On why Dawkins can’t influence people, in defence of religion and why it doesn’t really matter either way.

I used to be a fan of Richard Dawkins. It has now, however, recently dawned upon me that now I’m not. The God Delusion has been getting plenty of press – no doubt in part due to it’s publicity-driven provocative title. But what does it actually achieve and does that match up with what Dawkins was hoping to achieve?

Firstly, Dawkins isn’t stupid – he’s not hoping that The God Delusion is going to become the scientific equivalent of the Bible (Some would argue that that book has already been written by Dawkin’s hero, Darwin. I would add that perhaps a more interesting piece of scientific literature came from Newton – someone who showed that religion and science were not mutually exclusive). He is trying to ‘de-convert’ people, though – to convince people that religious faith is a delusion. He’s also trying to push the God debate into the public eye.

But what is he actually achieving? He comes across to me as anti-religion as opposed to pro-science. Isn’t he the Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford? Does he actually promote the public understanding of science or rather, does he use his position to lob grenades at the other side. I’ve read some (not all) of his work, I’ve seen him speak, I’ve seen The Root of All Evil?, but I don’t think I understand science any better. Something Dawkins needs to get into his head is that, just because someone believes something that you don’t, it doesn’t make you a better person and, if you’re going to equate religious belief with insanity, then you’re not going to get anywhere. The ‘holier than thou’ aura he coverts doesn’t make him any better than the very people he’s attacking in the first place. On the one hand Dawkins argues that either Christians should accept that the whole bible is true or none of it is, and on the other he is more than happy to pick and choose from the Old Testament to show the ‘fire and brimstone’ God to support his arguments.

And this is why Dawkins is the wrong person to lead this side of the debate. He is combative, he is polarising, he is anti-Them instead of pro-Us. He thinks religion is some clear-cut yes/no decision people make. It isn’t. It’s an intensely personal thing, with many shades of grey, that people have to decide for themselves. You can’t push or pull people one way or the other – let them make up their own minds (which is why I’m not a big fan of doorknocking religious types) – just be there when people come to you to find out what your own message is.

So is religion bad? Dawkins would say yes (no surprises there). However, I do think he’s full of it. There are some religious people that the world can do without. There are also some non-religious people the world can do without. What I’m getting at is that people do bad things because some people are just plain bad. You can’t hope to explain it any further. It often has very little to do with religion. If people can be convinced that God wants them to blow themselves up then chances are they could also be convinced that Elmo wants them to do the same. Charismatic leaders with incredible pulling power have, over history, made people do some incredibly evil things without championing any kind of deity. Science shouldn’t be impervious from criticism. Just as there are good and bad religious leaders there have been good and bad scientific leaders because, quite simply, there are (morally) good and bad people. If everyone was perfect then what’s the point? If we didn’t have people to boo and people to applaude then from a morality perspective how can we possibly define a good and a bad?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that religion is sacred (pun unintended) and can’t be touched. However, if you’re trying to get your point about something, why not spend some more of your time promoting your own views as opposed to simply lambasting the other side? It just doesn’t strike me as a very good way to convince people of something. Understanding and tolerance (a good thing!) will come about from two sides sharing their ideas, not from two sides being at each others throats all the time.

So what of Dawkin’s latest effort? I wouldn’t blame people for writing it off as an incredibly one-sided street-corner rant. Most people familiar with Dawkin’s work are going to know what they’re getting into before they open the front cover – an attack on religion, not a defence of science. Are there going to be religiously devout people who pick up the book, read it from cover to cover and then miraculously renounce religion? I don’t think so. Not by a long shot.

So does this really matter? As I’ve already said, religious belief (or lack thereof) is an intensely personal thing. I’d seriously doubt that anyone is going to read or listen to some Dawkins and ‘free themselves’ of religion. I think it’s great that religion exists. Our world is so much more diverse because of it. How boring would the world be if we approached everything from the scientific side of things? Some of the greatest works of art, of music, of literature have only come about because of these diverse beliefs. Listen, embrace and accept – don’t attack, lambast and belittle.