existence of questions that science
cannot answer, and that no conceivable advance of
science would empower it to answer.... I have in mind
such questions as: How did everything begin? What
are we all here for? What is the point of living?
“Doctrinaire positivism – now something of a period
piece – dismissed all such questions as nonquestions
or pseudoquestions such as only simpletons ask and
only charlatans profess to be able to answer.”
Perhaps The God Delusion might have taken Sir Peter
by surprise, on account of its late flowering of
precisely that doctrinaire positivism which he had
happily, yet apparently prematurely, believed to be
dead.
The point is obvious and important: Science cannot
tell us whether there is a God. It cannot tell us why
we are here (although it may have some very
interesting insights in how that happened). When it
comes to questions of meaning, purpose and value,
science is blind. And that is no criticism of science –
it is simply about recognizing and respecting its limits.
Dawkins is not typical of science at this point, as
most scientists are aware of the limits of their
discipline, and see no problems in seeking answers
elsewhere when it comes to the really big issues of
life.
leading research
The God Delusion was published in 2006. In that
same year, some other notable books were published
by leading research scientists. Owen Gingerich,
professor of astronomy at Harvard, published his
God’s Universe; Francis Collins, director of the famous
Human Genome Project, came out with The Language
of God.
Both of these top scientists argued passionately and
persuasively that their Christian faith gave them a way
of making sense of the world, which resonated
strongly with their scientific careers and research. It
was, they argued, deeply satisfying intellectually.
Now this doesn’t resonate with Dawkins’ somewhat
simplistic take on things at all. But it does make the
fundamental point that thinking people can be
outstanding research scientists, enjoying the respect
and admiration of their peers, while believing in God.
Belief in God is not irrational, but possesses its own
distinct and robust rationality. It represents a superb
way of making sense of things. “I believe in
Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen – not
only because I see it, but because by it, I see
everything else,” said C. S. Lewis.
To use the language of philosophy, God is the “best
explanation” of the way things are. We can’t prove
that God is there, any more than an atheist can prove
that there is no God. But all of us, whether Christians
or atheists, base our lives on at least some
fundamental beliefs that we know we cannot prove.
That’s just the way things are.