|
Atheism is a form of Fundamentalism I watched a programme last night by Oxford University Professor Richard Dawkins called ‘The Root of all Evil’ , which suggested, amongst other things, that religions are the root of all evil, that Fundamental Christians and Muslims cause all of the problems in the world and that Faith in any form is a highly dangerous illusion. A clear atheist with a scientist’s black and white approach to wanting proof and evidence of everything, he finished the programme by stating that many continue to believe in God simply because there’s no proof to God not existing. He likened believing in God to believing in a teapot that orbits the earth. We apparently continue to believe in it by telling ourselves that there’s no proof for it because it’s too small for telescopes to see it. In short, probably the most silly and ridiculous metaphor I ever heard. I think that the Fundamental Atheists are just as dangerous as Fundamentalists of any religion because they are equally as responsible for the intense polarisation of opposing views. Professor Dawkins spoke with Christians, Catholics and Muslims with as much intent of converting them to his belief system as they had for converting him to theirs. He wished to prove them wrong by preaching his own views just as they did right back at him. Each side stood glaring at the other with the smug superiority that comes from believing that only they are right, only they have the answers. Surely we’d all get on better and be truly moving in the direction of a little peace on Earth if our goals were empathy and understanding rather than a burning desire to be right? I thought that both sides were right sometimes and wrong others. Take evolution as opposed to creation. I’m with you on that one Professor D. I’ll come down on the side of evolution every time. The difference is that a: I don’t find that believing in evolution means I can’t believe in my idea of God and b: I don’t really get all hot and bothered that others choose to believe in creation even if I do find it over simplistic and hopelessly naïve. A: is easy. I think of God as the source of our universe – the black primordial soup that one day contracted itself before belching out the matter that made the Big Bang to eventually created life as we all know it. A life so extraordinarily complex that we all have the levels of consciousness where we get to sit down and bitch about how we think the world got started in the first place. That’s my own personal thing that works for me and I really don’t mind if I’m the only one that believes it. Unlike Professor Dawkins, it gets my goat not at all that so many other people choose to believe in a theory that God created the world in seven days. The poor professor is driven crazy by these people. He wants to argue with them, convert them, and change their minds. He claims that the main problem is that many parts of America evolution isn’t even taught in schools. Even now I can’t get on board with him fully. Is it right that creation is presented as the only theory? Not in my view, no. But I’d only get that hacked off if it were presented as a factual theory to my child. I do agree with him however that it’s worrying that one of the world’s superpowers over-teach creation to the exclusion of evolution (a huge problem with a national curriculum and the public school system generally – but I digress.) Where he and I differ is that I think that standing in stubborn opposition to those that believe that way only creates the hate and polarisation of opposing sides that he so criticizes between Christianity and Islam. Just as he fears these opposing armies create potential suicide bombers, so I fear that atheists that employ the same believe that only they can be right will do the same. Professor Dawkins was so busy wanting to be opposite, to be right and to change minds, to poke holes in arguments and to criticize and ridicule the faith and belief of others that he missed chances to genuinely do some good; to build bridges, to create harmony. When talking with an Islamic Fundamentalist, Professor Dawkins took issue with this man suggesting that Western women dress like whores and those Westerners should do something about that. Professor Dawkins missed the point utterly by saying that women choose to dress like that. It wasn’t his fault, he didn’t dress them. Don’t get me wrong, I think women dressed in outfits that cover them from head to toe and the idea that they need veils that leave only their eyes uncovered is utterly insane and I wouldn’t agree with that Islamic Fundamentalist on that for a moment. But he does have a point! Our society utterly degrades women and the beauty of their bodies by over-sexualising images of even very young women in the name of pop music, advertising or even ‘news’ in the newspapers. There’s no respect for women’s bodies, they don’t even seem to belong to women but to men to the extent that when a woman discreetly uses a breast as it is intended – i.e. to feed her baby – people are appalled, but women that get on TV or in the papers showing off their bodies in an overtly sexual way are applauded and rewarded. So tell me Professor Dawkins: where’s your ‘proof’ and your ‘evidence’ that your approach of attacking the beliefs of others is going to help our world become more compassionate and understanding? We need, whatever camp we come from, atheist, religious, agnostic or spiritual, to find ways where we can agree. If all discussion from all sides is approached from the desire to prove the other person wrong, the fighting will only continue. |