Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent man. I don’t think anyone can contest that fact. His devotion to science and his promotion of the understanding of evolution are valuable contributions in their own right.
Besides his work in evolutionary biology, Dawkins is most famous for his criticisms of religion and faith, most of which are extensions of scientific empiricism into the realm of theology. He concludes that God is a delusion and that faith is dangerous and must be eliminated.
For his outspoken views in this regard, he has become the figurehead of a new atheism, the object of adulation among atheists and target of much derision among theists.
Though Dawkins says science and religion are contradictory, I disagree. One does not preclude the other. They answer different questions, describing different aspects of the human condition.
Science demands methodological naturalism. Said another way, it assumes no supernatural causes to explain phenomena. Dawkins has simply extended this methodological naturalism into philosophical naturalism, the idea that the universe is devoid of any scientifically unexplainable phenomena.
It seems many scientists utilize philosophical naturalism as well, and I concede that the majority of the scientific community is either atheist or agnostic. There are some, however, who manage to be people of both science and faith. As for these scientists, Dawkins is either baffled or insulting. He calls Francis Collins, who is a Christian and was leader of the Human Genome Project, “not a bright guy” after finding out about Collins’ Biblical beliefs.
What’s the point of pushing away intelligent and rational religious people?
Dawkins gives us the reason in his book “The God Delusion.” He writes, “I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself, not just against so-called ‘extremist’ faith. The teachings of ‘moderate’ religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.”
This is an interesting statement from someone who calls himself a “cultural Christian.” Despite his crusade to eliminate faith, Dawkins participates in the traditions of a culture steeped in religion. This admission belies how little practical difference exists between moderate Christians and Dawkins himself.
His arguments do not regard the reality of the countless faithful who go about their lives rationally, many making great contributions in the name of their faith. It’s belittling to assume that faith necessitates an open door to extremism.
I think this and other arguments Dawkins uses are ways of co-opting moral authority, wresting it from the clutches of religion. This morally motivated extermination of faith is hard for me to fully separate from the moral claims derived from religion. Dawkins propagates the comparison by using words like “evil” and “wicked”—words that carry significant religious baggage. He’s still using an appeal to dogmatism, only now it’s under the guise of strict reason.
Attacking all forms of religion (or simply belief in God) is not helpful if one’s goal is to eliminate religious extremism. In fact, Dawkins himself admits that he doesn’t expect to change the minds of the most fervent believers. The kind of zero compromise policy he espouses will push away moderately-minded religious people who could be of great service in combating zealotry.
There’s no shortage of dangerous, religiously-motivated hate in the world, and we need more outspoken critics to combat such intolerance. Dawkins’s brand of polemic, generalizing criticism doesn’t accomplish this. Instead, it creates even wider divisions, ending in an even more strained relationship between atheists and theists.
With his attacking tone, Dawkins leaves no instruction for his followers on how to approach the religiously minded. In his wake he has left an army of vindictive supporters who see some hypothetical horde of religious fanatics as their enemy. These disciples, emboldened by their God Delusion-derived theological knowledge, continuously drive the wedge between atheists and theists put in place by Dawkins, ignoring the fact that some of their rational and perfectly sane friends and family may be religious.
Being an advocate of both evolution and the idea that disbelief in God is the natural conclusion of scientific logic, Dawkins makes science, especially evolution, that much more inaccessible to people of faith.
Instead of being positive advocate of reason and a force for good in the battle against religious extremism, Dawkins has shown us even those without a god can be just as intolerant as those who act in the name of one. Instead of encouraging the faithful to be critical and rational, he is driving them away from science and reason, widening the imposed dichotomy between religious people and scientists.
-Joshua Wadlin is an entrepreneurship senior.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
dwalker2006 3 years, 2 months ago
My criticism of Dawkins has never been with his atheistic world view. I am completely comfortable with that. My disappointment with Dawkins stems from is his profound arrogance and elitism. He doesn't talk with or to people; he talks down to people. He is a poster child for intolerance. Regardless of his message, I generally listen to Dawkins for about five minutes before I start tuning him out because he comes across as so abrasive, vindictive, and offensive.
I agree with Joshua Wadlin that Dawkins is a poor ambassador for science and reason. He is doing more harm than good.
saxman 3 years, 2 months ago
Great article in a line of wonderfully written reactions to the biggest speaking event at our university in the 08-09 school year. I wonder if any pro-Dawkins responses will be written.
mythman 3 years, 2 months ago
If a House Resolution was introduced against my freedom of speech just because of my religious opinions, I'd be critical of religion, too.