The Atheist Delusion: Answering Richard Dawkins
By Greg Taylor
There is no more esteemed debunker and denouncer of all
things religious than British intellectual Richard Dawkins. In his latest book,
The God Delusion, Dawkins makes a frontal assault on not just religious
fundamentalism, but religion in general. To quote the name of the accompanying
television series, Dawkins appears to see it as “the root of all evil.”
There is much truth in Dawkins’ criticism. One only has to
look at human tragedies occurring around the world to see the effects of
unquestioning faith and religious righteousness. And not just in recent years;
consider the Albigensian Crusade, the witch-hunts of the Middle Ages, right up
to the troubles in Northern Ireland. Belief in a dogma, without doubting the
actions that arise out of that faith, can be the foundation upon which horrors
grow. Millions have died fighting for, and against, particular religious ideas.
Dawkins is a gifted thinker, and some of his questions and insights about
religion are certainly worthy of contemplation. For instance, Dawkins queries
the righteousness of any particular religion in the following passage:
If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly
likely that it is the same faith as your parents and grandparents had. No doubt
soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit.
But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the
accident of birth. The convictions that you so passionately believe would have
been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if
only you had happened to be born in a different place.
Also insightful is his concern for political representation.
In The God Delusion, Dawkins points out that religious groups can form powerful
lobbies, able to effect large-scale changes in government policy which rule all
of our lives. One of the more prominent examples is the Bush administration’s
stance on stem cell research, a strand of science which perhaps offers the most
profound steps forward in medicine for decades (suggested as a possible
treatment for spinal injury paralysis, Parkinson’s Disease and Alzheimer’s). Current
US leaders rely far too heavily on ‘heartland’ support by the large Christian
voting blocks to allow research into stem cells – even if the arguments against
seem to be at best scare campaigns based on faulty logic. This situation, in
which non-believers like Dawkins are at the ‘democratic’ mercy of religious
groups able to exert political pressure, must be a particularly troubling one
for him – and I must confess, it is to me as well.
The Most Dangerous Delusion
However, in his attacks on all religions, regardless of
individual philosophies, as being the source of all ills in the world, Dawkins
goes too far – and it is astounding that someone of his obvious intellect could
err so badly. Religious writer John Cornwell summed up the major problem with
Dawkins’ vitriolic stance towards religion in these words:
If there is a dangerous delusion in the world, it is not so
much moderate religion, as Dawkins would have it, but fundamentalism in all its
forms – ideological, scientific and religious – as the imposition of dogma that
brooks neither doubt nor respect for disagreement.
Cornwell’s comment is incisive. Dawkins’ attack singles out
the very worst elements of religion – fundamentalist, non-thinking faith, and
intolerance of others outside the ‘flock’ – while ignoring the large-scale
charity work carried out by many religions, both large and small, as well as
the profound morality teachings found in each, from the parables of Jesus
Christ through to the Buddhist doctrine of protecting all life.
Professor of English Literature Terry Eagleton, himself no
defender of fundamentalist religion, was quick to point out this massive flaw
in The God Delusion.
“In a book of almost
400 pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit
has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it
is empirically false,” Eagleton wrote. “The countless millions who have devoted
their lives selflessly to the service of others in the name of Christ or Buddha
or Allah are wiped from human history – and this by a self-appointed crusader
against bigotry.”
So too, in characterising religious believers as
“faith-heads” (his words), gullible believers of nonsensical stories, does
Dawkins paint with a broad and superficial brush. While it is true that most
believers grow within their religion of birth, many eventually connect with a
more universal sense of deity, rather than continuing with a blind faith in the
particular godly identity defined by their religion. Dawkins also does not
delve into the worldwide mystical traditions closely tied to each religion,
such as the Jewish Kabbalah, Islamic Sufism, and Hindu teachings of yoga, all
of which speak more to a personal, wondrous gnosis than the blind worship of an
autocratic, vengeful god that Richard Dawkins appears to take umbrage with.
Dawkins, in his inimitable style, once eloquently asked, “If
there is only one Creator who made the tiger and the lamb, the cheetah and the
gazelle, what is He playing at? Is he a sadist who enjoys spectator blood
sports?… Is He manoeuvring to maximise David Attenborough’s television
ratings?” While on the surface it is a humorous and insightful quote, it also
betrays the lack of depth to Dawkins’ own conception of deity. In Eagleton’s
words, “He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at
least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak
to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if
Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms.”
Indeed, the ‘God’ that Dawkins argues against is actually
the ‘non-God’ of the unintelligent “faith-heads” he so despises – and one can
only be struck by the ridiculous realisation that the acerbic Oxford professor,
one of the intellectual giants of our time, is engaging religion on the same
philosophical level as ‘Bubba’ from the deep South of the United States of
America. Dawkins is directing his antipathy toward the white-bearded
grandfather figure sitting in the sky, patiently listening to all our prayers
on his intercessory answering machine – the same ‘God’ that many of us left
behind with our childhood. And yet the most profound teachings of the mystics
through the ages are consigned to the same dark definitions that Dawkins foists
upon all religious beliefs, universally.
Returning to Cornwell’s comments, it is worth pointing out
that as many atrocities have been carried out in the name of religious
disbelief as in blind faith. Stalin was an atheist who brutally attacked
priests under his regime, let alone the horrors he visited upon the general
populace. Fundamentalism isn’t the exclusive domain of religion it seems.
Indeed, as the evolutionary biologist H. Allen Orr said, atheism must be held
to the same standards as religions when judging their comparative flaws and
benefits. And, to quote Orr directly:
Dawkins has a difficult time facing up to the dual fact that
(1) the 20th century was an experiment in secularism; and (2) the result was
secular evil, an evil that, if anything, was more spectacularly virulent than
that which came before.
In political ideology, this fundamentalism has mixed with an
ugly dualism to create overly simplistic and ultimately useless categories –
liberal or conservative, commie or capitalist – with a complete disregard for
the true spectrum of political ideas. In the words of George W. Bush: “You’re
either with us or against us.” It is therefore the polarising elements of
‘ideology’ which we need to be fearing, far more than any particular religious
belief. Especially the ideology of ‘us’ being somehow better, more intelligent,
more moral, than ‘them’ – ironically, a trait which Dawkins describes as a
particular Darwinian adaptive trait known as the “kin-selection principle.”
Again, the Oxford professor seems not eager to find the quite obvious “evils”
of science, technology and Darwinism.
Richard Dawkins once argued against a quote by John Keats:
“Do not all charms fly at the mere touch of cold philosophy? There was an awful
rainbow once in heaven: we know her woof, her texture; she is given in the dull
catalogue of common things. Philosophy will clip an angel’s wings, conquer all
mysteries by rule and line, empty the haunted air, and… unweave a rainbow.”
Dawkins thought that the scientific truth behind the rainbow
was even more beautiful – a worthy comment, but one that disregarded all the
other various ways of seeing and knowing due to a belief that his way was the
only way – and that is the very definition of Fundamentalism. It is an ideology
which seeks to replace all other thoughts and philosophies, and if Dawkins
thought with a clear mind on the topic he would see that this is exactly his
real concern.
Let us attempt to understand the rainbow in all its beauty –
physical, emotional and spiritual – without dogma and prejudice, and allow all
others to find their own way freely.
Read the full article HERE:
newdawnmagazine.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment.