Britain's most celebrated atheist recently described 'The God of the Old Testament' as 'arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction; jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.' (The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, Bantam Press (2006) p.31).
This is quite a list, and one could while away a wet weekend going through the OldTestament and compiling a list of references to serve as authorities for each of the items in such a tottering pile of offensive epithepts. But the thought of doing so no sooner occurs than one begins to wonder just how easy such a task would be. A word like 'infanticidal' has a precise meaning; but 'pestilential', though a useful one to apply in the context of the plagues which God visited on Egypt, requires some thought when applied in it's more extended sense of 'morally baneful or pernicious' (Shorter Oxford Dictionary (1973)).
But some of the other terms are more problematic. The word 'homophobic', for example, is usually employed when the user wants to convey the idea that the rejection or disapproval of homosexuality amounts to a kind of psychopathology, and its use invariably carries with it an unstated claim to moral superiority on the part of the user. If any word falls into the category of what A.J.Ayer used to call 'boo-words' , the word 'homophobic' does: it is a word of uncertain meaning, and with a confused etymology which punches well above it's weight. And if it has the same etymology as homosexual it would be a curious word to apply in any but a polytheistic context.
But Richard Dawkins is not actually engaged upon any real assessment of the theology of the Old Testament. He is simply asserting that the liberal and humane values which most of us hold have no place in it, and nobody in their right minds is going to argue with him. The point that Dawkins actually wants to establish is the mildly unscientific one that the values which we hold today are superior to those which were held by the writers of the Old Testament, and that the superiority of those values is, in itself, a good reason for preferring atheism to belief. It hardly needs to be said that the end of Dawkins' argument is contained in its premises, so it is hardly surprising when he reaches the conclusions that he does.
The key to the difference between this kind of thinking, and the the thinking that shapes the form and content of the Bible is that the people who lived and wrote the Bible not only believed in God as a real and superhuman presence in the world, but felt awe and reverence for Him, and not just awe, fear and reverence, but love. That this should be so is so may seem strange to a generation of Englishmen for whom God has so far retreated as to sometimes seem no more real than the peripheral radiation from the Big Bang, but the reader who gets to know The Book of Psalms cannot doubt it. For the Psalmist, the presence of God is a fact as overwhelming as the sun at its zenith on a cloudless day. The Psalmist hymns a God who is over all the earth, whose power is visible in the grandeur of nature, and whose supremacy is as absolute as His judgements are beyond question. At the same time, the Psalmist writes intimately of a God who is present in the movements of the human heart and mind. and who brings comfort, solace and refreshment to the humble, troubled or receptive soul.
Not so, not so with Mr.Dawkins who is like Coventry Patmore's 'dunghill fowl' and 'not in the least embarassed if he finds a diamond on his feeding-ground. He knows its exact value for him, and kicks it out of his way with a crow of exultation at the clearness of his own discernment.' (Aurea Dicta, LXV, from The Rod, The Root and the Flower, Coventry Patmore, George Bell (1895), p.21).
No comments:
Post a Comment