Presence

Atheism has been in the news quite a bit recently, mostly thanks to Richard Dawkins new book, The God Delusion. Wired magazine has a cover story out this month entitled "The New Atheism." I've been waiting for some kind of response from anybody; I saw Hirhurim linked to an article by R. Jonathan Sacks entitled "Danger ahead - there are good reasons why God created atheists.

Dawkins main position is that if we do away with religion, we will end all the suffering perpetrated in its name. R. Sacks responds that religion is only used as an excuse; Man will find other reasons to cause suffering (I haven't read Dawkins' book, but I did read the Wired artile in which he is interviewed, as well as seen a few interviews he has given).

It is instructive to look closer at how R. Sacks approaches Dawkins' argument. Dawkins views religion in contradistinction to science; it's the old faith vs. reason. Dawkins views religion as irrational, and therefore mutable towards ones own agenda. R. Sacks reframes the argument by positing religion as the antidote to the "will to power," the basic human tendency to seek power, authority, autonomy and control (cf. Genesis). From Dawkins perspective, religious people are simply making decisions based on myths created centuries ago to explain the unexplainable; they put faith in these myths and end up getting carried away and killing people for what are ultimately false reasons; therefore, getting rid of the myths will end the killing. From R. Sacks perspective, religion is not a counterpart to science, but is instead attempting to address the basic categories of human nature and experience, identify where and how they lead to suffering, and put an end to them. Religion is not, like science, a means towards understanding the world around us, but rather a means to understanding the world within us.

When looked at this way, Dawkins arguments for the abolishment of religion in place of atheism make no sense. If religion is a means of understanding the universe, then we have science. But if religion is aimed understanding mankind and human experience, well, science tells us little to nothing about that. Even if our behaviors are defined by evolution, the process of understanding them and seeking to overcome where they fall short is a whole seperate issue. Whatsmore, getting rid of religion will not help end the suffering that stems from our humanity, not our rituals or systems of law.

There's much, much more to be said on this topic, such as the questions for religion that R. Sacks inadvertently raises, further questions for Dawkins about the problems presented by relgion, etc.. But that's all for now. I haven't seen any other sensible responses on this topic.