Richard Dawkins is about as staunch of an atheist as there is. He sees religion and faith as destructive, and he actively seeks to convert people to atheism. Dawkins has called the Book of Mormon “an obvious fake” and Joseph Smith a “charlatan.”
Notwithstanding that, I believe it can be productive for Mormons to engage with scientifically minded people like Dawkins whenever we have the opportunity — not to convert, but simply to converse. Doing so might help us to recognize the unique aspects of our theology (and to think more seriously about their implications). And we might find that we have more in common than we thought.
Defining “God”
there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.
This definition, however, arguably does not encompass the Mormon view of God, at least as I understand it. The key terms are “supernatural” and “everything.”
Let’s tackle the term “everything” first. Most religions, including traditional Christianity, teach that God created all things — the universe, the laws of nature, the earth, and human beings — out of nothing (or ex nihilo, to use the technical phrase). These religions teach that God is the source of everything that exists. Humanity and earth life are entirely the creation of God.
This view is in sharp contrast to some Latter-day Saint teachings about God’s relationship to humans and the universe. Mormon scripture declares: “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. … The elements are [also] eternal” (D&C 93:29, 33). In other words, even though Mormons view God as our creator, Mormon scripture indicates that there is a part of us — our “intelligence” — that God did not create. Similarly, God did not create the “elements.” I don’t completely understand what Joseph Smith meant when he used the terms “intelligence” and “elements,” but the point appears to be that God worked with pre-existing materials in creating the universe and in creating humans. Thus, in Latter-day Saint theology, God is (at least arguably) not the source of all that is. God did not create “everything” in the universe.
There is also room to question whether the God of Mormonism is “supernatural.” Dawkins, of course, says that he does not believe in miracles, but he adds the caveat “except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand.” This sounds a lot to me like what Mormon Apostle James E. Talmage taught:
Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto.
“As Man[kind] Now Is, God Once Was”
Dawkins makes what I consider to be a valid objection to conventional notions of God:
[A]ny creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.
Later, Dawkins briefly discusses the possibility of a “superhuman designer.” He argues that if such a being were to exist:
it will most certainly not be a designer who just popped into existence, or who always existed. If (which I don’t believe for a moment) our universe was designed … the designer himself must be the end product of some kind of cumulative [process], perhaps a version of Darwinism in another universe.
God indeed can’t have just happened. If there are Gods in the universe, they must be the end product of slow incremental processes. If there are beings in the universe that we would treat as Gods, if we met them, … they very likely may be so much more advanced than us that we would worship them.
It seems to me that Dawkins’ perspective — “God … can’t have just happened” — isn’t all that different from what Joseph Smith taught in his King Follett discourse (emphasis added):
For I am going to tell you how God came to be God and what sort of a being He is. For we have imagined that God was God from the beginning of all eternity. I will refute that idea … [God] once was a man like one of us and … once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the flesh and like us. ...
You have got to learn how to make yourselves Gods in order to save yourselves and be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done — by going from a small capacity to a great capacity, from a small degree to another, from grace to grace….
“As God Now Is, Man[kind] May Be”
One of Dawkins’ most strenuous objections to religion is that it “teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding” the world. He is concerned that a faith grounded in the “God of the gaps” can impede scientific advancement. This seems like a reasonable concern. If gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God’s existence, then it seems that believers have a perverse incentive to work against scientific advancement. As Dawkins sarcastically describes it:
Here is the message that an imaginary “intelligent design theorist” might broadcast to scientists: “If you don’t understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries, for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. We need those glorious gaps as a last refuge for God.”
It is questionable, however, whether the “God of the gaps” is consistent with Mormonism. According to the “God of the gaps” argument, phenomena that cannot (at present) be explained scientifically are taken to be evidence of a supernatural being (God) who is not constrained by natural law. But for Mormons (like me) who agree with James Talmage that “the laws of nature are inviolable,” this argument doesn’t really make sense. Gaps in current scientific knowledge are simply evidence that “human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect.”
Moreover, Latter-day Saints have an audaciously hopeful theology that those gaps in human understanding will one day be filled. Whereas other religions see an “infinite qualitative difference” (as Søren Kierkegaard put it) between God and humans, Mormons see God and humans as being “all of one species, one race, one great family” (as Parley P. Pratt said). There is no pressure to “give up, and appeal to God” within Mormonism. For Mormons, God is not outside human categories of understanding, but is instead a template for human striving. As Elder Oaks has said, “Our theology begins with [H]eavenly [P]arents. Our highest aspiration is to be like [T]hem.”
Dawkins closes The God Delusion by saying:
I am thrilled to be alive at a time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits.
I think most Mormons would agree. Mormon scripture teaches both that “[t]he glory of God is intelligence” (D&C 93:36) and also that mankind has the potential to “receive[] of [God’s] fulness, and of his glory” (D&C 76:56). As a Mormon hymn declares, “There is no end to wisdom.”
At its core, Mormonism invites its adherents to a daunting process of self-transformation and learning that will last for eternity. There are no limits to what we can become.
No comments:
Post a Comment