God slot
Sir: Richard Dawkins is prone to overstate- ment and excessive simplification in his arguments against religious belief, but his case is not disposed of quite as easily as Paul Johnson would like (And another thing, 3 September). Mr Johnson remarks, truly, that many great scientists of the past have been devout. Indeed, even nowadays, doctrinal conservatism is probably more popular among scientists than among other intellec- tuals. But it is lame just to report this; the question addressed by Dawkins is not whether scientists can, psychologically speaking, combine faith with science, but whether it is rational to do so. Professor Dawkins sometimes indulges in silly rhetoric, but his main argument is that the truth of Darwinism makes God redundant as an explanation — not that natural selection and God are logically incompatible. Mr Johnson answers this merely by asserting God's exis- tence and accusing his opponents of 'materi- alism' and 'determinism' — doctrines which I have never seen Professor Dawkins defend, and which are certainly not essential to athe- ism. Nor are we offered any argument against these doctrines, in any case: we are only told that their truth would be undesir- able. This is no better than deciding that Christianity is false, on the ground that living a Christian life would be arduous.
Piers Benn
28 Grange Court, North Grange Mount, Leeds
Previous page
