Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity
by Muriel Gray
Muriel Gray rejoices in the existence of two great men called Richard.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,546,n,n
"Given that we're forced to consider what a disgusting species we are
on a daily basis it's sometimes harder to respond to humanity's highs
than its lows.
In the closing days of another triumphant and magnificent Edinburgh
International Book Festival, the hottest ticket in town was a session
between the evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins and the
former bishop of Edinburgh, Richard Holloway. It was an instant
sell-out for good reason, not least that both men are highly
controversial figures.
Holloway, as we all know, is the church leader who questioned his
faith and found it wanting, and Dawkins of course is not simply world
famous for his pioneering and award-winning scientific work, but also
for his aggressive views concerning organised religion. A couple of
audience members before the session began admitted they were worried
that the two men might come to blows, or that a fundamentalist
audience member might use the event to launch an offensive verbal
attack on Dawkins. Instead the hour that seemed like five minutes was
one filled with two startlingly intelligent men, each brimming with
humanity, drawing personal pictures of just how awesome, mysterious
and wonderful existence is. The sheer joy of hearing Holloway still
trying to draw poetry and meaning from a religion he is not quite
ready to dismiss completely out of hand, as Dawkins listened eagerly,
trying to assist him without dismissing his desires as ignorant, was
breath takingly inspiring. And all this was book-ended with Dawkins's
views on birthing universes, black holes, and the future of the human
species when we start to form ourselves from silicone and alloys
instead of vulnerable flesh. Now that's what I call entertainment.
However, the most dreadful, in fact utterly unbearable, part of the
evening was that it stopped after an hour. Back out into the night we
went, into the real world where, locally, idiots with power over the
faithful rant about aspects of government sex education initiatives
that don't exist simply to stir up conflict and where,
internationally, savages sink to new lows of human depravity by
blowing up children in schools, and where, globally, the once great
country of America looks as if it might vote back in a band of vicious
thugs to drag it and the rest of the world even further down into the
abyss.
Of course as usual, the connecting heart of all these and many more
countless dismal black marks on our human copybook is religion. Well
done everyone. I'm sure your gods are all terribly proud of you.
Dawkins, desperate to see his impossible dream of a world without
religion, expressed relief that few religious people were as eloquent,
intellectual and poetic on the subject as Richard Holloway, otherwise
its force would be very much more powerful. Of course he was joking.
How could religion be any more powerful than it already is, tearing a
screaming world apart at the seams? But the point he was making was
that the many destructive forces of religion, as opposed to the few
beneficial ones, are almost exclusively wielded by those with limited
thinking power.
This is a commonly held view, but does it hold any truth? The recent
revelations that George Bush is in fact profoundly and quite genuinely
religious, and not just making it up to win votes from the redneck
knuckle-draggers out on the plains as many suspected, is actually one
of the most chilling pieces of news yet. That a man who believes he is
doing precisely what Jesus bids him is the one in charge of the
largest military power in the world is not something that aids a good
night's sleep, and it would seem rather obvious that Dawkins is right
in this instance at least. But which, in the Dawkins joke, is correct?
That Bush is stupid therefore Bush fears God? Or is it that Bush fears
God therefore Bush is stupid? What about Bush is stupid and Bush fears
God, no connection?
Just imagine for a second if a genie granted Bush an intellect as
lofty as Richard Holloway's for 24 hours in place of the near-simian
one currently possessed by the President. What would happen? Does
intellect always breed compassion and humanity? Not necessarily.
History has provided us with a handsome variety of psychotic killers
with highly tuned minds.
Equally, Holloway's gentleness, wisdom and altruism might well stem
from upbringing or experience, not just because he can rationalise the
irrational (and we're well aware that uneducated people of limited
intelligence can also be very kind and wise individuals). But would a
magically enhanced Bush with the new ability to understand the
clay-footed provenance of his religion, yet still appreciative of the
beauty of its metaphors and mythology, suddenly realise what a monster
he had become? Possibly, but unlikely given his upbringing by the
venal, beady-eyed ogres that make up the Bush family senior. Would he
cease to believe in God, now armed with the knowledge of when, where
and why we made him up? Again, not necessarily. Many otherwise smart
people choose deliberately to put aside reason and fact for the
solipsistic pleasure of believing the universe has been created for
them and their unique place in their god's plan.
So if intellect is not the tool that can defeat religion, what can?
Dawkins and Holloway ironically provide the answer themselves. Both
men demonstrate a love of humanity that is entirely selfless. They
both wish to see lives saved, improved, explained, but neither expects
rewards in this or some concocted afterlife. It's a love of their
fellow man that is based on the simple, awestruck appreciation of the
miracle that is being alive, and if it could be bottled and sold then
our churches, temples, mosques and chapels, punting their messages of
reward for blind adherence, would crumble to dust. Who could be a
terrorist who loved his fellow man more than his cause or his god? Who
could harbour paedophiles to protect their religion who loved children
more than their church or their god? Be a Richard. Save the world."
Glasgow Sunday Herald, 5 September 2004
--
.
|
