Richard Dawkins: 2 Flaws Plague Unscientific Belief, from Trump & Alt-Right to Religious Doctrine
It’s very unfortunate when you inadvertently find people agreeing with you who they're the last people who wish to agree with you. I mean, I despise Trump. I despise everything that he stands for. But it’s perfectly true that many people think that I ought to be on his side because he has these draconian, illiberal, horrible policies towards Muslims, trying to stop Muslims entering the country. What a horrible thing to do. What an impolite, unwise, illiberal, inhumane thing to do.
And so I’m embarrassed if people on the alt-right agree with something that I say for the wrong reasons. There’s not a great deal about religion in Science in the Soul. Most of what I have to say about that is in my earlier book, The God Delusion, so I can rehearse that if you wish. To me, as a scientist, the main argument is a scientific one. I think that the hypothesis that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence is a scientific hypothesis; it’s a bad hypothesis, it’s a false hypothesis, but it has to be judged on its scientific merits.
The universe would be a very different kind of universe if there was a supernatural creative intelligence in it than if there wasn’t. So much of my argument is a scientific argument. There is no positive reason to believe in anything supernatural. If you look at all the reasons that have been offered, none of them stand up; none of them hold water. We have, in the form of Darwinian evolution, a superb theory of why living things have come into being, why they are the way they are, why they look as though they’ve been designed, and they undoubtedly do look as though they’ve been designed.
The illusion of design in living things is immensely powerful, and it’s no wonder that until Darwinian came along, almost everybody believed that it was created by a supernatural intelligence. But we now have Darwin; we now have Darwin and his successors. We now know how life came about. And the complexity and the beauty, the elegance and the illusion of design of life have always been by far the most powerful argument for the existence of supernatural gods, and that is completely blown out of the water.
The secondary argument is whether religion has evil effects, whether religion has bad effects, and on balance, I think it does. The real problem is that religious faith prides itself on not needing support. You can’t argue somebody out of their faith; they simply say that’s my faith, you have to accept it. And that means that if their faith tells them, if their religious upbringing tells them that they must do bad things like blow things up, kill apostates, throw gay people off high buildings, et cetera, if their religion tells them that, then you can’t argue them out of it because it comes from their faith.
Faith, by definition, has no argument; faith, by definition, can shelter behind the wall that says, no, it’s my faith, I don’t have to defend it; it’s just there, it’s just faith. That I think is potentially very evil. That’s very far from saying that every religious person is evil. Of course, many people do good things because of their faith, and that’s great, but the fact that faith can lead to and does lead to significant numbers of evil things, and the horrific repression of women, for example, in certain theocracies, and of gay people in theocracies, the sentences of apostates to death, the joyless suppression of the music and art and fun in certain countries because of religious indoctrination—religious faith—the fact that this can follow from religious faith, the people who do these awful things don’t think they’re terrible; they think they’re doing good, they think they’re being righteous, they think they’re obeying the will of their god and that they’re going to go to paradise because of it. That, I think, because it has the potential to be evil, we have to regard that as an evil.