Author
|
Topic: Why I Am Hostile Toward Religion by Richard Dawkins (Read 1300 times) |
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.79
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
  
|
 |
Why I Am Hostile Toward Religion by Richard Dawkins
« on: 2006-11-21 17:27:56 » |
 |
source: beliefnet
Why I Am Hostile Toward Religion
I oppose fundamentalist religion because it is hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless eager minds.
By Richard Dawkins
Despite my dislike of gladiatorial contests, I seem somehow to have acquired a reputation for pugnacity toward religion. Colleagues who agree that there is no God, who agree that we do not need religion to be moral, and agree that we can explain the roots of religion and of morality in non-religious terms, nevertheless come back at me in gentle puzzlement. Why are you so hostile? What is actually wrong with religion? Does it really do so much harm that we should actively fight against it? Why not live and let live, as one does with Taurus and Scorpio, crystal energy and ley lines? Isn't it all just harmless nonsense?
I might retort that such hostility as I or other atheists occasionally voice toward religion is limited to words. I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological disagreement. But my interlocutor usually doesn’t leave it at that. He may go on to say something like this: "Doesn’t your hostility mark you out as a fundamentalist atheist, just as fundamentalist in your own way as the wingnuts of the Bible Belt in theirs?" I need to dispose of this accusation of fundamentalism, for it is distressingly common.
Holy Books vs. Evidence
Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief. The truth of the holy book is an axiom, not the end product of a process of reasoning. The book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book. By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, evolution) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence. It really is a very different matter. Books about evolution are believed not because they are holy. They are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence. In principle, any reader can go and check that evidence. When a science book is wrong, somebody eventually discovers the mistake and it is corrected in subsequent books. That conspicuously doesn’t happen with holy books.
Philosophers, especially amateurs with a little philosophical learning, and even more especially those infected with "cultural relativism," may raise a tiresome red herring at this point a scientist’s belief in evidence is itself a matter of fundamentalist faith. I have dealt with this elsewhere, and will only briefly repeat myself here. All of us believe in evidence in our own lives, whatever we may profess with our amateur philosophical hats on.
*******
I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that.
It is all too easy to confuse fundamentalism with passion. I may well appear passionate when I defend evolution against a fundamentalist creationist, but this is not because of a rival fundamentalism of my own. It is because the evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly strong and I am passionately distressed that my opponent can’t see it--or, more usually, refuses to look at it because it contradicts his holy book. My passion is increased when I think about how much the poor fundamentalists, and those whom they influence, are missing. The truths of evolution, along with many other scientific truths, are so engrossingly fascinating and beautiful; how truly tragic to die having missed out on all that! Of course that makes me passionate. How could it not? But my belief in evolution is not fundamentalism, and it is not faith, because I know what it would take to change my mind, and I would gladly do so if the necessary evidence were forthcoming.
It does happen. I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artifact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said--with passion--"My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." We clapped our hands red. No fundamentalist would ever say that. In practice, not all scientists would. But all scientists pay lip service to it as an ideal--unlike, say, politicians who would probably condemn it as flip-flopping. The memory of the incident I have described still brings a lump to my throat.
Fundamentalist Religion Saps the Intellect
As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect. The saddest example I know is that of the American geologist Kurt Wise, who now directs the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee. It is no accident that Bryan College is named after William Jennings Bryan, prosecutor of the science teacher John Scopes in the Dayton "Monkey Trial" of 1923. Wise could have fulfilled his boyhood ambition to become a professor of geology at a real university, a university whose motto might have been "Think critically" rather than the oxymoronic one displayed on the Bryan website: "Think critically and biblically." Indeed, he obtained a real degree in geology at the University of Chicago, followed by two higher degrees in geology and paleontology at Harvard (no less) where he studied under Stephen Jay Gould (no less). He was a highly qualified and genuinely promising young scientist, well on his way to achieving his dream of teaching science and doing research at a proper university.
Then tragedy struck. It came, not from outside but from within his own mind, a mind fatally subverted and weakened by a fundamentalist religious upbringing that required him to believe that the Earth--the subject of his Chicago and Harvard geological education--was less than ten thousand years old. He was too intelligent not to recognize the head-on collision between his religion and his science, and the conflict in his mind made him increasingly uneasy. One day, he could hear the strain no more, and he clinched the matter with a pair of scissors. He took a bible and went right through it, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific world-view were true. At the end of this ruthlessly honest labor-intensive exercise, there was so little left of his bible that
Quote:| try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science. |
I find that terribly sad; but whereas the Golgi Apparatus moved me to tears of admiration and exultation, the Kurt Wise story is just plain pathetic--pathetic and contemptible. The wound, to his career and his life’s happiness, was self-inflicted, so unnecessary, so easy to escape. All he had to do was toss out the bible. Or interpret it symbolically, or allegorically, as the theologians do. Instead, he did the fundamentalist thing and tossed out evidence and reason, along with all his dreams and hopes.
Perhaps uniquely among fundamentalists, Kurt Wise is honest--devastatingly, painfully, shockingly honest. Give him the Templeton Prize; he might be the first really sincere recipient. Wise brings to the surface what is secretly going on underneath, in the minds of fundamentalists generally, when they encounter scientific evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
The Doublethink of Religious Faith
Poor Kurt Wise reminds me more of Winston Smith in ‘1984’--struggling desperately to believe that two plus two equals five if Big Brother says it does. Winston, however, was being tortured. Wise’s doublethink comes not from the imperative of physical torture but from the imperative--apparently just as undeniable to some people--of religious faith: arguably a form of mental torture. I am hostile to religion because of what it did to Kurt Wise. And if it did that to a Harvard-educated geologist, just think what it can do to others less gifted and less well armed.
Fundamentalist religion is hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless thousands of innocent, well-meaning, eager young minds. Non-fundamentalist, "sensible" religion may not be doing that. But it is making the world safe for fundamentalism by teaching children, from their earliest years, that unquestioning faith is a virtue.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.81
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Why I Am Hostile Toward Religion by Richard Dawkins
« Reply #1 on: 2006-11-22 16:03:41 » |
|
[Dawkins] Or interpret it symbolically, or allegorically, as the theologians do. Instead, he did the fundamentalist thing and tossed out evidence and reason, along with all his dreams and hopes.
[Hermit] When religion becomes symbolic, or allegoric it also becomes even more dangerous, partially because this means that the nonsense can be interpreted to mean - and justify - anything. This is a much more sophisticated, and dangerous form of dementia than even fundamentalism, a delusional state where Black is White at the same time as Black is Black and there are no arguments which can dent the shields - or convictions of such a believer or his or her conviction that what they want to do is the right thing. This is, in my opinion when religious passion becomes most infectious. The amorphous, highly flexible, adaptive, yet still reality denying belief is the belief that attracts people to the "great" religions, to modern Catholicism, non-fundamentalist Protestantism, Islamism, Hinduism, Buddhism et al. These religions thrive where fundamentalism does not, precisely because the advocates are not prima facies insane, and to the person following on in the steps of their parents it all seems quite harmless, partitionable from real life to the extent that they can pray upon their knees on their sabbath and upon their neigbors for the rest of the week.
[Hermit] Unfortunately the reality is that a delusion, be it never so mild, is still a delusion. Our brains, evolved to reassure us that we are being sane no matter the objective reality, once lured into accepting delusions as reality cannot be relied upon not to go gaga on other subjects. Who needs drugs in the watersupply while people willingly remove their rationality and discernment for imaginary rewards in an imaginary future?
[Hermit] Yes the fundamentalist is dangerous. But he is readily identified as such, even by other believers. The symbolicist, or allegoricist, seemingly more reasonable, more compatible with rationality and I suggest, all the more insidious for that, is still nearly as easily stirred into dangerous activity as the most fervid and fanatical fundamentalist. Which is why I disagree with Dawkins on this one issue. All dogmatic, irrational religion is dangerous. To its holders and to those around them.
[Hermit]
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.79
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Why I Am Hostile Toward Religion by Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2 on: 2006-11-22 18:14:27 » |
|
Hermit, where do you disagree with Dawkins?
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.81
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Why I Am Hostile Toward Religion by Richard Dawkins
« Reply #3 on: 2006-11-22 18:28:15 » |
|
[Lucifer enquired] Hermit, where do you disagree with Dawkins?
[Hermit] Damn, was I that opaque? My disagreement is minor and revolves around a tiny issue exposed in this paragraph:
[Dawkins] I find that terribly sad; but whereas the Golgi Apparatus moved me to tears of admiration and exultation, the Kurt Wise story is just plain pathetic--pathetic and contemptible. The wound, to his career and his life’s happiness, was self-inflicted, so unnecessary, so easy to escape. All he had to do was toss out the bible. Or interpret it symbolically, or allegorically, as the theologians do. Instead, he did the fundamentalist thing and tossed out evidence and reason, along with all his dreams and hopes.
[Hermit] To my reading he is saying that accepting the poison pill of the Babbel symbolically, or allegorically might be acceptable if it prevents worse. I am saying that even this is horribly dubious for the reasons I have already set out, and would reject such expediency.
[Hermit] On every other aspect about religion and a sensible approach to it, I doubt that two people could agree more.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.79
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Why I Am Hostile Toward Religion by Richard Dawkins
« Reply #4 on: 2006-11-23 16:02:26 » |
|
[Hermit] To my reading he is saying that accepting the poison pill of the Babbel symbolically, or allegorically might be acceptable if it prevents worse. I am saying that even this is horribly dubious for the reasons I have already set out, and would reject such expediency.
[Lucifer] The reason I asked is I think Dawkins would agree with everything you said in your first reply. Even so it is likely that Dawkins would argue that Kurt Wise would be better off interpreting the bible allegorically rather than literally. At least that would allow him to continue working as a brilliant scientist, as many do. Do you disagree with that? As for which is more dangerous in the general case I see your point but also think that a good argument can be made for either side. Moderates tend to be more moderate, for example 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
