OK so it’s time to reflect on my research so far, I’ve taken the term ‘religion’ in its broadest sense - looking at the general idea of faith and belief in a super natural force.
I started by collating a general understanding of the term, looking at scholars and large personalities that stand either side of the fence regarding ‘having faith.’
This kicked my research off nicely and lead me in a couple of directions, which can be fairly split into as ‘the atheist view’ and ‘any other view.’
So I began reading some of the writings of the highly regarded, but equally controversial Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, The Selfish Gene and The Greatest Show on Earth, to name but a few.
Dawkins’ is of the opinion that there categorically is no ‘god’;
Evolution, Dawkins suggests, 'provides the only coherent alternative to both blind chance and ‘intelligent design’ because it creates complexity through innumerable small steps, each of which is ‘slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so.’
Writing off the possibility of a ‘god’ as a designer of the universe and everything in it, Dawkins also suggests that the influence of such a force in the governing of education and state law is completely absurd;
'How any government could promote the Vardy academies in the north-east of England is absolutely beyond me. Tony Blair defends them on grounds of diversity, but it should be unthinkable in the 21st century to have a school whose head of science believes the world is less than 10,000 years old.'
Fundamentally I agree with Dawkins argument, as ‘strong’ as it may be. I have always been particularly interested in the idea of religion influencing politics and state law, something that strikes me as incredibly bizarre given the significant developments in our understanding of evolution and the formation of man.
To continue on a my non-biased research path, I looked to the other side of the coin, and unearthed the main argument to support the introduction of religion into culture:
I was greeted with a defense based on the formation of a ‘moral code’, for the sake of the simplicity of the argument, lets take Christianity as a basis for this proposal.
‘Moral values are not fixed but have changed over time. Where once slavery was justified through Biblical invocation, today most Christians believe that the practice is contrary to God’s will. It is not that God has changed his mind but rather that, as social beliefs have progressed, so Christians have begun interpreting God’s word differently. But if we can make up our own minds as to what is right and wrong, Dawkins asks, why do we need God in the first place?’
I’d like to offer up this ‘anonymous’ passage that I feel supports Dawkins’ statement well;
‘Religion is not the bulwark of morality any more than the cockerel crowing if the cause of the dawn or the virgin sacrifices are the cause of the volcano keeping quiet. This trick has been perpetrated on people for centuries and people continue to fall for it. It is very reminiscent of the great Santa Claus conspiracy. The surest way to lose a job on television is to state clearly that there is no such person as Santa Claus. No adult believes in Santa Claus, but most are part of the conspiracy. We mustn’t let children know that there is no Santa Claus because ... er, well, because. And we mustn’t let the people, especially the poor, know there is no God because, well, because. We wouldn’t want to face those consequences would we?'
So it’s turned out rather strangely really, the two words I was torn between pursuing originally have formed a single basis or ‘debate’ for my interpretation.
I can say this is by far the most interested a project of this nature has kept me through the early stages. So I take back what I wrote the other day, I’m not sure I could have uncovered such an interesting debate within another keyword. More soon.
