interest sparked by this article
Especially interesting to me is the second half of the virus of faith.
Dawkins makes some sweeping generalizations and shows a disgusting lack of compassion, but he also has some very valid points.
The root of all evil is not religion. many peaceful people are religious, and many violent people are non-religious. Faith, however, presents more of a dilemma. The nazis were faithful to hitler, and terrorists are faithful to their causes. However, gandhi was faithful to his causes and his people and his ideals. Perhaps then the question is not faith exactly, but blind faith.
Some religious people are faithful because of a continuing critical thought process that considers other belief systems and allows critical questioning of their own beliefs, which leads them to the personal conclusion that their faith is right for them. This is good.
However, some religious people are faithful because they were “raised that way”, because their parents “told them so”, because they live in an isolated society where contact with other belief systems is cut off, or even because they are threatened from an early age with severe punishments in this life or the afterlife. This “forced faith” is unhealthy, and it’s probably from this kind of faith that terrorism and nazism gain support.
The question of the fairness of indoctrinating a child with religious beliefs is a difficult one. Parents have a right, and perhaps even a responsibility to educate their children about their heritage. Some important restrictions, however, must be applied. The enforcement of education by refusing access to other ideas and information is obviously unhealthy to a young mind because it destroys the ability to think critically and results in “forced faith”. The use of hell as a threat, as discussed in the “The Virus of Faith” can be considered psychological abuse, and furthermore the use of heaven as a bribe is questionable as well. A personal belief in heaven and/or hell is not necessarily unhealthy, but attempting to scare a child into adopting a belief system undoubtedly is, especially if the child is told that her very conception and birth was a sin. This is not to say that all churches do this, this is to advocate caution against it. The playing field is already unleveled because religious education facilities are free to criticize science although public educational facilities are prohibited from criticizing religion.
Some may argue that it is important to teach a child religious doctrine in order to teach them morality, and some people may even insist that without a fear of supernatural repercussions, one has no motivation to live a just life. However, the concepts of compassion and morality can be taught outside of religious doctrine, and some scientists, for example the one in the film, believe that morality and the idea of “do unto others as you would want others to do unto you” is a natural “instinct” of humans, developed and passed down guided by Darwinian principles to allow humans to function well in groups.
A religious community, like any other community, can be very enriching and help to spread knowledge, promote discussion, and bring people together to give them a sense of belonging and home. However, imagine the observation made in Supersize Me, that McDonald’s Play Places help associate a warm fuzzy feeling with McDonald’s so that adults will have an urge for a burger when they see the golden arches. Could a religious community hold youth activities for the purpose of subconsciously associating “family” with their community or faith, thus securing the continued patronage of it’s youth and their future generations?
One may argue that the “problem” that I am getting at is extremist religion. However, I would rebut that even moderate religious faith can be damaging on an individual level if it is “forced faith”. If a moderately religious person is faithful because they feel that they have no other options because of peer pressure from their community or family, or even if they are unaware of any other options outside of their faith because of the isolation of their community, then that person’s thoughts or actions may be restricted by their faith. She may not be able to marry outside of her faith, attend school outside of her faith, or support any kind of cause that her religious community shuns. She could become trapped within her religious community and religious belief system until she was (ironically) “saved”. This situation has been compared to homosexuality, in the sense that some people who are personally non-believers are forced by their community to remain “in the closet”.
So if the “problem” is “forced faith”, what is the solution? An early encouragement of critical thinking is essential for children, and, along with a healthy dose of exposure to outside cultures and belief systems will allow a person to develop their own personal belief system as opposed to simply inheriting one from their parents or community. Also, a healthy religious community is one that is compassionate toward religious and non-religious people, even if the non-religious ones are former community members. A religious community must be supportive of its members’ decision to leave, just as a nonreligious community must be supportive of converts away from faith, and converts into faith. Communities must assert that atheism is an option, just as communities must assert that homosexuality is an option. Freedom is a key word here. Freedom of action and freedom of thought. If a person is religious by “voluntary faith”, then they are free. If a person is non-religious by voluntary non-faith, then they are free. Perhaps then the root of all evil is enslavement.
Dawkins himself did not like the name of the documentary, which either the BBC or Channel 4 gave in order to make it more controversial.
He said himself in an interview I watched that religion is not the root of all evil. Nothing is the root of all evil. However, it is, in his (and my) opinion a thing we are better without.