On September 12, 2009, The Wall Street Journal published two responses to the question “Where does evolution leave God?”.[1] On September 21, The Australian republished this discussion framing it as a debate on their front page. As it turns out this was a misnomer. Rather than a debate, it was nothing more than two independent responses by Richard Dawkins and Karen Armstrong, both of whom already believe that evolution is virtually ipso facto.

In fact neither Dawkins or Armstrong appear to have been given the opportunity to respond to their opponents’ opening remarks - not that it would have been necessary though, as Armstrong spends half her time agreeing with Dawkins anyway.

The article begins, “We commissioned Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins to respond independently to the question “Where does evolution leave God?” Neither knew what the other would say. Here are the results.”

On Armstrong

Armstrong’s opening paragraph was virtually indistinguishable from Dawkins’ views and would make any atheistic philosopher proud.

Richard Dawkins has been right all along, of course—at least in one important respect. Evolution has indeed dealt a blow to the idea of a benign creator, literally conceived. It tells us that there is no Intelligence controlling the cosmos, and that life itself is the result of a blind process of natural selection, in which innumerable species failed to survive. The fossil record reveals a natural history of pain, death and racial extinction, so if there was a divine plan, it was cruel, callously prodigal and wasteful. Human beings were not the pinnacle of a purposeful creation; like everything else, they evolved by trial and error and God had no direct hand in their making. No wonder so many fundamentalist Christians find their faith shaken to the core.

By the way, just keep in mind that this is the theist !

Twice also in the article Armstrong focuses on certain events in the 17th century, as if these events were the turning point for Christians, who once regarded the scriptures as allegorical and their God as symbolic, now as brute facts driven by dogmatism against science and justified by an unparalleled literalistic approach to the scriptures. In her own words, “Christians began to read scripture with a literalness that is without parallel in religious history.”[2]

I can only imagine that Armstrong is not talking about doctrines pertaining to resurrections or the trinity, but instead she is referring to the way that Christians understood the history of the world as explained in Genesis. If so, her claim is seriously misleading. Historically, good biblical hermeneutics (e.g. historical-grammatical exegesis) recognises that scripture uses various written forms at different times and in different places, and must be interpreted in light of that context. This is as true today as it was prior to the 17th century and it is the same principle that we apply to anything we read, from a good sci-fi novel or a Robert Frost poem, to the morning newspaper or a technical journal article, or even other historical works from different time periods.

In his treatment of this topic Andrew Kulikovsky says, “Analysis of the historical development of theological motifs is … ‘conspicuously absent’ from most theological works and commentaries” and “… there has been a great deal of misrepresentation of the church’s historical views concerning the Genesis cosmogony, the days of creation, and the age of the earth.”[3] Armstrong in fact contributes to this misrepresentation with her implication concerning the position that Christians supposedly took only after the 17th century.

In fact, the apparent rise of what Armstrong calls literalism (a very improper use of the word in the context of this discussion but I’ll go with it for now at the risk of being misunderstood), the origin of which she appears to ascribe to Christian doctrines of the 17th century and beyond, can be found centuries – even millennia – prior to this and is representative of the view of many Christians since the beginning of Christianity.[4][5] Even Augustine, whom Armstrong uses as an example of the allegorical approach to scripture, still believed that the creation of the world took place in an instant – rather than the widely held six literal days – and defended a recent creation against the long-age views of his time.[6]

In his book review of The Genesis Debate (Edited by David G. Hagopian) Andrew Kulikovsky also says, “…probably the most valuable element of [Hall and Duncan's] contribution [to The Genesis Debate] is their summary of the history of interpretation of the Creation days, which clearly demonstrates that the literal day view was the dominant view up to the time of the scientific revolution.” Notice again, that this is completely opposite to the apparent claims of Armstrong!

Unfortunately that is not the worst part of Armstrong’s response. When she decides to part ways with the kinds of relatively straight-forward arguments that Dawkins offers, some of her comments can be politely describe as fluff.[7]

Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason but to help us live creatively with realities for which there are no easy solutions and find an interior haven of peace; today, however, many have opted for unsustainable certainty instead. But can we respond religiously to evolutionary theory? Can we use it to recover a more authentic notion of God?

Darwin made it clear once again that—as Maimonides, Avicenna, Aquinas and Eckhart had already pointed out—we cannot regard God simply as a divine personality, who single-handedly created the world. This could direct our attention away from the idols of certainty and back to the “God beyond God.” The best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry. Religion is not an exact science but a kind of art form that, like music or painting, introduces us to a mode of knowledge that is different from the purely rational and which cannot easily be put into words. At its best, it holds us in an attitude of wonder, which is, perhaps, not unlike the awe that Mr. Dawkins experiences—and has helped me to appreciate —when he contemplates the marvels of natural selection.

But what of the pain and waste that Darwin unveiled? All the major traditions insist that the faithful meditate on the ubiquitous suffering that is an inescapable part of life; because, if we do not acknowledge this uncomfortable fact, the compassion that lies at the heart of faith is impossible. The almost unbearable spectacle of the myriad species passing painfully into oblivion is not unlike some classic Buddhist meditations on the First Noble Truth (“Existence is suffering”), the indispensable prerequisite for the transcendent enlightenment that some call Nirvana—and others call God.

No doubt her affiliation with the Jesus Seminar and her pluralistic views of religion put her in good stead to make such a fluffy assessment? She is quite clearly not a Christian. I read and listen to a lot of Christian theists and apologists and after a while you develop a kind of sixth sense for those who actually take the Christian worldview seriously and those who do not. Based largely on the fluff, Armstrong appears to be one of the latter,[8][9] despite whatever protests she may make to the contrary.  This, as you will see, is obvious even to Dawkins.

On Dawkins

Dawkins response to this question on the other hand was quite clear. As a Christian and a serious skeptic of the evolutionary worldview that Dawkins champions, I could find many points on which to disagree with his contribution. However, I particularly liked the plain talking in his concluding remarks, which leave no-one with any doubt about his position.

Where does that leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear. Evolution is God’s redundancy notice, his pink slip. But we have to go further. A complex creative intelligence with nothing to do is not just redundant. A divine designer is all but ruled out by the consideration that he must at least [be] as complex as the entities he was wheeled out to explain. God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place. … The mainstream belief of the world’s peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They’ll be right. [emphasis mine]

Dawkins may not have had prior knowledge of Armstrong’s comments, but it appears that he had a very good idea of what to expect, because his comments appear tailored to address the kind of fluff espoused by “theists” like Armstrong – and I use that term very loosely because I wonder how the term should even apply to those who so completely embrace the evolutionary world view.

How should Christians respond

I don’t see why Christians should respond any different to an atheist on this question. In fact Dawkins’ closing remarks will do quite nicely, at least as a start. If you understand the two systems properly, you know that the two of them are mutually exclusive. If evolution is true, Christianity must be false, and any attempts to make the two agree is futile, resulting in theological and philosophical inconsistencies. Charles Spurgeon knew it. Dawkins knows it. Informed Christians know it. Armstrong doesn’t, or doesn’t seem to think it matters.

Summary

Obviously my critique has been much less about the claims of Dawkins and focused more on the way Armstrong attempted to answer the question. Why? Well given the question being discussed I knew exactly what to expect from Dawkins and he did not disappoint. He’s had a lot of practice articulating his view and does it well for the most part. I also think Dawkins is right in his assessment if the evolutionary world view is true. Theistic Evolutionist’s will, by definition, disagree.

But I have a particular intolerance for theological positions that attempt to make these systems agree (especially when it is laced with postmodern language) and that is why I spent so much time analysing how Armstrong chose to answer this question. By the end of it I really thought she just should not have bothered. There was very little substance in there for serious thinkers. That does not mean that some people will not find her comments appealing - that is, once they figure out exactly what it is they want her words to mean? But I think Christians who care about the truth and do not simply want their ears tickled,[10] will quickly realise they have very little in common with Armstrong’s views and that is probably because Armstrong herself is not a Christian.

That The Australian framed this as a debate should embarrass them. But I really wish they would not give Karen Armstrong further opportunities to muddy the waters of Christian theism. There are others who are more capable of bringing clarity to this topic than Armstrong,[1] and if these two responses are weighed on those merits, Dawkins did a much better job of clarifying his position – even if he is still woefully wrong (not to mention lost).

But what if we reverse the question; What if we Christians who hold the scriptures in the highest regard were to ponder this instead: ”Where does God leave evolution?” Is the engine room of evolution - mutations and natural selection (and the evolutionary biologists that rely on such dogma) – now “out of a job”? See, the question is never phrased that way because God is seen as an unreal subjective concept that must conform to the truth of evolution.  But rather, did Jesus not say, I am the way and the truth and the life? What then are the implications for evolution if Christ speaks the truth; if God’s revelation is true? Should we not answer as Spurgeon did – “If God’s Word be true, evolution is a lie.”

References and Notes

  1. The best response I have heard by a Christian on this topic is by John Woodmorappe, upon which the title of this post is based. His response is not so much concerned with the moral implications of evolution, but instead his brief essay deals largely with the nonsensical idea of God-guided evolution. I understand also that Dinesh D’Souza is quite a formidable defender of Christianity and a Theistic Evolutionist to boot. However I have not had enough exposure to his views to know how he might answer this question.
  2. Yeah, “religious history” … as opposed to real history, apparently? The juxtaposition of these two words imply that the history recorded in the Bible is of no more significance to Armstrong than the history of the universe according to Star Wars (i.e. George Lucas), the history of Middle Earth according to Tolkien, or the history of Midkemia according to Feist. However when talking about evolutionary history, evolution is an apparent redundancy!
  3. Kulikovsky, Andrew S., Creation, Fall, Restoration: A Biblical Theology of Creation, (Mentor, Scotland, 2009), p.59
  4. Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Compromise, (Master Books, Arizona, 2004), Chapter 3 “The History of Interpretation of Genesis 1-11″, p.107-139
  5. Much of the first paragraph (below) is deduced from page 67 of Kulikovsky’s new book, ‘Creation, Fall, Restoration’:
    The reason Armstrong believes that “literalism” emerged from the 17th century is because there was a major philosophical shift occurring in the church throughout this period. Principles and ideas external to Scripture, especially Greek philosophy, had an increasing influence on both the church and society as a whole. So in the 17th century church creeds began to include and uphold six literal creation days, because many others in the church influenced by the philosophies of men began to formulate alternative interpretations in light of this new “evidence” for the great antiquity of the earth. Episcopius’ (1586-1643) Gap Theory for example, proposed a long period of time passing between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.
    It is quite a normal thing to expect creeds be developed to defend and make clear what was already accepted. The Nicene creed (325AD) for example defended the nature of Christ against Arius, who declared that Jesus was a created being, which was also an attack on the Trinity. But as is quite obvious from Scripture and other ancient writings, Christians did not suddenly begin believing this in the 4th century. Rather, creeds act as yardsticks to correct beliefs. The same thing was happening in the 17th century with regard to the “literalism” that Armstrong thinks appears without precedence.
  6. Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Compromise, (Master Books, Arizona, 2004), Chapter 3 “The History of Interpretation of Genesis 1-11″, p.118-119
  7. Similarly, what I call fluff, Albert Mohler calls “elegant nonsense”. See his review of the same article here.
  8. In a review of Karen Armstrong’s book The Bible: A Biography, Alexander Carpenter quotes her as saying, “It doesn’t really matter what you believe as long as it leads you to practical compassion.”
  9. I also place Peter Sellick in this category, although his language is slightly less “fluffy”. See my review of his 2005 article “Intelligent Design – Damaging Good Science and Good Theology” [note: this is a link to my old website. I will be reviewing this article and reposting on Aristophrenium in the near future, at which point the old article will be removed and this link will be updated]
  10. “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires” – 2 Timothy 4:3 [NASB]

Other related Aristophrenium articles: