"Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein
When The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins was first published in October 2006, it was hailed as the answer to atheist's prayers (not that any self respecting atheist would ever admit to praying), as at last someone was speaking out in support of their views. The book created a flurry of media interest, with everyone wanting to say their piece and be heard. Love him or loathe him, Dawkins arguments could hardly have been more topical. While Western Europe is becoming increasingly secularised, America and the Islamic states are in the grip of rising religious fundamentalism, where such dogma increasingly serves to stifle rights of minorities - in particular women and the gay community. Meanwhile, particularly in America, the dispute between intelligent design and Darwinists threatens to seriously undermine and restrict the teaching of science. All of this stems from mans misguided beliefs about God and in particular, what God wants.
Dawkins is the embodiment of the scientific fundamentalist, and in his own way, is just as devout as the religious fundamentalists he so despises. Yet the fact that he has written this book at all, asking the question as to whether or not God exists, indicates that he must, somewhere within his consciousness, acknowledge that possibility. The book though has done remarkably well, selling 200,000 copies in the hardback edition in the United Kingdom alone. This is no flash in the pan, and like it or not, Dawkins and his views are here to stay.
The United States is possibly the most Christianised country in the west, and it is here that the book has had the most impact. The main point that Dawkins makes in relation to this is that it is enshrined in the US constitution that there is supposed to be a separation between Church and State, yet in reality this does not exist. He cites numerous examples of how people have been forced to pretend to be religious in order to be elected for public office, and how the US Police allow criminals to get away quite literally with murder in the name of religion by stating that the victim deserved what happened to them as they were going against God's law.
In chapter 2 of his book, Dawkins relates the story of one David Mills. When a Christian faith healer came on a so-called miracle crusade to Mills' home town, and advised among other things, that diabetics throw away their insulin, and cancer patients give up their chemotherapy, Mills decided to mount a protest. Realising that this could turn nasty, he informed the Police of his plans and asked for their protection. However, when the Officer that he spoke to realised that Mills was protesting against this healer, he stated that he himself planned to attend the rally and would 'spit in Mills' face'. A second Officer said that if Mills went ahead, then he would arrest him 'for interfering in God's work'. He then telephoned the Sergeant who said that no one was prepared to protect an atheist such as himself.
Dawkins also points out that religious devotees get preferential treatment that allows them to break the law. The US Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that those who use cannabis for medicinal purposes are subject to prosecution. Yet the following year that same court ruled that a church in New Mexico should be exempt from this, as their members believe that the ingestion of hallucinogenic drugs enhances their understanding of God.
Faced with this kind of thing, in many ways, Dawkins has done the world a favour by holding such matters up to the light of public scrutiny and challenging Christians to justify such beliefs. One of his biggest beefs is also the fact that Christians say that they are vehemently opposed to the taking of life through for example, abortion and assisted suicide, yet do not baulk at the killing of doctors who perform such acts.
The one point that Dawkins makes that I do strongly disagree with is that he seems to presume that in order to believe in God, you must be religious. This is in fact not the case. You may not need to be religious to believe in God, but you do have to be spiritual. Many people though do not see a distinction between religion and spirituality.
While I would not consider myself to be religious, I would describe myself as spiritual. If I had to define my beliefs by any label, I would probably choose the term Gnostic. Gnosticism was in fact the original form of Christianity, but it has become somewhat removed from its roots as tends to happen when dogma and doctrine take over.
Dawkins concentrates almost entirely on Christianity, since this is the dominant religion in the west. My own views on this are in fact very similar to Dawkins, in that the fundamentalist Christian regimes foster a much distorted view of the world around us, in particular when it comes to morality. It is clear to me that the Bible is not the word of God, since it was written very much by human hands, which like the Pope himself, contrary to the Church's assertions, are not infallible. Besides which, it has been translated into so many different languages over the years with various interpretations, that the words in many cases, have lost their meaning altogether. The Biblical God, in particular the Old Testament God, is an egocentric bully, or to use Dawkins own words:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction; jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Reading Dawkins book was in many ways a test of my own faith and beliefs, since I found myself agreeing with much of what he writes, especially during the closing chapters. However, as I said at the beginning of this article, belief in God does not necessarily mean that one has to be religious. I suppose though, that all depends on how you define religion. My copy of the Collins Dictionary defines religion as "belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny".
This is where religion and spirituality part company. Any system that involves worship must by necessity, consider the worshippers as inferior to that which is being worshipped, in this case, God. Religion, in particular Roman Catholicism and also the fundamentalist Muslim regimes teach that God or Allah requires us to behave according to a clearly defined set of morals. If we break this code, and do not do as God or Allah asks, then all hell will quite literally break loose as His wrath reigns down upon us.
One member of a discussion forum which I regularly contribute to happens to be a Jehovah's Witness. As you can no doubt imagine, some interesting discussions have taken place on that site debating various aspects of Christianity. One of the more puzzling comments that this lady made was to the effect that although God loves us unconditionally, His unconditional love only kicks in when we start to do as he asks. I fail to see how this can be unconditional, since it seems to me that God is saying 'my way or the highway' and this to me is not a loving statement. Furthermore, this also goes against the concept of God having given us free will. She seemed to be saying that we are not qualified to make our own decisions as to how we should live our own lives and form our own morals and values, and should abdicate responsibility for this on to God, or to be more precise, the Priesthood or the Bible writers, who apparently know best.
Allowing God or the Priesthood to effectively dictate to you how you should think, feel and behave is abdicating responsibility on to someone or something else for your own life, so that you no longer have to think for yourself. Maybe this suits some people, as they are bombarded with so many little things that when it comes to the big stuff they do not have the energy or the time to think. If we choose to do this then we have no right to complain when things go wrong, as we are no better than those who refuse to vote and then complain about the Government. It is your life to live and you have a right, in fact a duty, to form your own opinions based not on blind faith, but rather on observation and experience. Inertia gets us nowhere fast.
One has to wonder, on looking at the state of the world today, and the increasing unrest that people feel, that if it really is the case that living according to Gods law creates peace, then with the amount of atrocities committed in God's name by adherents to the faith in order to appease God/Allah and enforce religious doctrines, if this really is what God/Allah wants, then the world should more closely resemble heaven. Instead we seem to hear of more and more wars, more and more bloodshed and hatred every day.
Religious fundamentalists tell us that the unrest and lawlessness that we witness is a symptom of our disobedience at having strayed from God's or Allah's law, like cause and effect. Eve eats the apple and is punished by having to give birth and wait on Adam.
This argument though does not hold sway. Many religious groups insist that their way is the only way, and the way to salvation is through adherence to the laws that their God has lain down, but which God is the correct God? What do you say to members of other religions whose Holy books say that their God is the only true God and that yours is therefore false? How do you defend yourself from those who say that those of differing belief deserve to die, or will burn in hell after they die? What criteria do you use to make such judgments?
