Why are debates presented in terms of either/or? Why do people insist on putting up fences between themselves and others? Humans are sufficiently complex that they can hold more than one set of ideas in their heads at any one time. Who is to say that one idea is right and that another one is wrong?
Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion contends that a belief in god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. Are the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Dalai Lama all delusional? No. Were the ancient Greeks and Romans deluded to believe in their gods, given their understanding of science?
The problem with either/or debates of this kind is that it forces a choice. Richard Dawkins believes that people have to believe in god or science, not god and science. God, and by extension religion, are one belief system, and science is another belief system, but they aren't mutually exclusive. It's perfectly reasonable and possible to believe in both. There are plenty of scientists who believe in a god and such people are happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled.
Put Off By Science?
Large numbers of people with extreme religious views aren't likely to be swayed by the arguments in Dawkins' book. Just as people with extreme scientific views aren't likely to be swayed by the published counter-arguments. But what of the majority of people with less extreme views, the people in the middle? They are going to choose to believe in what they want to believe in based on their feelings, upbringing and their perceived ability to understand. Science puts off a lot of people as they feel it is complicated. However, most people don't perceive that religion is hard to understand; hard to practice and live up to, maybe, but not hard to understand. Therefore, for some people, maybe it's easier to believe in a god than it is have a belief in science.
Dawkins should realise that we don't all have to believe in the same things, despite one person's or one group's fervour and the claimed strength of their evidence. What if belief in god stopped tomorrow and was replaced with a belief in science? Apart from the incredibly smug grin on Prof. Dawkins' face, would the world be significantly different? Probably not. If we all believed the same thing, innovation and intellectual progress would be much slower. We need intellectual revolutionaries who break away from the conventional opinions of the day in order for human-kind to progress. Not only in the sciences, but in religion and the arts as well.
Competing World Views
In his book The Dawkins Delusion, Alister McGrath states that Dawkins, in his reference to Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy, is "systematically mocking, misrepresenting, and demonising competing worldviews" (The God Delusion, pp 51-54, cited in The Dawkins Delusion? p 50, and also as part of this discussion). Why do they have to be competing? Is there some religion vs. science arms race that we have not been told about?
It seems people just aren't objective enough to say there are valid arguments on both sides. Perhaps it is people's desire to be a member of a group that makes them decide to take sides. When we meet someone with the opposite view we like to try to convert them. Are we all driven to win and is this battle to win inevitable? Is this what leads to war? Perhaps people believe one thing rather than another because they need to be selective to get on with their lives? No one can simultaneously believe everything, there's simply too much stuff and a lot of it is contradictory.
Ideas That Last
The best ideas are the ones that tend to last. Both religion and science, as movements and as ideas, have lasted a long time. Perhaps, therefore, they are both good ideas, ones that can co-exist, without one having to beat the other. Some may think that a belief in god is delusional, but is such a belief a bad thing?
Ultimately though, what is the truth? The truth is whatever a person chooses to believe. Someone who believes in god isn't going to like being called delusional. It's not a very tolerant position for Richard Dawkins to take. However, perhaps he doesn't want to bring people over to his point of view. Perhaps he just wants to show people that he is right.
James Huw Evans - Huw Evans has over 15 years of experience in the technology and start-up industries. He has implemented peer-to-peer and distributed ...
