CO43. 1 April 2007
Copyright © 2007 by Kevin Sharpe. All rights reserved.
In process. An Op Ed piece
by
Kevin Sharpe
Graduate College, Union Institute & University,
Harris
ksharpe@ksharpe.com
www.ksharpe.com
ABSTRACT.
KEY WORDS.
CONTENTS.
Error! No table of contents entries found.
I am a theologian who agrees with what Richard Dawkins says about religion. Maybe I’m the only one.
In his recent book, …, Dawkins yet again has it in for religion. ….
Dawkins is right to say that religion…
Though a fellow don at
But McGrath is wrong. Yes, Dawkins is a bully. Yes, in the extreme nature of his positioning, he is easy to potshot.
The battle boils down to supernaturalism versus naturalism. Somehow a being called God exists beyond our world and interacts with it …. McGrath sticks adamantly with this premise. Dawkins zealously believes that such an idea lies at the root of the catastrophes and evils befalling the modern west and now the world. And he is largely right.
The solution, according to Dawkins, is to eschew supernaturalism in all of its forms. A liberal is as bad as a fundamentalist, he thinks. You can’t pander even in the slightest to supernaturalism.
I agree. Any form of supernaturalism accepts the existence of a being or world beyond ours and that connects to ours through mysterious means like miracles. No such world exists. Our world is still all there is. On the other hand, and Dawkins would agree with this, we can accept the mystery permeating every atom and personhood in our world without needing to postulate anything supernatural. We can be naturalists and yet accept that we don’t know and perhaps never will know everything about everything.
What Dawkins’ extreme position won’t consider is religious naturalism. Religious ideas need not be centered on a supernaturalism. All right, Dawkins doesn’t like the word ‘religion’ because of its history for starters, so let’s instead just talk about naturalism and see if it can provide the necessary things that religions ideally ought to. A moral code…. A sense of meaning and purpose to life…. Communal rituals…. Belonging….
Chiefly, one can use science to understand how we humans behave socially and individually. Happiness, for instance, …. We can learn from science how we might naturally better strive to attain our innate drive to be happier…. I would say this is a spiritual pursuit (a naturalistic spirituality)….
The need for religion won’t disappear because of railings from such people as Dawkins. But he may help dissolve supernaturalism with its eye (even if only one eye) on something beyond our world. Both our eyes need to be on our world here and now or there won’t be one for humans to live in for much longer. The challenge therefore is to help raise a publicly accepted naturalism that can fulfill the needs that religion used to and ought to, and that can give us the moral and visionary fiber to meet and overcome our challenges. We don’t have much time.
Kevin Sharpe’s most
recent books include Science of God…
and Usurping the Divine….