Letters to the Editor

Abstract

2 August 2009 Dear Editor, RICHARD DAWKINS MISREPRESENTED In your June editorial comment, Are We Still Evolving?, you discuss On the Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Immediately after their publication, both these books were disparaged by religious believers, and were alleged to say things that they did not say – often by people who had not read them carefully, or at all, You state that, ‘The God Delusion makes the case for atheism, but attacks religion. This polarisation of views, evolution versus religion, is unfortunate and unnecessary because many feel they are not mutually exclusive’. First, one cannot make a case for atheism without attacking theism. Second, because some people think that science and religion are compatible does not mean that it is wrong for Dawkins to argue the opposite – see pages 77–85 of the 2007 paperback edition of The God Delusion.1 Third, challenging conventional wisdom and polarising views is fundamental to the scientific process. Chapter 8 of The God Delusion explains why Dawkins thinks it is important to promote rationalism (including science), and denounce superstition (including religion) and the widespread support for believing in ideas for which there is no strong evidence (faith). It is true that ‘many scientists are able to reconcile accepting the theory of evolution with maintaining their religious belief’. However, even in the USA, where there are high levels of religious observance, only 7.0% of the members of the elite National Academy of Sciences believed in a personal god in 1998; biological scientists, with specialist expertise in evolution, had the lowest rate of belief.2 Less accomplished scientists were more likely to believe in a personal god. You also claim that ‘the near universality of religion suggests that belonging to a religion may confer a survival advantage on the individual’. Even if belonging to a religion did confer a survival advantage, this would not mean that religious beliefs are correct. Dawkins devotes Chapter 5 of The God Delusion to discussing why all known cultures have religion. The likely explanation is that humans yearn for explanations about the world. In the past, people made up elaborate stories about why things exist, and some of these stories became religious dogma that often persists even when contradicted by evidence (whereas science constantly re-evaluates ideas in the light of new evidence). Evolution has moulded young children's brains so that they tend to believe what adults tell them: this is valuable for survival (do not eat that poisonous plant), but can perpetuate myths (give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man). The fact that there are hundreds of mutually contradictory religions strongly suggests that they were invented by humans. Most people are Christians or Muslims or Hindus for the same reason they speak English or Arabic or Hindi: because of an accident of birth. You allege that Dawkins blames religion for war. He does not: he blames religion for some wars. He certainly points out that religious wars and killings have been far too frequent; for example, more than a million people were killed in religious riots between Hindus and Muslims in India at the time of partition. But Dawkins also writes on pages 259–260 that ‘it is frequently and rightly said that wars, and feuds between religious groups or sects, are seldom actually about theological disagreements’ and ‘I do not deny that humanity's powerful tendencies towards in-group loyalties and out-group hostilities would exist even in the absence of religion’. Even if one disagrees with The God Delusion, the book repays careful reading, and it deserves to be quoted accurately. As an aside, I note that Charles Darwin is not the only scientist to have a town named after him. Two towns, in Georgia and New Jersey, are named after Thomas Edison.