The Dawkins Delusion
To preface this story, you must understand about a week ago, I was the biggest Richard Dawkins fan. His wonderfully comical and simple explanations of the conflict of religion and science were so intriguing and fun to read. I devoured his books one by one starting at The Selfish Gene and continuing on to Unweaving the Rainbow and The Greatest Show on Earth. My insatiable appetite for any Dawkins related thing pushed me further. I soon became an ardent reader and listener of any article or talk I could find that involved him in any capacity. Now, I wasn’t obsessed. But naturally, when Dawkins came to Menlo, I attended all the discussion meetings leading up to assembly where he spoke and, of course, the lunch-time discussion with he himself. But when the clock struck 1 and we were herded off to class, I still had one lingering question. And here my story begins:
I yearned to run to the line forming in front of Dawkins to ask my question, but I didn’t want to seem too eager. So I instead tried to briskly, casually walk which resulted in an awkward, clumsy sort of jive across the room. When I had finally reached my intended destination, my heart sped up and I tried to compose myself by uncreasing and reading my 8.5” by 11” typed page of questions, only to nervously crumple it again.
Finally, my turn came to ask my question.
“Mr. Dawkins, I’m really sorry” –I apologize a lot– “but I have one last question for you. If you believe in God, God is something that constantly is with you and can constantly make you happy. Your suggestions of religion, art, poetry, and friends are only temporary relieves, so what can replace religion?” I dug my nail into the back of my hand in order to alleviate the pressure of the situation.
Very matter-of-factly he replied, “I don’t believe you need to replace religion.”
I plucked up some courage. “But in The God Delusion, you definitely emphasize that religion is bad. And if something is bad, you must replace it, change it, or eradicate it.”
“No, you don’t need to change religion. Belief in God has just been passed down throughout the ages and one must take a step back and critically look at it.” He recited as if reading from a book. But then –and now– I am unsure how his second sentence supports his first.
“So then you think we should eradicate it?”
Briskly he responded, “No no, that isn’t necessary…”
“So then if you don’t think we need to change, replace, or eradicate religion, do you think it’s ok?”
“No, religion is not a good institution. If one has cancer and is dying, people rely on false thoughts rather than reality.”
“Well, what’s wrong with believing in an irrationality if it can make one slightly happier?”
Now angrily and less composed he retorted, “NO NO NO! That is exactly the problem, you can’t keep on believing in the tooth fairy once you pass a certain age. When one is grown up, one must stop believing in childish things.”
And with that, he angrily darted off.
Now of course, that isn’t exactly how it went. I have had a hard time capturing Dawkin’s stern and sometimes patronizing tone. And of course, I too sound much more collected in my writing. I might have –well, definitely– stumbled over some words and added like and um to an alarming amount of sentences. Also, I know others were there and at one point or another someone else interjected, but it wasn’t noteworthy to me.
The answer I had in mind to my original question is that you don’t need to be constantly happy. But Dawkins didn’t seem to figure that out, nor find it important to admit the flaw in his argument.
Take my story as you will. For as Dawkins would say, one must rely on the facts and evidence in order to draw conclusions.
- Gupta
