Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) hosts a Channel 4 (UK) two-part series on religion called “The Root Of All Evil?” Doubt it will ever get shown in the U.S., which has now become a fundamentalist country. Or is on the fast track to that destination. Wish they’d show this 2-part series in exchange for “teaching” creationism or adding, “in God we Trust” into the Pledge of Allegiance. Not that Dawkins is level-headed either. But at least he presents the opposite extreme, which doesn’t get much airing, for fear of loss of job, sponsorship or death. He doesn’t pull any punches, which is shocking for someone who lives in the U.S. to hear. Maybe there is so much self-censorship in the U.S. (we who wag fingers at China) that Dawkins’ statements seem shockingly radical.
In my opinion, science, his “religion”, proceeds as much from faith as much conventional religion does. It’s now a scientific fact (pun intended) that one simply doesn’t see what one doesn’t want to see. It doesn’t register. It isn’t noted or remembered, either. Do scientists think they are immune to this? You lot in the lab coats think you really are completely objective? I can think of many instances, as one preacher claims, of science teaching now considered ridiculous. OK, the temperature at which water boils is pretty undisputed, but when we get close to ourselves — to medicine, health, psychology, sociology, and religion — things start to break down. I believe the 21st century will be the century of biology as the last one was of physics and chemistry — but we’re not there yet. The hubris of policies backed by “rational” scientific research and the “testimony of experts” has probably done as much harm in the world as any religion. Both science and religion have a lot to answer for.
That said, he’s right about a lot of it and it needs to be said. Religions are indeed intolerant, exclusionary and sometimes downright loony (“barking mad” was his phrase) — but as a student of Darwin he should expect that something or other in human social and psychological systems, some inherited behavior, must respond to these needs that humans seem to seek answers to or relief from. Religion fulfils so many psychological, social and cultural requirements that its continued existence — it sprouts up again and again — shouldn’t be surprising. It probably can’t be squashed or eliminated.
It justifies invasions, social and personal ostracisms, clannish behavior, community giving, accepted morality — all at the same time. What else can make wanton slaughter of foreigners seem like a morally good thing yet murder of one’s own group seem like a bad thing? And aren’t those common evolutionary-based human impulses? Impulses that only need some mental and emotional justifications? Isn’t it obvious that there is a gene for religion that provides exactly those justifications?
The ministers, rabbi and imams interviewed all seems to believe that without the big stick of religion humans would run amok. I agree with Dawkins that they wouldn’t — animals have morality, too — it’s something we do for our own good — though some small percentage will try to find a work around. Religion doesn’t seem to have “solved” that problem. In fact we can see it often seems to encourage the aggressive dog-eat-dog tendencies that they claim they try to suppress.
What Dawkins sadly ignores is the attractiveness and beauty of religion. And that faith can indeed ease pain and suffering — in which case is not the lie of religion better than the ugly bitter truth? Doesn’t faith often help people recover from illnesses? Aren’t believers often happier? Aren’t religious precessions fun and aren’t mosques and churches usually magnificent? (Maybe a little overly awesome, belittling, but still.)
In such cases, why not accept the lie? What harm would it do?
Granted, seeing all the “practically” useless temples and churches, impeccable and grand in the midst of squalor and poverty, sets one’s teeth on edge. But, if one can see the processions and mumbo jumbo, the miracles and murmurings, as metaphors rather than as literal fact then it might be easier to view religion as the greatest artistic expression of humankind — or much of it, anyway.
Sadly, most believers don’t view their faiths as metaphorical — they believe Jesus actually rose from the dead, that Mary was a virgin and that visiting a stone in Mecca will make you a better person. Sadly, you don’t often get the nice benefits of faith — the happiness and the hope — without the superiority, closed-mindedness and hatred. Can’t these two sides of a coin be separated? Is there something in this (possible) gene that always entangles these two? Fix us, please.
Dawkins should be able to answer that one, that’s his area of study.
