I have not seen the television programme in which Richard Dawkins expresses his views on religion in general and Christianity in particular, but I am led to believe they portray him as aggressive and lacking any scientific rigour or method in developing his arguments.

By chance, I had recently visited a real live book shop and, whilst browsing the 'popular science' for a copy of Does Anything Eat Wasps? happened across a book called Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life which sets out to tackle precisely these ideas.

It's a fairly quick read - took me about 3 hours - but unless you have a basic knowledge of scientific and theological ideas and language might not be so easy.  Interesting really, since McGrath has a brief excursus into the role of language in understanding each other's worlds.  In terms of McGrath's target audience I am less sure: almost everyone has heard of Newton and Darwin, probably most have heard of Mendel or even Thomas Aquinas, but who outside theology knows of Tertullian and Paley?  Fortunately McGrath does explain the key aspects of everything he refers to.

I guess the thrust of McGrath's arguments is as follows:

1. Dawkins is an eminent scientist the value of whose work in his field is unquestioned.  Indeed McGrath has been an avid reader and admirer of Dawkins' work for over twenty five years
2. Acceptance of the theory of evolution does not automatically preclude belief in the concept of God.  It is possible to accept evolution and hold theistic, agnostic or athesistic views. 
3. Science is always provisional and even if something currently seems absolutely convincing, it may one day turn out to be wrong (e.g. earth at the centre of the universe): this does not undermine the integrity of the scientists but should engender an appropriate humility.  [I liked this as I've argued this many times with both theologians and scientists!]
4. Science does not assign value judgements: things 'are' they are not 'good' or 'bad'; moral judgement is not part of the scientific method.  Dawkins is assigning a value judgement to religious belief, not a scientific one.  As a reuslt his arguments (and methods) are not consistent with his scientific approach.  Further, he makes unreasonable leaps in his arguments: e.g. people with religious faith do bad things, hence religion is bad.  The flaws in this logic are obvious - it is easy to show that people with and without religious faith do things that are good, bad or indifferent - this not not imply that religion is necessarily any of these.
5. The 'meme' theory is questioned - McGarth is not convinced by it and notes that it survives more in popular culture than in any form of science.  The concept of religion as a 'bad meme' or a 'virus' is not scientific - but maybe Dawkins' own memes force him to this view (Although a logical consequence of Dawkins' views, I also detect a little bit of tongue in cheek here!)

The book is good humoured and shows an immense respect for Dawkins as a scientist.  Probably my main criticism is the use of American spellings throughout, but that's just my prejudice showing through.

Anyway, I think I should leave the last word to Mcgrath himself (Dawkins' God p189-9)

I'm sure that we have much to learn by debating with each other, graciously and accurately.  The questions of whether there is a God, and what that God might be like, has not - despite the predictions of overconfident Darwinians - gone away since Darwin, and remains of major intellectual and personal importance.  Some minds on both sides of the argument may be closed; the evidence and the debate however are not.  Scientists and theologians have so much to learn from each other. Listening to each other, we might hear the galaxies sing [a quote from Dawkins book Unweaving the Rainbow].  Or even the heavens declaring the glory of the Lord (Psalm 19.1)   

Last night I spent three hours putting together a list of the hymns and songs, along with authors and copyright details, that had been used on the service sheets I've produced in the last six months so that my CCL records person could update the computerised returns.  I am not sure that all this data is required to enable the task to be done or why the service sheets themselves don't give enough information, but there you are, this is the place it is with its own delightful quirks!

I pride myself on not repeating hymns or songs too often, and keep my own records of what we sing and when.  A typical Sunday will use between 8 and 10 items, so the six month list was rather long.  I almost envied the churches with worship groups have a repertoire of six songs (all using the same three chords! (miaow)) whose CCL returns must be very simple to do.  I even wondered if Isaac Marlow had a point when he said we should sing inwardly in our hearts and, since he opposed pre-printed forms, therefore negating the whole business.

This year I'll just have to be more disciplined and match my own records to the CCL person's needs so that I can simply give her a photocopy of my own sheets (which I update weekly) every month or so.  At least this week with a united service for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity I can put an SEP  (someone else's problem) field around it and it'll therefore go away. 

Recently I was looking for hymns for our Covenant aservice and using the Word 'find' tool on the Songs of Fellowship .rtf files withthe word 'promise.'  In book 3 I found the following hymn which I think is really beautiful.  We sang it to Blaenwern rather than trying to learn the original tune - the advantage of this hymn is that the 87.87D metre is such that many well known tunes can be used.  Apologies for the formatting - I don't speak html so I can't seem to get it to do what I want and had to use a tilda as a verse separator - line spacing I could not get it to do without completely re-typing it! See what you think:

Seen in every human birth;

You have planned each new beginning:

Who could hope for greater worth?

Hear our prayer for those we cherish,

Claim our children as Your own:

In the fertile ground of childhood

May eternal seed be sown.

~

Burning in the years of youth:

Strength to face tomorrow's challenge,

Zest for life and zeal for truth.

In the choice of friends and partners,

When ideas and values form,

May the message of Your kingdom

Be the guide, the goal, the norm.

~

Lord, we thank You for the harvest

Of the settled, middle years:

Times when work and home can prosper,

When life's richest fruit appears;

But when illness, stress and hardship

Fill so many days with dread,

May Your love renew the vision

Of a clearer road ahead.

~

Lord, we thank You for the beauty

Of a heart at last mature:

Crowned with peace and rich in wisdom,

Well-respected and secure;

But to those who face the twilight

Frail, bewildered, lacking friends,

Lord, confirm Your gracious offer:

Perfect life which never ends.

Martin E Leckebusch © Kevin Mayhew 1999

Today was an EMBA/Urban Expression/Anabaptist Network sort of study day thingy which had the advantage that you didn't need to book and it was donations only!  It was a good day, lots of interesting stories and things to which I could cheerfully add a hearty 'AMEN' - and some of which would cause the hair of my church members to curl or fall out!  We also discovered that, at least on a crude estimate, outside London EMBA has the highest proportion of small churches (<40 members) and that most of these are declining rapidly.  It was, therefore, quite challenging.

On the positive side, I feel that my little congregation is beginning to engage in mission, but on the negative that they have yet to grasp that we are in an age of post-everything.  As my previous posts suggest, many are living a pre-1950 worldview despite their centrally heated houses, DVD players and mobile phones.

What might an 'emerging church' look like in this context?  How do we seriously embrace all that is good and worthwhile from experiments such as Urban Expression without scaring away all the old timers?  Or do I just let them go?  Perhaps this feels a little raw as I've just had two "notes through the door" in as many days, to say nothing of the looks I got at the Church meeting this week when we brought a suggestion from the diaconate about involvement in mission with our ecumenical friends.

One of my deacons who uses 'spiritual warfare' language a lot sees objections and defections as a sign we're doing the right thing. It's a bit simplistic but sort of reassuring that he thinks I/we are going the right way.

Living with contradiction is part of being a follower of Jesus, taking risks and risking failure is central to discipleship and mission.  I will continue to ponder what might be the appropriate ways for my congregation to continue our exilic training and try to discern useful principles from the anabaptists of old and the Urban Expressions of our own age.  In the meantime, how do I convince my folk to have tea after services never mind donuts?!

I have just got back from my NAM conference with some new verbs - borrowed, invented and remembered.  So here they are: -

To Nicodemus: largely self evident, seemingly emerging from South Africa; the act of questioning, seeking by night, wondering and maybe even missing the point...

To Brian: see earlier post; to discover or make connections, particularly between people but also between ideas.

To Judith (usually passive, one is Judithed): courtesy of a colleague; to be taken at great speed and as a result feel exhausted

To SCamble (usually passive, one is SCambled): from my industry days, relating to one Mr S Campbell; to have one's faculties reduced to the consistency of scrambled egg (quite a poetic, almost onomatopaeoic verb)

This is is definitley not erudite, but a couple of days of Nicodemusing and Brianing, neither of which were Judithing or SCambling, provided a welcome change from routine.

PS I don't think I want to know how the verb 'to Catriona' might be defined!!