Index	Commentary	Discussion	References
Commentary - Theological Excurus on Dawkins and the Myth of Eden
We began with a theological reflection on the story of the "apple" in the temptation myth (Garden of Eden, Genesis 3). Traditionally we have viewed Eve (beguiled by the serpent-temptor) as the cause of humanity's downfall. This chapter forms the formative basis of the Christian doctrine of original sin. "Their eyes were opened, and they saw they were naked, so the sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves." This story casts women, human freedom and "enlightenment" in a negative light. If we had stuck to the rules laid out for us, humans would probably still be naive, and able to enjoy the good life in the primeval Garden. Is it not possible to view this myth differently? Could we not interpret it as describing the beginning of human understanding ("our eyes were opened") so that we are no longer naive and dependent on external rules, but are able take appropriate God-given responsibility for ourselves? Must God of necessity be cast in the role of divine legalist and punisher? Expanding on this alternate interpretation of the "apple" story in Eden; far from leading to the man's downfall, the snake and the woman open the way to man's freedom and escape from blind resignation and self-accepted ignorance. It might be remembered that the Hebrew tradition does not honour a doctrine of original sin like the Christian tradition does. Yet, both traditions have the same Garden of Eden story in their sacred scriptures (the Hebrew Bible). Wayne suggested: While we have traditionally been taught to reject atheism, and to fear doubt as the enemy of faith, could it be that reading Dawkins, (a self-described atheist and enemy of all things divine) might well lead us to freedom from fear to new places of spiritual enlightenment? Dawkins (far from being the enemy of those who claim a belief in God) might recognize a liberating God at work in him, in spite of his claim to oppose Divinity? Chapter 8 "What's Wrong With Religion?" Dawkins: "Why am I hostile? I am passionate over what I see as a delusion" (pp. 281-2). I have studied the evidence, he says. The evidence supports evolution, not faith (283) I remain open to be proven wrong; no fundamentalist Christian would say that(284) and feel deeply saddened over the dichotomy fundamentalists face. They have to pit their sacred scriptures over against science (284). That said, I prefer dealing with fundamentalists and understand their views better than religious moderates, he says (285). Moderation fosters fanaticism (301-308) and allows terrorists the right to claim and act upon their destructive, misguided views. To Dawkins, faith is "doublethink." He is hostile because of what he sees faith doing to otherwise intelligent people (286) Instead of using their reason, they must ultimately resort to faith - a form of un-reason. Absolutism - the advocates of absolutism are almost always guided by faith. This is true in terms of their ethics, politics, views about homosexuality, the sanctity of life (abortion, capital punishment, euthenasia, etc.) Here are otherwise moral people, who believe they are guided by God, taking some very evil positions (296-7). Deeply religious, "fair-minded people" allow fanatics to claim the validity of martyrdom as a virtue - whether they be Islam, Christian, or whatever (306). My view: Dawkins' hostility over religion seems excessive and suggests early-life experience that has deeply affected him. What is the real source of his anger? because his animus against "other-wise moral, intelligent people" seems rather misplaced. Chapter 9 "Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion (pp. 311-344) In this chapter, Dawkins challenges unthinking adults who merely follow the religious beliefs their parents taught them and attempt to pass these on to their own children. We say, like our parents, that we do this "to preserve our worthy culture, and for the good of our children" (320) But is this really good for them? I say that truly, the road to hell can be paved with good intentions, and if our intentions our unthinkingly persued, we parents can be responsible for a lot of damage to our children. Dawkins speaks of the "spiritual abuse of children" - whereby the "fear" of "hell" was imposed on the next generation. "Spiritual abuse can be worse than physical abuse" says Dawkins (317) and equally perverse (325). (At this point a strong animus to traditional Roman Catholic teaching and practice is detected, and that again prompts the question - "Why the great hostility?" (Some might claim Dawkins himself had an up-bringing laced with the fear of hell, but many today could not). It was at this point in the reading that I became aware of "freedom-moments" of spiritual "Ah-Ha" in my own life. Indeed, I have had them and was able to share in a small group one significant moment for me. I believe that many others might join me in sharing experiences of being confined spiritually, then liberated, because they were able to reject authoritarian fear and claim enlightenment. There is no doubt that at a pivotal point in my life I was given permission to choose another way. That has made a great difference for me. Back to Dawkins: Do children have the right to be protected from their parents' "bad ideas?" The task of the responsible parent, he says, is to teach children 'how' - not 'what' - to think (327). He gives examples from the Amish and Irish experiences where preservation of "the culture" was placed ahead of "respect for the childern" (330). He tells of a publicly supported school in the UK that is free to teach creationism (Intelligent Design theory) simply because England claims to be a society that tolerates the freedom of ideas in theier school classrooms. What is the long-term impact of giving childern such a skewed view of science? No thoughtful Christian, he says, pits the findings of science against the message of the Bible; to say nothing of making the Bible the deposit of a higher scientific truth than the findings of science themselves. Many Christians, he says, live false lives in that they alternate between Sunday morning religion and their Monday world of work (336). That said, Dawkins supports the teaching of the Bible in publicly supported schools because he sees it as a "cultural" and a "literary" treasure that will help children to become educated into our Western values and an understanding of reality (340-4). _____ Wayne Holst
Summary of Discussion Notes
Questions: 0. Discuss absolutism, and your views in agreement or disagreement with Dawkins who claims that absolutists are "almost always deeply religious" 1. Discuss Dawkins' thesis that many parents are actually abusing their children by uncritically imparting fears and threats used against them as they raise their own children. 2. Dawkins suggests that people of faith are naturally exclusivists (who think themselves to be better than other people.) They claim this against other people of faith, or no faith. Where would he get such ideas? Discuss the validity of his critique.
Clicking the icon left will activate the e-mail on your machine and direct your comments to us. Comments are welcome and will be posted with usual editorial courtesies. St. David's United Church.Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Jan 2008