Ruth Gledhill writes about a debate on whether people are better off without religion that took place Westminster Central Hall in London. Richard Dawkins was obviously on the side, which argued that for the uselessness of religion and he was joined by Christopher Hitchens and Professor AC Grayling. Gledhill writes that Dawkins was able to knock down all of the arguments from the other side (Baroness Julia Neuberger, Professor Roger Scruton and Nigel Spivey) and makes the point that although he isn’t angry and one-dimmensional, his views on religion are extreme. Sugary excerpt:
Dawkins did not have to work very hard to win the argument last night. His problem is that he takes religion too literally, and as many have pointed out, is too fundamentalist about his own atheistic creed. Apart from that fleeting moment of doubt I spotted, we are all creationists in his eyes.
Gledhill confuses passion with fundamentalism. Richard Dawkins believes intensely and passionately that religion is useless and dangerous. However, the problem is that it is impossible to have a debate about religiosity on the level that Dawkins wants to have it because religion is more about faith than reason. This limitation doesn’t mean that dialogue and debate is impossible, but that it can only be about the place of religion within a modern and democratic society.
Comments