I have finished reading Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion.  Confession time: I enjoyed much of it finding Dawkins an exciting teacher. He opened for me awe- inspiring windows onto the world in his wonderful descriptions of life at all levels. He is witty and often tendentious.  He enjoys his criticism of the whole world of religion, and his enjoyment burbles through the writing.

Of course, I don't agree with his basic premise that religion is inevitably dangerous and unhealthy. Dawkins goes far beyond his colleague Daniel Dennett, who describes religion as an "attractive nuisance".   I have particular difficulty with Dawkins’ framing of “The God Hypothesis”, and of his accusation that the church abuses children by teaching the religion.  These two difficulties are especially evident in his treatment of the story of Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac.

Dawkins treats the difficult story of the sacrifice of Isaac as if the story were a moral exemplar.  He thinks that the reader is to understand that child sacrifice is a “good thing”. In this view God takes back in a vicious way life that he has given. God then is a masochistic lunatic.  This interpretation does not begin to take seriously what Holy Scripture means for believers, nor how stories work in general.

First, to take child sacrifice in this story as a model for our behaviour defies commonsense.  Any reader, hearing the appalling command that God makes to Abraham, following the sad and reluctant steps of father and son, sensing the lostness in the landscape and in the dénouement itself, knows that the author is relying on us to see the whole scenario as wrong, wrong, wrong! 

The story condemns child sacrifice totally.  It is intended in its telling to present the ultimate dilemma: to discern out of two goods which is the greatest – one’s faith or one's family.

The author assumes that the reader knows how Abraham and Isaac have got to this point.  Isaac is the child promised by God to Abraham and Sarah even when it was impossible; when the parents were far beyond the normal years of childbearing.  The test for Abraham is not to choose between God and life, but between the giver of life and the gift of life.  Of course, Abraham is an indulgent father.  Of course, Abraham loves Isaac to distraction.  Of course there are no situations in which Abraham should be asked to give up Isaac.  But when Isaac's life is placed against Abraham’s faith in the living God, the situation changes.  In that situation, and in that situation only, Abraham should choose the giver of life over the gift of life.  The logic, indeed commonsense, is the same as choosing the life of the hen over the life of the egg.  No contest, except that the value of Isaac is far greater than the comparative value of an egg! [i]

So how could Professor Dawkins have known not to interpret Genesis 22 so negatively?  I think in three ways:

1.     1. By taking into account the 3,000-year history of interpretation, of which my simplified contribution is but one insignificant part.

2.     2. With an intelligent appreciation that whether or not the event is historically true, Genesis 22 is written as a novel, not a newspaper report;

3.     3. With greater confidence in the ability of readers to discern a helpful meaning from a story by themselves.

Only breathtaking arrogance could come up with an interpretation radically different from the thousands that have come before.  It is tantamount to a scientist accusing all his predecessors of falsifying their results.  The story of the sacrifice of Isaac is a difficult story and its interpretation has been attempted many times before.  Sir Humphrey would deem coming at the interpretation as an individual as "courageous" indeed.  Even Richard Dawkins needs the insights of our predecessors to explore a story as rich, dark and complex as Genesis 22.

The books of the Bible, Holy Scripture, because they belong to a community lose their meaning outside the community that gave them authority.  In both the Jewish and Christian communities interpreters are trained -- and usually ordained in order to extend that community of interpretation through time.

 Second, a basic principle when approaching texts is to ask, what kind of text is this?  It is easy to see that the Bible is composed of many different genres and to mistake, for example, legislation for the narrative produces peculiar interpretations.   Genesis 22 is novelistic.  It set before us a problem of cosmic proportions, a limit in what human beings may be required to discern.  Dawkins’ mistake   begins with his misunderstanding of the role of God.  In this narrative God is not presented as a supernatural being speaking audibly into the ears of his followers as Dawkins frequently caricatures God. In this chapter God is not a person but a device for describing the dilemma before Abraham, just as God in chapter 1 of Job is intended similarly to externalise an internal challenge.          

 Thirdly, Dawkins consistently underestimates the ability of people to interpret the Bible and to discern what is helpful for them.  In the teaching they receive from priests and ministers most people do not fashion their behaviour on the first interpretation of a passage that comes into their minds.  Most people, striking an interpretation that seems too bizarre, will simply reject or ignore it.  There are no known examples of parents rushing out to sacrifice children as a result of hearing Genesis 22.               

This last point sheds light on his insistence that teaching children religion is child abuse.  Dawkins claims that naming children as "Christian children" or “Muslim children” or “Jewish children” should stop because the children in question are unable to make the decisions implied in being Christian, Muslim or Jewish. Surely, he complains, these are matters for adults only.  There is a modicum of truth in Dawkins’ criticism on this point. However, it is in practice extremely difficult to brainwash children into believing a religion.  Simply teaching them at school, or modelling it at home is unlikely in practice to have much effect. Children would need to be quarantined 24/7 with unending reminders of their identity as Christian, Hindu or Taoist for any effect to be noticeable.  In the real world, and Dawkins’ fears are unnecessary.

So, what do with Dawkins?  There are some in the Christian community would issue a fatwa against him -- if they were the right religion!    Their anger is white hot against an onslaught of argument that Christianity is false. A more positive response is a calm restatement of the reasons we believe. Only a rational reply will go anywhere near satisfying Dawkins.  Only a calm and sincere reply will do justice to the Lord who inspires us.