Religion

At the end of the nineteenth century decades of evangelical fervor were followed by decades of cool headed but triumphalist atheism. In those years it was not unusual for people to have inner illuminations that made them atheists, reminiscent of the illuminations that made their grandparents evangelicals.

The twentieth century ended with a triumphant flood, some would say tsunami ,of fundamentalism(remember that for a time, and perhaps even today evangelical student clubs have been the most active voluntary organizations on campus)But the atheist counterattack has come and is gaining momentum. Hitchens volume "God is not Great" and Dawkins have been on the best seller lists for months and Hitchen's new Atheist reader" is offerred as vintage gift to place under the Xmas tree or Channuka Bush. ("I'm dreamimg of a godless christmas")

We've encountered many critiques of religion in our classes and fairness dictates that I post te ideas of religion's defenders, While I may not support many of their ideas ,I beleive that Dawkins and Hitchens go too far in calling religious believers self deceiving nincompoops. After all those of us who have read Voltaire etc. know that many of the argumenst of the atheists aren' new.

The latest defence of religion to its cultured despisers(a phrase from the German theologian Schliermacher) comes from the theologian John Polkinhorne (who spoe at McMaster) in te Times Literary Supplement Nov. 20 207 p.27 -28.

Polkinhorne is not Savanarolla warning of imminent hellfire. he is eminently civilized anda bit defensive. He makes the following points.

1. Dawkins and Hitchens are guilty of overkill and don't give religious believers the honor of having minds at all

2Their atheism cannot cope with the reality of human conscience. While it may seem evident to Darwinists that self sacricie and conscience can be traced back to the animal's who offer their lives to perpetuate family ,this kind of altruism cannot be the source of a very different self sacrifice such the willingn ness of a woman like the Pole "Irena Sandlarova' to risk her life to save some 20,000 Jews.

3. They refuse to engage the truthfullness of many theologians who honestly grapple with issues such as those who grapple with the issues they themselves have raised.

4. They underplay the horrors of secular regimes such as those of Stalin and Hitler.

They gloss ove rthe limitations of science, which, after all give us only a part of life(Polkinhorne is a scientist) e.g a scientist sounds as though "he would substitute a series of case notes on senile dementia for King Lear'(p.27)

Worthy argumenst,though defensive-as they should be_. Let's try to follow this debate. At best Polkighorne has helped make agnosticism respectable.