Before the arrival on the scientific (and religious) scene of Charles Darwin, the vast majority of citizens, whether scientists or not, were at least tacit believers in the existence of God. So was it Darwin who rocked the boat? Not, according to his biographer, James Moore. Darwin certainly had some major philosophical objections to aspects of Christian theology – such as eternal damnation – but Moore believes that Darwin had a more or less unshakeable belief in the existence of the Creator and makes references to his existence at various points throughout his highly publicised and celebrated “On Origin of Species”.
Painting The Background
Painting the Background:
Tracing the Conflict Model of Science & Religion
Ask the proverbial ‘person on the street’ about science and faith and he or she is likely to tell you that science is at war with religion. The prolific writer, television broadcaster and renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins – along with other prominent ‘new’ atheists such as the late Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett - holds and promotes the view that clear-thinking people shun religious belief and that intelligence sits in a state of tension with religion. Instead, rationality is king and science is its servant. Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” became a best-seller. In it, the writer argues that there almost certainly is no God, that, in any case, God is the most unpleasant character in the whole of history, that morality has nothing to do with faith and that teaching children about God is a form of child abuse. It is a strong, one-sided polemic which is helpful in grasping the case for atheism but that very one-sidedness limits its value in an open Search for Truth.
The God Delusion became a best-seller but that status has not necessarily been acquired because people agree with Dawkins but might easily be a reflection of a highly developed public interest in the God question itself.
So is science in conflict with religion or just perceived as such because high profile atheists insist t hat we accept their word on it? Former Oxford Professor of Science and Religion, Peter Harrison, has a much more open view. He believes that it is only with the emergence of Charles Darwin that the conflict model arises and, even there, it is more invented than real.
Didn't Darwin Bury God?
So who invented the conflict model? Arguably, history is always more complex than how it gets reported but, for sure, one important contributor was Thomas Huxley, popularly known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog’. At the time of publication of “On Origin of Species” in the mid 19th century, there was growing hostility in society towards orthodoxy and especially the authority of the church. Make no mistake: the doctrinaire attitude of religious authorities has often apparently, and actually, been associated with suffocating thought and open questioning. Where such a trend exists it should be resisted.
Huxley took up the cudgels of war against the forces of religious conservatism with great relish. In
“On Origin of Species”, he had just the weapon he needed. Ever since, Darwin’s well expounded theory of evolution has become a fundamental platform for atheism. American philosopher, Dan Dennett, agrees that Darwin is crucial to the atheist worldview “Darwin has left God nothing to do” he declares in programme two of The God Question: Life and Evolution.
The Rise of New Atheism
A major platform for atheism was built in a Channel 4 television broadcast series in 2006 “The Root of all Evil?”, presented by Richard Dawkins. This 3 part critique of religion and people of faith which set the war of attrition on a new footing. Subsequently, the BBC produced a documentary series “A History of Disbelief” presented by prominent atheist, Jonathan Miller. The programmes charted increasing disenchantment with belief in God and highlighted the atheism of some well known academics such as Daniel Dennett. Dawkins’s book “The God Delusion” soon followed Journalist and broadcaster, Christopher Hitchens, joined in with his book “God is Not Great” and his journalistic colleague, Sam Harris, wrote “The End of Faith”, followed by “Letter to a Christian Nation” in which he posited the view that Christianity (American style) is irrational and dangerous. Even the more benign and cautious Radio 4 journalist, John Humphrys, pitched in with his best-selling book, “In God We Doubt”. It appeared that people of faith were on the ropes and there was no referee.
In what followed, the conflict model was backed up by stereotyping. People of faith have been branded “creationists”: a whole conceptual package which suggests that the adherent is intellectually blind, believes on the basis of no evidence, is anti-scientific, advocates that the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old - and is dangerous to society and an impediment in any search for truth. The implication is that this characterises all believers.
On the other hand, science is confident, upwardly mobile in its ability to understand and present natural reality, is evidence-based, reliable and, therefore, authoritative.
Any detached observer can see that even-handedness has been conspicuous by its absence.
