In general, I don’t think that Keith Ward succeeds in being truly neutral and objective when presenting Christianity as a whole. A good example of his bias showing through comes from his description of Christian views about the development of the universe generally and life specifically:
- “It is, I think, very hard not to see this as a purposive process, a process designed from the first to produce moral and rational consciousness. Such consciousness may exist in many parts of the universe, and they may take many different physical forms. But we only know of them on this planet, in the form of human beings.”
Ward does not write that “Christians see this as a purposive process” nor does he say “theist see this as a purposive process.” Those would be appropriate to a neutral and academic introduction to Christianity. Instead, he makes a much more general claim which — not coincidentally — figures into many arguments used by apologists to prove the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. Thus, what he actually writes is far more appropriate to an work of apologetics trying to defend Christianity.
In reality, it’s not at all difficult to not see the development of the universe as not being purposive — and, even if you do, it’s not at all difficult to see that purposive development as being completely unrelated to the existence of a species like our own. Pattern-seeking animals like us readily see “purpose” where none exists; egotistical animals like us readily see ourselves as the whole reason for those patterns in the first place.
Just before Ward wrote the above, he had written that we humans “are certainly not the center of the universe, which is a vast cosmos of a billion galaxies and billions of stars.” It seems, however, that he only meant this in a literal manner rather than also a metaphorical one — that, I think, is part of his error.
It is egotism to think that our big brains mean that we are the purpose of the universe. There are equally good (if not better) reasons to think that ants or other insects are the “purpose“ and we are merely a by-product — assuming, of course, that one can reasonably identify “purpose” in the universe at all, a dubious proposition at best.
Christianity: A Short Introduction, by Keith Ward
All in all, though, Ward’s biases tend to be subtle and don’t usually detract from the excellent presentation of the cacophony of Christian beliefs and doctrines. You shouldn’t use this as your only introduction to Christianity, because a good historical overview is necessary, and you shouldn’t use this without keeping Ward’s biases clearly in mind. That said, however, you should use it if you want a good understanding of the ways in which Christians have taken radically different perspectives on some very key issues.
« Back...
