To: Richard Dawkins Foundation For Reason And Science,
1012 14th St Nw,
Washington, DC 20005-3403
25th November 2019
Dear
Professor Dawkins,
OUTGROWING
GOD – my question.
I
wholly support your central message in OUTGROWING GOD. For mankind’s (and woman kind's) next evolutionary phase, primitive assumptions and practices need to be
outgrown. We do need to grow up.
Your
book, however, consciously leaves a void that purpose and reason might fill. For
example, the chapter ‘Bottom Up or Top Down’ is a robust re-assertion of Darwinian
evolution. It particularly stresses the random nature of nature and the
universe, evolving over billions of years; allowing plenty of time for
everything and anything to happen randomly and accidentally.
The chapter
asserts that individual and collective termites are not aware of any design for
their mud-built intricate and efficient termite hills. We cannot really know
the minds of termites unless we become one of them. But from my lofty position
as an individual human and part of the collective human species, I can accept
that humans are capable of “knowing” more than termites and other Earthly species.
When I design and build a human home, I like to imagine I have a conscious plan
and a purpose. Am I deluded?
Religion
and science both tell us that we are, as far as we and our scientific
instruments know, the pinnacle of universal evolution. As one of the 7 billion surviving
humans, however flawed in design I may be, I have more insight and information about
my state of being than into any other species or objects. So, logically I
should first examine my own being.
My
conundrum concerning the philosophy in your book is: Where is the threshold between
the vast majority of randomly evolved creatures and objects, deemed to be
unconscious and not designed; and our purposely, intelligently designed human tools
and objects?
For
example, the computer and internet I am using to create and send this message,
has not, you might agree, come into being by a series of random, purposeless events,
even over billions of years. It is a product of our human-collective
intelligence and consciousness. Nor is its existence purposeless; we have purposes
for our tools. Our aeroplanes, electronics, vehicles and thousands of other complex
tools are designed by us.
We are deliberate and purposeful inventors, designers
and makers. If we, as natural products of Earth, are the resulting survivors of
random and accidental events, of selfish genes, particle-collisions, brainless fertilised
eggs, multiplying cells, Blastula and Gastrula, at what stage or threshold in
our evolution did we acquire, by random-selection, the abilities to invent,
design and manufacture purposeful objects? If the threshold is indefinable, an
alternative is to propose that the materials from which I am constructed – which
can be backward-engineered to the plasma at the (alleged) Big-Bang - might have
those qualities.
This
is a genuine query, not a mischievous trap, a cunning-plan, to bring you to
God. (Unless you’d like to buy from me a £1 million, guaranteed passport to Heaven).
I
am not a believer. I am a lapsed Roman Catholic. I read and embrace science.
Like you, I questioned and rejected my religious brain-washing from the age of 6
to 16. Some religions do include some profound wisdom and valid social guidance.
Now, at 77 next, as the insurance companies put it, I have no “faith” but I still
search for sensible answers to the big-questions. Your provocative books, papers
and lectures offer signposts on my road to enlightenment.
Regards
– Noel Hodson
********
Dear Noel,
Your
email to Richard Dawkins provoked me to pen the thoughts below:
I
too rejected religion during my formative years. I saw through the humbug.
I
have long been an avid reader of Richard Dawkins, and agree with much of what
he says. On religion, I side with him in
denying the very basis of what is preached, seeing myth, superstition and often
powerfully-enforced persuasion at the core.
I
cannot ignore -
·
the stifling authoritarian approach: such
as the Inquisition and Papal infallibility (a mid-nineteenth century invention,
this latter one),
·
the many grand-scale cruelties inflicted
in the name of religion: such as genocide, crusade, jihad, auto-da-fé, torture
and imprisonment (not that such activities are limited to religious groups),
·
the grabbing of temporal as well as
spiritual power if and when the situation permits: permitting control over mind
as well as body – such as the Holy Roman Empire, the Caliphates, and (one might
add) Communism: and on a small scale,
the many weird modern sects founded by money-, power- and sex-seeking
maniacs,
·
the intolerance of many, if not all,
competing religions or sects,
·
the stifling of knowledge outside the
teachings of the religion or sect: such as restricting the right of reading or interpreting
holy books to the priesthood, and the burning of “unholy” books,
·
the unnecessary intrusions into people’s
lives, such as controlling the rights to marry, to divorce, to procreate, to prevent
procreation, to abort an unwanted pregnancy, to decide which foods can or cannot
be eaten, and even to switch a light bulb on or off on a holy day.
·
the uncaring rigidity of approach, such as
refusing blood transfusions to a dying person or abortion in a case of rape
·
the child abuses and similar egregious betrayals
of trust by the priesthoods, which in many cases could be attributed to restricting
the priesthood to men.
·
the apparent ease with which religion can
be taken to excess, either by individual priests or laypersons. All religions and sects seem to provide a
fertile breeding ground (usually, but not always, limited to a fringe of
extremists) for outrageous and even violent speech and actions. I have not yet come across an extreme
atheist, someone who will rant or kill in the name of atheism. As to agnostics, I’m not sure.
And,
let’s not forget -
·
the patent idiocies: such as denial of the
earth’s roundness and insistence of its central place in the universe, etc. And the belief in miracles, saints, angels,
cherubs, walking on water, riding up to heaven on a white horse (from the principal
revered site of another religion) … the list is long and risible. One could only wish that all religions could admit
that many of their “truths” are mere storytelling like the Nibelungenlied, tales of the
Olympian gods or Tolkien’s Middle Earth.
Ah, for the intellectual honesty of David Jenkins, former Bishop of
Durham, who admitted not to believe in the Virgin Birth!
On
the other hand:
·
there have been and undoubtedly still are,
many leaders and practitioners of religion who have acted in humility, possessed
an open mind, were considerate of other people, gave of themselves, and who
have been/are remarkable and admirable individuals.
·
significant benefits can arise from the
act of people coming together in communal activities, of which a religious
service is merely one type.
·
people who possess the right personal
qualities and attitudes can indeed dispense wisdom and compassion (although
members of religious sects are not the only ones qualified to do so).
But
none of these require the existence of religion. A person does not need to be a follower of a
religion to be kind, considerate, and helpful to those in need, or to be personally
at peace in the knowledge of his or her ultimate fate: just being the right
type of human being is sufficient to permit these attitudes and actions.
Wrapping
advice on social and personal issues in shrouds of mystery, as well as
controlling believers with earthly punishments and post-life threats, seem to
be the way that most religions control their followers. Individuals may like these things, but others
should be free to choose not to.
The
problem boils down to this:
A
spiritual aspect to our lives can be uplifting and helpful to us human beings,
with our need for psychological and emotional stability in the face of the constant
threats of war, famine, poverty, illness, loneliness, and, above all, the one
certainty of life: its inevitable end.
But organised religions have not proved they can be trusted to deliver
the uplifting aspects of life without also bringing in the negative, temporal aspects
of their organisations.
It
is a truth universally acknowledged (certainly by me) that religions tend to
seek temporal as well as spiritual influence.
They need to organise, they need hierarchies to a lesser or greater
extent, they need to teach/indoctrinate their members about the beliefs and
practices of their sect, they need to show that they are superior to competing
religions, they need money, they need properties, they need to engage in marketing
(confirmatory messages to believers and proselytising messages to others). In short, they are in many respects no
different from other large organisations, be they state, commercial or
philanthropic. One could go further, and
say that much of the teaching of each sect is aimed at denigrating other sects
in order to bolster support for their own, and this bleeds into the purity of
their essential messages (which, at their best, would be simple messages of
harmony, peace, kindness, etc).
But
it is the temporal aspects of religions that are the greatest problems
associated with them, the cause of their usual failure to achieve their primary
purpose of improving the lot of mankind, and the reason they need to be
restricted in their right and ability to impose themselves on the unbelieving
and the unwilling.
BEN
