Guest Blog - Richard Dawkins - Hardline religious fundamentalist? - A response by Andrew Evans

By Andrew Evans,

Yesterday, the Barnet Eye posted a blog entitled "Richard Dawkins - Hardline religious fundamentalist?". I have asked for a right to reply.  I do not comment as some kind of Dawkins apologist. He has said some extremely unhelpful things at times, and outside of his field of Biology, cannot (and I think does not) claim any kind of authority.

Richard Dawkins is probably the best known advocate of athiesm in the UK. He believes that science has disproved the existence of God

He believe that no evidence has been presented to support a claim for God, he has gone so far as to say that God almost certainly does not exist but has never said that God has been disproved. This distinction is very important as it would be very unscientific to say something like that.

and that all followers of religion are deluded and misguided.

He almost certainly has said this and I might agree, but I would also question the wisdom of saying it.

Many people agree with this view. For the record, I don't but this doesn't really have any bearing on why I find Mr Dawkins to be advocating a very harsh, cruel and divisive brand of athiesm. I believe in live and let live and I respect the right of everyone to make up their own mind about the existence or not of God.

I think it does have a bearing on your opinion but more of that later.

Of course I agree that people can make up their own mind but that is different from saying every decision is as valid as the next. A belief based on no evidence is harder to defend particularly if one is claiming it gives you the authority to do something.

 I have no objection to athiests setting out their case and having reasoned debate about it. I have no objection to them spending their money on adverts on the side of buses, if thats what they want to do. I do find people who want to convert me to athiesm after six bottles of wine a tad irritating and boring at times, especially I would never try and impose my views on them. If people want to know why I hold my beliefs, they are welcome to ask. They are welcome to outline their own views, they are welcome to debate them.

I would be very interested in a debate. I would also find this annoying. I think it’s great that you don’t impose your views on other people.

I regularly discuss religion with all manner of people, I have the belief that anyone who seeks to do good things and not harm others is on the right track, regardless of their system of belief or lack of it. I believe that anyone who seeks to use religion or athiesm to harm other people, or compel them to do things they don't wish to do to be evil.

I am all for good people doing good thing, and against bad people doing bad things. I happen to think that religion often has the effect of making good people do bad things in its name

I believe we are all part of the same family

Evolution proves we are literally all part of one family tree and it is something that inspires me to treat others with dignity and to extend this, where possible, to animals to whom we are also all related

and we should treat each other with  respect and dignity.

People have used religion for many evil purposes throughout history, but I happen to believe that in countries where Athiesm was adopted, such as the USSR and China the same thing happened.

It’s simply inaccurate to say that those countries ‘adopted’ atheism. Atheism comes with no prescription for running a country and no rules to set out.

I personally see religious disputes in the same light as football violence. I believe it to be tribal hatred, practised by idiots who have rather missed the point of it all. I would not associate myself with any view which seeks to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion.

I agree that humans are tribal by nature and that religion is far from the only way we show this. I feel religion is a particularly potent form of tribalism. I refuse to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion but religion does not give them the right to discriminate either. To state that it is ‘against your faith’ is no reason to not allow a homosexual couple to stay at your B&B for example.

I have skipped the paragraph relating specifically to the tweet for obvious reasons. But I think it’s clear now that whatever Dawkins was suggesting, it was not a directive for families to disown each other on the grounds of faith or lack thereof, it was the opposite.

I happen to believe that the existence of God is and always be impossible to scientifically prove or disprove.

I agree. And a non-falsifiable hypothesis is meaningless one. We can look at the evidence before us and observe that the universe appears to work perfectly well without the need for God but as you go on to say, belief in God is not based on evidence ultimately, it is based on faith

 Belief is a matter of faith and for the individual to decide upon.

This doesn’t mean that every claim is as valid as the next

 As such I believe athiesm is simply another form of religion, albiet one with no deity.

Atheism is the rejection of the claims of Theism. That’s all it is. And Theism is the claim that God exists, created us, and continues to take an interest in our lives. You only need to reject this claim to be an a-theist, there are no other ways of thinking prescribed.

 It is a system of belief.

Atheism is not, in itself, a belief system.

Whilst most athiests I know would recoil at Mr Dawkins suggestion, it does trouble me that in his role of as the Archbishop of Canterbury for athiests, he is spreading a message of hate and division. I support free speech and the right of anyone to hold whatever view they choose.

I strongly support free speech too

I do however think that in light of his comment, I have formed the opinion that in some ways Mr Dawkins is a dangerous religious fundamentalist. In my book anyone who preaches division in families is someone who has gone too far.

As discussed he didn’t preach the division of families, he observed that religion had caused it. The benefit of someone telling him this, and then him tweeting it, is a separate issue. And atheism isn’t a religion or a belief system.

It seems that the whole situation is a little more complex than I originally assumed. What I hadn't realised was perhaps how accurate my description of Mr Dawkins as the Archbishop of Canterbury of Athiesm actually was. I find it truly bizarre that someone would tweet him about a family row. Whilst I can understand his initial response, does it really help? It strikes me that the mother and daughter are both similar characters, who have issues backing down. If I had a row with my daughter, I most certainly wouldn't email the Pope.

He has not ever claimed to be the Pope or Archbishop of atheism. Some people may see him that way and that is their failing.

Mr Dawkins response is extremely hard line. As none of us know the background and what caused the fallout, as it is unlikely to be a single issue, it is a bit difficult to draw too many conclusions, but Mr Dawkins clearly does not feel at all constrained.

He based his conclusions of the first hand account of one of the people involved. And from this account it was not a mutual falling out. One person was rejected based on their lack of faith. There could be more to the story.

In his comments, he mentions things that families don't fall out over. I know families who have fallen out over all of the things he mentions. Politics, food and sport have caused all manner of issues. Even music, I know loads of families where musical difference have caused punch ups. Look at the Davies brothers in the Kinks.

As I’ve already said. Religion is not the only form of tribalism but often the most potent.

Aaron Shaw is right that I misinterpreted Mr Dawkins tweet, but I am not sure that his response is any less fundamentalist. Surely he has merely given reinforcement to a family feud over religion.

No, he has highlighted that the division has no basis in reason.

If it was between a Catholic Mum and a Protestant daughter,  he would surely have reacted different. As one of the protagonists belonged to his faith, he took sides, without any knowledge of the full background. I'd say that is a fairly fundamentalist world view.

As I’ve already said, he could have had the exact same objection to a Catholic/Protestant dispute. He, again, has no faith but I’d imagine he would be more sympathetic to the person who has rejected a claim for God based on lack of evidence.

My view. Girls, get over yourselves and start thinking about the daughter/grand daughter rather than this silly grandstanding.

Hmmm…

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editor Note : Andrew read the blog posted yesterday and asked for the opportunity to post a full response. At the Barnet Eye we welcome informed, open and honest debate and guest contributions.

Andrew is a 31 year old musician, producer and video editor born and living in Barnet with his wife (and cat).More info at www.andrewevansmusic.com