![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Guardian recently published an interview with Richard Dawkins, British evolutionary biologist, leading proponent of atheism, and author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion. People like Dawkins make me squeamish, the same way I suppose many sincere Christians feel sick whenever certain religious leaders open their mouths.
Critics accuse him of an imaginative failure when it comes to human nature's susceptibility to the comfort of irrational thought. They say his intellectual intolerance alienates people, and have questioned his wisdom in attacking a target such as the comedian Peter Kay, for admitting to finding faith comforting. "How can you take seriously," Dawkins notoriously scorned, "someone who likes to believe something because he finds it 'comforting'?"
If there were environmental selection against an arrogance gene, Dawkins's progenitors would have been eliminated from the pool millennia ago.
I believe the natural universe is all there is. It makes sense to me. I don't expect it to make sense to everyone. Words will never win a war against belief. The only way to eradicate religion would be to cut out people's imaginations. But it also takes imagination to fathom the complexities of nature. Without curiosity and creativity we would be ignorant indeed.
Science does a fair job of explaining how things work, but runs into trouble with the question why. Ultimately, there is no real answer, and I'm content with that, but most people want more.
Dawkins makes an interesting point, though not a new one, when asked whether he envies people who believe, who derive comfort from their faith, and overcome any mortal fear of God.
If I envied them that, then I'd have to envy people who are on some drug, which just makes them feel good. So to the extent that religion's comforting, it's probably not ...
I've considered the benefits, despite what I believe, of belonging to some kind of spiritual community. Sigmund Freud concluded religion was a neurotic illness, but Carl Jung argued it was a beneficial psychological phenomenon that performed a role in "harmonising the psyche." Based on current events—but Jung should have seen this, too—it's hard to see religion as a purely benevolent force. I wonder whether we can't find something better after all.
Faith fends off fears about death, and perhaps worse, fears about living. But if we have nothing to fear but fear itself (FDR), maybe the safest path is to look our existence (and demise) squarely and deeply in the face, and accept it for what it is. We should use our imaginations to illuminate rather than elaborate upon knowledge.
I'm not a rationalist like Dawkins. I believe what I know, because it makes sense. But what I know about the human mind persuades me that we are capable of persuading ourselves to believe whatever we need. Dawkins has built a career on facts and arguments, and has a vested interest in maintaining his intellectual integrity.
I am just a poet, so openness and empathy seem more important.
