An Intelligent Person's Guide to Religion (Intelligent Person's Guide) (Hardcover)

In particular, the chapter on the very idea of life after death has struck me as easily the best short discussion of what might be involved in such continued - and transformed - existence in the hereafter. Cautious not to indulge in a fantasy of boring heavenly bliss, Haldane remains reticent about the precise shape of the life to come as Christians have looked forward to it over the centuries. Instead, he ponders the general conditions such life would have to fulfil to count (1) as recognisably human life; (2) as the life of a particular person identifiable here and now; and (3) as life worth anticipating and striving for. Unlike much other writing on the same subject, even of a more openly apologetic kind, Haldane's chapter also concentrates on how life after death is supposed to develop and perfect what we already care about most from our earthly perspective. In other words, Haldane argues that our life here on the one hand and our participation in God's own bliss after death on the other are best seen in terms of a single goal.

When it comes to Religion, there does, indeed, seem to be a lot of it about. In the introduction to this book, Professor Haldane tells us that there are over 20,000 different Christian denominations. Consequently his task of fulfilling the promise of the title by providing his intelligent readership with a "Guide" to it all is a daunting one.

Consider, for example, the obvious logical problem that, if two Religions contradict each other then at least one of them must be wrong. With 20,000 of them on the go, the field must be awash with error and confusion. However, this seems not to bother the Professor and the intelligent reader may begin to suspect that, for Haldane, it doesn't matter WHAT you believe, the important thing is THAT you believe. He tries to argue that the "Great Religions of the World" can be welded together into some kind of composite entity and placed on a pedestal looking down on misguided atheism which, or so he tells us, cannot explain the world as we see it.

Early on, he rejects Richard Dawkins’ evolutionary explanation of why we love our kids, find the opposite sex attractive and have to restrain our selfish genes when they urge us to do something about it. Instead he argues that morals and beauty can only be explained theistically and that any "disturbance of the passions" is better explained as a consequence of "man’s inherited fallenness" that can be traced back to the Garden of Eden.

Consequently, Professor Haldane’s approach is essentially fundamentalist but he is not above using scientific evidence when it suits him. He attempts to "strengthen" the "Irreducible complexity" argument ( explained by Micheal Behe in "Darwin’s Black Box". ) using the example of the bacterial flagellum. Unfortunately, we now know that the flagellum could well have evolved by co-option of the strikingly similar Type III secretory system and is therefore not irreducibly complex at all. Consequently, Haldane’s attempt to prove the existence of God falls at the first post.

On the subject of evil, the professor argues that evil is a "privation" or "absence of good" rather than something positive in itself. God is somehow constrained by a kind of "Polo Mint" model of the Universe where the hole in the centre represents evil but you can't blame God for it because he didn't create it. He just created the good minty bits around it.

There also seems to be some kind of "evil parity law" in the Professors thinking and this leads him to explain that while a sardine might not like being eaten by a mackerel, the process is necessary because it is good for the Mackerel. Similarly, a mutating cell may not be in its owners’ interest but it does do good from the perspective of the cancer cell community. Consequently, in a Polo Mint Universe, something good can only exist if a corresponding evil exists and existing evils have to be balanced by the delivery of at least some good in some remote corner of the world.

This is not the first time that the Professor has expressed these ideas and many of them can be found in the book "Atheism & Theism" that he co-authored with atheist Professor of Philosophy J. J. Smart where they are resoundingly refuted. For example, in the context of the above notions, Smart questions Polo Mint universes and evil parity laws. He says:

SMART: A&T2 P165: "But could not God have created a Universe with different laws, non-metabolising non-competitive spirits, all engaged in satisfying non-competitive activities such as pure mathematics or the production of poetry?"

So Professor Haldane’s guide to religion raises many questions about the nature of our world and he sets out his theistic philosophy that, for him, makes sense of it all. Consequently the Guide provides an excellent introduction to the theistic view of the great questions and I strongly recommend it to any intelligent person interested in the Atheist/Theist questions. However, it should be regarded as just an introduction to the subject, the main body of which can be found in the other two books mentioned here: The Selfish Gene" By Richard Dawkins and "Atheisim & Theism by John Haldane and Jack Smart.

For me, these three books raise many interesting questions and an understanding of the arguments presented provides many interesting perspectives. Professor Haldane’s lucid style presents the theistic case and the other two authors provide, not definitive answers, but clear signposts that indicate the direction in which the truth may well be found. Consequently, intelligent readers interested in religion and its relationship with the real world are well served by these three books and the Guide is a good place to start a quest for understanding.

Professor Haldane makes it clear where he stands and he urges us to take an interest in these matters. The book ends with the classical fundamentalist warning that you can’t get to heaven if you don’t believe.

Those of us who don’t control what we believe regard this as unjust. However, for us, Professor Haldane provides a very lucid statement of that which we don’t believe and this book is therefore of great value. The other two authors run away with these arguments and give excellent expositions as to why we should position the rational scientific perspective so much further up the moral high ground than Professor Haldane’s religious composite riddled as it must be with error and confusion.

Professor Smart sums the situation up neatly when he says that a metaphysical perspective should be "Plausible in the light of total science". In his guide, Professor Haldane sets out his theistic metaphysics and the other two books contain more that enough "Total Science" for intelligent readers to make a proper assessment of its plausibility.

It’s all great stuff.