Deep Truth in Belief and Dawkins

 

 

"Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose the one that their parents belong to. Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing compared to the matter of heredity. This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it. Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one." (Richard Dawkins)

 

A very good point, but one I myself addressed in writing in 2004, putting down on paper much of my ponderings on this matter over 20 years. And I am sure I am not the only one to see the same point about birth determining religion. C.S. Lewis (whom I mention) evidently had thought about it long before; incidentally, this is the reason why some fundamentalist sites with their "I am right, and all other ways are wrong" approach, have page after page on the  internet saying why they thought Lewis was so heretical and dangerous! I tend to go to them as a good and easy way of finding the distance between Lewis (and myself) and their position! Of course, the same argument applies to militant atheists and their children!

 

(Just as an aside, Dawkins seems very insular and narrow in his idea of what is claimed to be best. Only in the Church of England - and probably Oxford - would you find most of the items on his list! His Muslim and Buddhist readers will be quite bemused by it.)

 

Finally, while there is a certain arbitrariness about heredity, what is interesting is people who cross the borders between different worldviews and why they do that. With the element of choice - especially where there is little psychological or other coercion - the causation here is something interesting, including why atheists (not agnostics)  discard their atheism in later life (e.g. Until very recently, Anthony Flew, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Reading, was an outspoken and influential atheist. In 2004, in what was perhaps one of the most widely publicized conversions in recent times, he officially converted to a form of deism.), which is not something known to happen with belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy!

 

 

Deep Truth in Belief

It is clear that one's religious beliefs are to a very large extent contingent on the society and culture into which we are born. An example might be an Arab born in Saudi Arabia of Arab parents and brought up to be a devout Muslim. I would like to explore briefly this question: would the devout Muslim described above miss out on the salvation promised to those who accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah?

The answer to this question is, I think, very well put by C.S. Lewis in the last of his Narnia sequence of books, "The Last Battle". The story takes place in an alternative world, where there is Aslan, a Christlike figure manifest as a lion, and Tash, a vulture like anti-Aslan. The Narnians worship Alsan, while a neighbouring peoples, the Calormenes, worship Tash.

At one point in the story, Emeth, a young Calormene noble, who has been devoted all his life to Tash, meets with Aslan. Aslan explains to him that "if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted." Emeth knew of Aslan but did not accept him as Lord, worshipping Tash instead, and yet his heart is pure, so he is not excluded. As Alsan says: "Everything that you have done, you have done unto me." So it is the deeper reality behind the appearances that really matter.

This has also a basis in New Testament thinking.

In the opening of the Gospel of John, he talks of "the light that comes into the world and shines on all people", not just on some; and while the gospel talks of becoming "children of God", it is clear that this cannot be taken in a narrow pietistic fashion, but must involve the whole person. The critical text for this, again linking back to the theme of light is the one on judgement: "This is how the judgement works: the light has come into the world, but people love the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds are evil".

I would therefore take issue with the sort of thinking that ties down belief to a narrow form of words, and says that to find salvation, one must "accept Jesus as your saviour". I think that the formula "accept Jesus as their saviour" can be understood too narrowly. The Parable of the Sheep and Goats clearly does not do this. Jesus goes on to say; "When I was hungry did you feed me? When I was thirsty did you give me drink? When I was naked did you clothe me? When I was sick did you visit me? When I was in prison did you visit me? When I was stranger did you take me in and clothe me?" Jesus then states that anyone who has done these things for his brother did so for himself; he does not say that anyone who has does these and made a verbal declaration that they "accept Jesus as their saviour"; the actions (and the underlying motivation), in this example, is enough.

That is not to say that there is not a place for creeds, but they are professions of our faith, not instruments for heresy trials, and making judgements on other people, as they can so easily become.

As Christians, we believe that God is most clearly revealed in the person of Jesus, and it is here that we find the grounds for mission, of bringing people to see more clearly what may already be apparent in part before, despite the contradictions between their faiths and ours. As Max Warren put it so succinctly: "Our first task in approaching another people, another culture, another religion, is to take off our shoes, for the place we are approaching is holy. Else we may find ourselves treading on men's dreams. More serious still, we may forget that God was here."

I would make it clear that I am not to argue that all faiths are fundamentally the same, or that no faith is better than the other, both of which are dogmatic statements which trivialise belief; this sort of superficial thinking is intellectually dishonest . On the contrary, I think we must hold firm to our own beliefs, but be aware when we look at other faiths, that we may find God there in unexpected places, and that we may find an enrichment of our own faith in the conversation. We must also beware of bringing our own cultural background and smuggling this in, even unknowingly, with our beliefs. Above all, we must listen for God, and listen to others, and persuade them to listen to us.