Dawkins on Religion: Life-Pricing by the Modern Cynic

On Channel 4 last night, academic heavy weight and scourge of spiritual thought, Richard Dawkins put forward Part 1 of his critique of the role of religion in modern society under the heading 'The Root of All Evil'. The title of the show and the press attention it's broadcast received suggested that it would be controversial or in some way revolutionary and anti-establishment.

However, to my mind it was Dawkins himself that seemed somehow to belong to another age and, set against his argumentative approach and smug nature, even the most dogmatic of religions seemed, if not preferable, at least parable. In the following blog I hope to explore this view.

A good summary of the programme's main thesis can be found on the Channel 4 website and quotations in this blog will be taken from this.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope I have made my clear elsewhere my own views on self proclaimed experts lending their recommendations to subjects over which they have no jurisdiction. However, it appears that, with regard to the human condition at least, there seems to be no end to the authorities who considered themselves qualified to diagnose the ills of humanity. Judging by the number of my friends who made a conscious effort to watch the programme, the appetite for insights from this enlightened caste appears to be as strong now as it was in the dark ages.

I find it amusing that this deference to intellectuals continues in some areas of our lives, where it would be laughable in others. I doubt whether even the eminent Professor Stephen Hawking would be able to broadcast a programme advocating changing the rules of football based on his latest understanding of advanced physics. Even if he did, I suspect it wouldn’t be greeted with anything other then bewildered amusement.

Dawkins is a zoologist by qualification, not an historian, psychologist or sociologist and while the positions he advocates are no more trivial because of this, they are certainly no more authoritative then those of anyone else with an interest in human affairs. To his credit, I have never heard Dawkins dispute this - though it’s a claim have often made on his behalf.

It’s worth noting here that that this blog may surprise readers who know me as I am not a religious person in any conventional sense of the term. I do have what you may term a ‘religious curiosity’ though generally I look further East in answer to my questions. I think it’s interesting that Dawkins chose to centre his entire attack on the monotheistic religions of the West, rather then spend a little time debating the nature of scientific truth with a Zen master or Taoist practitioner. Perhaps he considered them softer targets.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The crux of Dawkins argument is that "though religions preach morality, peace and hope… they bring intolerance, violence and destruction" and that "there are plenty of characters to illustrate his thesis." He then makes a pilgrimage of sorts to the most to the most unenlightened areas of the world, taking in the West Bank and the American Bible belt, and showing religiously motivated behaviour at it’s most hateful and ignorant.

Consider this for a moment. Would this be any different if I, having put forward an argument that the concept of nationality was ‘evil’, then went on to produce by way of example only it's most extreme, sectarian adherents, such as at the British National Party or the American far right?

I might expect to be questioned on whether this was a representative sample of all people or institutions that believe in some form of ‘nationhood’ or even whether there are examples of 'nationalism' that produce more beneficial results, such as reductions in crime and anti social behaviour through ‘national identity’ and a sense of ‘national pride’.

Throughout the Judeo-Christian-Islamic world, I suspect Dawkins would have found many examples of benevolence, tolerance and progressive thought, should he have wished to look for them.

In terms of Dawkins’ examples, it also worth noting that the problems of the Middle East are complex and the confrontations there may be due to underlying racial, economic and political tensions. While religious differences no doubt have a role to play, it would be simplistic to assume they are the fundamental cause.

Also, Dawkins may despair of political lobbying by religious groups in America but he fails to mention how insignificant this is when compared to corporate or financial influences. It is only when the religious campaigns are well funded that we become aware of them. I have yet to see pictures of Christian and Muslims campaigning for a ‘Give more to the needy’ bill and this is no doubt because corporate interests are not served in supporting these issues. Consequently, it is the only the conservative matters, like gay marriage or the teaching of creationism, that receive press attention. We should be able to recognise that these issues do not represent the broad spectrum of religious concerns.

Both these examples prove that things must be a lot less complex in the animal kingdom; as an analyser of human culture Dawkins is lacking in the details.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently Dawkins is "astonished that, at the start of the 21st century, religious faith is gaining ground in the face of rational, scientific truth,” yet he does not speculate on why this may be case. If modern humans display a need for religion teachings, doesn’t it make more sense to try and understand why this need arises and how, in the absence of religion, it may be satisfied? What merit is there in simply dismissing all beliefs that which doesn’t fall into category of rational thought? Could it be that religions and religious thought fulfils other needs in people that their societies are failing to accommodate?

Dawkins may regard the “sense of belonging promised by religious groups” as a “'seductive group solidarity” (resulting from a) 'shared delusion'”, but this brings us no closer to understanding why this delusion might exist and in what ways people may be benefiting from it.

When viewed from a detached perspective, our preferential love for our own children could be regarded as delusional. After all, in our more lucid moments we would consider that all people have the same rights, regardless of their relation to us. Thi is , of course, a delusion that exists for good evolutionary reasons; it makes people take responsibility for their offspring by fostering an emotional attachment to them and this behaviour is self-perpetuating at both a cultrual and genetic level.

I do not wish to speculate here on the evolutionary function of religious belief systems, other than to say this: If modern human brains have a tendency to be ‘delusional’ at times, then it may be worth considering whether at some point in own history this would have served a useful purpose. Perhaps our ancestors who were able to leave a little more to faith established communities based on common belief systems (however spurious these beliefs may seem to us in retrospect) that were able to outperform their more sceptical rivals.

Even though Dawkins can dismiss the benefits of religion in today’s society as superstitious, his great great grandfather may have found it beneficial to cast such doubts aside.

Noone can say with certainty what effect this legacy of organised religions may have had on our collective unconscious or it's continuing influence in terms of our cultural inheritance. However, we cannot hope to fully understand the nature of a phenomenon by just comparing it to a template we already have, we are forced to carefully examine its wider effects now and then. As an evolutionary geneticist, Dawkins of all people should be aware of this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawkins is right to tell us that religious authorities should not influence debates on the nature of modern democracies but wrong if he suggests that their absence will guarantee a better society for everyone. It was after all, under with the ideological cloak of Social Darwinism that free market capitalists was able to exacerbate the inequalities in many western cultures.

Religion is the foundation on which most of the world’s cultures and communities are based in terms of their legal practices and social customs. Although these institutions may continue to exist under a form of secular moralism, they may not achieve the same levels of acceptance that they currently enjoy.

Dawkins may find no value in today’s religions but we can be certain that many other people continue to do so. Telling people they no longer need religion is like a telling a sky-diver they don't need to leap from a plane because it has wheels. Religion serves complex human needs and only when these need are better met elsewhere it will it be abandoned, not before. In the absence of an understanding of religion’s more subtle social and existential functions, I believe that, while this emotional plaster may eventually need to be removed, we would be better served to peel away slowly.

At the most fundamental level, I agree with Dawkins that we have the right to believe what we want and that religions should not interfere with this. However, I also this right extents to believing in things that aren't true - so long as they don't lead to behaviours that interfere with the rights of others.

By going on national TV with his message Dawkins has been given an opportunity not many of us will never have, and one he felt compelled to accept. I think it's a pity that message took the 'I am intolerant of religions because they are intolerant' stance which, as a society, I believe we are moving away from. Still, there is always Part 2 next week.