The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, declared that the crime of rape did not reach the moral depravity of murder because of the fundamental difference between a crime that ends a life and one that does not.  To quote:

Consistent with evolving standards of decency and the teachings of our precedents we conclude that, in determining whether the death penalty is excessive, there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other. The latter crimes may be devastating in their harm, as here, but “in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public,” Coker, 433 U. S., at 598 (plurality opinion), they cannot be compared to murder in their “severity and irrevocability.”

Similarly, in his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito labels the crime of child rape as “the epitome of moral depravity” and thus punishable by death:

Nor is this case comparable to Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782 (1982), in which the Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty where the defendant participated in a robbery during which a murder was committed but did not personally intend for lethal force to be used. I have no doubt that, under the prevailing standards of our society, robbery, the crime that the petitioner in Enmund intended to commit, does not evidence the same degree of moral depravity as the brutal rape of a young child. Indeed, I have little doubt that, in the eyes of ordinary Americans, the very worst child rapists—predators who seek out and inflict serious physical and emotional injury on defenseless young children—are the epitome of moral depravity.

Arguing for the death penalty based on the moral depravity of the criminal is a very compelling argument.  (Note that Alito’s dissent applies the term “epitome of moral depravity” to the perpetrator, not the crime.)  The idea of child rape rightly raises a revulsion in our minds when we consider it.  There is no denying that such acts must be punished, and severely.

Yet, when we approach this argument from a Christian perspective it becomes significantly less compelling.  To understand this we must recognize the concept of the fall of man.  The entirety of Christianity (meaning mainstream Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox), has embraced some version of this doctrine.  For those unfamiliar, it is rooted in the disobedience of man after creation.  In Genesis 3:14, God declares the effects of this fall:

So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

While the implications of such a curse are not obvious from this verse, they are detailed more thouroughly both in the New and Old testaments.  Isaiah 53:6:

We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

And Romans 3:23:

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

The exact ramifications of this idea for human salvation have been hashed out over centuries in the Pelagian heresy and other disputes. While various Church groups may disagree on the exact doctrine of original sin, the idea of fallen humanity has persisted.  Clearly every human is sinful in a Christan worldview.

Now we return to the argument of exceptional moral depravity as a reason for the use of the death penalty.  With the idea of fallen humanity in mind, we are forced, as Christians, to question our ability to label any person as more morally depraved than another.  Indeed, we must recognize that we are as morally depraved as the child rapist.

This is not an easy idea to come to terms with.  It feels so evident that there is clearly some difference, however small, between us and such an individual.  At the very least, he or she carried through on their depravity and we did not.  The same feeling is evidenced in references to particularly evil people, such as Hitler, as having “a special place in hell.”  They are worse than we are.

Yet Matthew 5:21-22 reminds us:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother without cause will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Or, even more powerfully put in verse 28:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Perfection is a position that once lost cannot be regained.  Sin is a condition that once considered has occurred.  There is no distinction in depravity here, there is only perfect and not perfect.  To the Christian there are no classes of sinners.  You and I are just as deserving of eternal separation from God as Hitler is.  (And what will we do if we get to heaven and discover that Hitler is there?  His actions were in no way good, yet we cannot deny the possibility of salvation because of them; to do so would be to deny the radical power of God’s grace.)

Prescribing death for an individual based on moral depravity is extremely problematic.   As Christians we are all equally depraved; to sentence one person to death based on this depravity is to sentence everyone to death.

(Note: The idea expressed here is not intended to deny the death penalty entirely.  There may be other arguments for the death penalty which can be justified, such as crime deterrence or the state’s right to violence. A complete consideration of the issue is more than I have the capacity to engage tonight, if ever.)

There is one point where Dawkins goes wrong, however. When disproving the link between Darwinism and Nazism, Dawkins brings up the connection between Nazism and Christianity. Here he makes the same mistake that “Mr J” made: condemning a belief because radical people or ideas drew upon that belief.  He even makes this mistake using the same radicals as “Mr J,” the Nazis.  Dawkins should know better than to do this.

Specifically he says:

Hitler had a lot of support in Germany. His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians. Many were Lutheran, and many (like Hitler himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were atheists, and whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist. It is sometimes said that Hitler only pretended to be Catholic, in order to win the Church’s support for his regime. In this he was very largely successful. So, whether or not Hitler was himself a true Catholic (as he often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened. And Hitler himself used religion to justify his anti-Semitism.

Here Dawkins is playing with the facts, but not presenting the whole picture.  We can look at any religion or culture in this world—Christianity, Islam or Buddhism; American, Japanese, or German; religious or atheist—and find people who have done horrible things.  That does not mean the core of the system they self-identify with is the cause of their atrocities.

Second, the argument that very few were atheists means nothing for two reasons.  First, it says nothing about the percentage of atheists in the general population.  Second, and related, is the fact that Germany was a historically Christian country.  Therefore many people who self-identified as Christians may not have held firmly to the tradition.

Dawkins then states that “the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened.”  This is very true in one sense.  Both the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church often stood by and allowed anti-Semitism to continue unchecked.  In so doing they implicated themselves with the regime.  This does not mean, however, that their beliefs caused the regime’s actions.

Finally, Dawkins ignores the strong responses of many Christians during the Nazi era.  One very prominent example is, of course, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church.  When it comes to defining the core of Christianity, examples such as Bonhoeffer must hold as much weight as the fact that Hitler nominally identified himself as Catholic.

Dawkins then continues by expanding to Christianity as a whole:

Anti-Semitism has been rife in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany. The Roman Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as “Christ-killers”. While, as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that “All Jews should be driven from Germany.”

Again Dawkins is providing several true facts outside of their proper context.  He ignores the entire socio-cultural context surrounding European anti-Judaism. Note the distinction between anti-Judaism, which was a cultural prejudice prevalent during the ninteenth century and anti-Semitism, a racial prejudice which arose around the time of the Nazis.  Dawkins makes no mention of any such distinction.

On the whole, Dawkins’ open letter is a great response to “Mr J.”  Dawkins should not, however, have taken this chance to put in a jibe at Christianity.  By doing so he both propogated false information and weakened his own argument by falling prey to the same error as “Mr J.”

1. The Creation: Mythology
2. The Creation: History
3. The Creation: Evolutionary Theology
4. The Creation: Creation vs. Evolution

To illustrate this point, Wheaton College is currently holding its 2008 Science Symposium, entitled “String Theory and the Multiverse: Philosophical and Theological Implications.” Yesterday I attended lectures by Dr. Gerald Cleaver, a theoretical physicist, and Dr. Don Page, who studied under and lived with Stephen Hawking. The lectures covered the basics of string theory/M-theory and how it relates to the idea of the multiverse. Then they addressed the ideas of the multiverse as related to the Christian faith, using such concepts as Anselm’s Ontological Argument to consider its implications.

As I see it, the difficulties between Christianity (or religion more generally) and science arise from three areas:

1. Anti-theistic or anti-Christian attacks by non-Christian scientists.
2. The concept of the “God of the gaps.”
3. The problem of theological/Biblical integration.

Anti-Christian Attacks

The first of these, anti-Christian attacks by non-Christian scientists, is of less importance. While such attacks do happen (Dawkins is a perfect example), they are not of particular concern for several reasons:

• Faith lies outside of the realm of science and thus is not subject to scientific testing. (More on this later.)
• Such attacks exhibit a gross misunderstanding of Christianity.
• There is nothing to be done about them.

“The God of the Gaps”

The second of these areas is far more problematic. The idea of the “God of the gaps” has plagued scientific and religious thinkers since ancient times. The most notable example is, of course, Galileo, who was denounced by the Roman Catholic Church for proclaiming a heliocentric view of the solar system. The Church did not like this because it removed the Earth and humanity, God’s creations, from the center. (Ironically, the trailer for Expelled says that religious ideas about creation would have been accepted in Galileo’s day. In Galileo’s day, however, it was the religious establishment that was opposing scientific ideas.)

There are several problems with the idea of the “God of the gaps.” First, it means that God is diminished each time a new scientific theory is confirmed. Suddenly God is no longer in charge of putting the Earth at the center of the universe or God is no longer required to create us as humans specifically. When God’s power is linked to human understanding, we fail to understand God’s power.

Second, it places Christianity in the awkward position of having to argue against good science. Take evolution as an example. Within the scientific community there is virtually complete consensus on the theory of evolution, though not on the actual origins of life. If you want more information, read Science, Evolution, and Creationism, published by the National Academy of Sciences. Yet Christians, especially within America, are consistently fighting the idea because they do not wish to see God diminished again. This leads to two things:

1. It makes Christians look stupid because they have to argue against good science.
2. It makes non-Christians, and especially scientists, upset with Christians. (In fact, the book by NAS mentioned above is somewhat impressive in that it goes out of its way to make the point that religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive and that it is not arguing against Christianity.)

Finally, the idea of “the God of the gaps” displays a lack of faith in the power of God. Why is there any reason that God should be required to hold together the “gaps” in the universe or scientific knowledge, rather than to create laws and mechanisms like he did for everything else? It seems more likely that we simply haven’t discovered the laws or mechanisms yet, the discovery of which is the realm of science. To assume God is bound by our knowledge of the universe is somewhat hubristic.

Theological Integration

The final problem is that of theological/Biblical integration. Here Christians are demanding more out of science than it can provide because they misunderstand the role of science.

Before I go any farther, let me say that I find skepticism of science because of the Bible to be a valid reason for not agreeing with scientific findings. In the case of our creation, the Bible clearly does not say anything about evolution. For myself, I have managed to get past the literal creation stories, no matter how at the moment, to accept scientific findings. I cannot, however, fault another Christian who does not, for they are reading the Word of God. In this, there are two things to remember:

1. For Christians who do not accept science, there is no call to go around proclaiming that all science is therefore wrong. We may not agree, but that does not discredit the whole scientific process.
2. For Christians who do accept science, it is slightly far fetched to go reading scientific theories on to the Bible, as if evidence of every idea can be found within it.

After that detour, let us continue with the concept of theological integration. The first point here is that science and faith are different realms. The goal of science is to investigate the world around us, not to prove faith. In fact, by the very definition of faith, it cannot be proved. Demanding that science prove (or disprove) God will not get anyone anywhere. Other arguments about the existence of God, whether moral, philosophical, or logical, will get us much farther than science.

The second thing to be said under theological or Biblical integration is that science need not necessarily provide a deep connection to our understanding of Christianity. When scientists speak of Christianity and science, they speak of the beauty of God’s creation and the call to seek truth. This should be enough for us. We don’t demand that other occupations, whether carpentry or banking, provide explicit integration with the Bible, so why science? In fact, Dorothy Sayers gets it right in the chapter “Why Work?” in her book Creed or Chaos when she reminds us that it does not matter if the work is explicitly Christian. What matters is that we do the work well. When it comes to science, then, let us not seek to push Christianity through it, but rather to engage in good science that we may cast a good light on Christianity.

To Conclude

The science vs. Christianity debate is not something that we should be engaging in. There is no reason why science should be set up as an enemy of the Church. Indeed, it is as much our fault that science has come to be seen opposite Christianity as it is the fault of scientists. Instead of placing the two in opposition, Christians should seek to further science in an effort to understand the universe (or multiverse) in which God has created us.