Dawkins is right, Dawkins is wrong (part 1)

The Times recently carried a piece by Richard Dawkins about the response in some Christian quarters to the Haitian earthquake. His point is two-fold:

1) True Christian theology understands this as divine retribution for sin, not the blind action of geology, and this is typified by Rev Pat Robertson who has declared that this is punishment for the actions of the people in 1791
2) Mild-mannered faith-heads who dispute Rev Robertson's analysis are being hypocritical to their religion

The new and improved Richard Dawkins may have been through the PR machine since The God Delusion but he is still pointed enough to be thought provoking.

Here’s where Dawkins is right: Robertson’s views are loathsome. He puts himself in a position of authority, knowing the mind of God, and apparently revealing it to the world. (As an aside these public declarations of God’s decision-making process often closely resemble the political motivations of the one bringing the revelation).

In a general sense it is true that the suffering in all our lives is a result of our wrongdoings, but Dawkins proclaims:

Educated apologist, how dare you weep Christian tears, when your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering: suffering as payback for “sin” — or suffering as “atonement” for it

Christian theology is not a celebration of suffering. There is a seed of truth in what Dawkins says but as ever, by design or ignorance, he is mis-representative. What the Bible does do is expose suffering as the natural consequence of our selfishness. When we do something wrong it hurts people. The sacrifices of the Old Testament, like the scape-goat, were simply a lesson in consequences. The crucifixion of Jesus is the pinnacle of that teaching.

So how do natural disasters fit into this picture? Here are some points to consider

- Natural disasters are part of the fabric of creation. The earth’s history has been violent and tumultuous for the entire 4 billion years of it existence
- They are indiscriminatory, except in the few occasions where God has told us otherwise
- They illustrate how the whole framework of creation is built around our mortality
- There is a cost involved in creation, where beauty contrasts with horror, good contrasts with evil, light contrasts with dark
- It therefore seems logical that the universe was created in anticipation of human sin – which is the conscious decision to do wrong.

Part 2 will see how the mild-mannered faith-heads, rather than being hypocritical, are living out their calling.

On Genesis One... Part 2

To understand Genesis 1 you have to understand that this is a polemic against all the stories in the ancient world, about how the world came to be the way it is, which are all stories about multiplicities of gods, huge cast lists of deities, all of whom are fighting, squabbling, plotting each other’s downfall or hacking each other to pieces, and they come in endless shapes or forms. And of course Judaism gets rid of the entire cast list. All of a sudden you get this extraordinary radical idea, that there is just one God, and he has no company up there. The only company he has is this creature that he has created in love in his own image. Which is why Genesis 1 is so serene. God says ‘Let there be’ and there is.

Jonathan Sacks
Chief Rabbi, London

Y?

This post will be of keen interest to only around half of us. What is the history of the Y-chromosome?

It seems that they started off minding their own business being standard chromosomes but over the course of time 2 unique characteristics have developed.

Firstly, the Y chromosome has hardly any interaction with its partner, the X chromosome. (Normally recombination can happen between chromosome pairs).

Secondly, the number of active genes on the Y chromosome is greatly reduced – it is almost devoid of functional genes. Of the few genes that are there, most (unsurprisingly) are related to male development and fertility.

This process has happened repeatedly in different parts of the animal kingdom, and by looking at Y chromosomes at different stages in living species scientists are able to suggest a general mechanism.

The most primitive state is either hermaphroditism, or where the gender is determined by environmental factors – in other words there is no genetic influence and there is nothing particularly significant in the appearance of the chromosomes. Then there is a stage where small groups of genes start to influence gender, followed by semi-chromosomal selection, and finally a full blown chromosomal situation where XX = female, XY = male.

Studies suggest that the human Y-chromosome started keeping himself to himself around 300 million years ago. Now there are only 19 genes left on Y that have a corresponding partner on X.

The few areas where the sequence on a Y chromosome matches the sequence on an X can be thought of as ‘fossils’ that reveal the evolutionary history that goes before.

On nature

"Nature" said Thoreau in his journal, "is mythical and mystical always, and spends her whole genius on the least work."

The Creator, I would add, churns out the intricate texture of least works that is the world with a spendthrift genius and an extravagance of care. This is the point.

Pilgrim at tinker Creek, Annie Dillard

On Genesis One... Part 1

If we want to understand the exalted language of Genesis 1:1-2:3, we must accept it on its own terms. We fail if we attempt to degrade it to the level of a potted history.

Treating it as history demeans the Bible's teaching of creation and creates a conflict between it and the witness of creation itself. It also generate a lot of silly uncertainties and unaskable questions, like how were there day and night before the sun, was it night on the opposite side of the earth, how long were the evenings and mornings north of the Arctic Circle, and were the great lights really below the waters above.

If we read Genesis 1:1-2:3 with the respect that is due to it, we find that it is not just compatible with the geological (and biological) wonders we are fortunate enough to know and understand, but enriches their appreciation.

B Philp