Dawkins on Faith Schools

As I began to watch "Faith School Menace?", the documentary created and presented by Professor Richard Dawkins and broadcast on More4 on Wednesday, on 4oD, I was preparing myself for an hour of vitriol, pure polemic and poor arguments.

And, as much as I hate to admit it, I was wrong.

Professor Dawkins largely made arguments with which I personally do agree. I do agree that it isn't productive to segregate children in terms of 'faith' at an age where they themselves don't truly understand it.

Equally I agree that RE lessons in faith schools should, just like such lessons in secular state schools, be assessed by standard Ofsted inspections.

I also agree that children should be encouraged to question what they are told and not believe that all adults speak truth all of the time, and indeed in the importance of evidence.

I even agree with the one-to-one advice he gave to a headmaster of a Muslim school, that rather than teaching that science teaches one theory of human origin whilst Muslims instead prefer the explanation of creation, they should instead attempt to reconcile the two. Religious faith should not be used against scientific evidence.

However, I could not agree completely with Dawkins. He made the assertion in a primary school assembly that, if someone could not give sufficient evidence for something, then it probably wasn't true.

This is where I fundamentally disagree with Dawkins. Evidence is of course important - but evidence, in Dawkins' terms, is not the be all and end all. This is the reason why he cannot bring himself to believe in God - because for him, hardcore empirical evidence is a requisite for the acceptance of something.

I would indeed agree if Christianity, or Hinduism, or Islam, professed to be a system of knowledge. But they do not. They are systems of faith, of belief. Faith is not knowledge and therefore does not require hard empirical evidence. It is based on an understanding that not all things are knowable here and now via empirical study, but that instead reason, emotion and the holy books can be used to give meaning to people's lives.

For Dawkins, people should stop seeking meaning. Things just are because they are. We just evolved because we did. The sun exploded from a star because it did. The big bang just happened.

But this is a great hole in Dawkins' worldview. He is himself effectively agreeing that science does not answer the whys; it does not allow for purpose. It is sad that he objects so vehemently to religious beliefs when they can, by his own admission (see above) be reconciled with science.

So yes, faith and faith schools are limiting when they cause people to reject strongly supported scientific theories, and they are harmful when they cause division and conflict.

But I fail to see the tragedy in an ordinary lady or gentleman who understands human evolution and the origin of the world, for instance, as having happened for a special, divinely ordained purpose; in the human species evolving as we have being God's intention. They clearly do not reject science, nor do they claim their belief to be knowledge; but what they do reject is Dawkins' rather unjustified belief that a true scientist cannot hold a personal conviction that there is purpose to life.

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Hmmm...

This slogan could soon be found on many London buses.

Interesting, if not unoriginal, argument. The slogan COULD be deemed offensive to believers, and might initially make a firm believer in God cringe. But after a little thought I actually agree with those who have supported the publishing of this slogan for promoting debate about the existence of God.

It is indeed a very good point that religious groups do get to advertise on buses, so atheists should not be exempt from this. I am not one who subscribes to the view that religious believers should attempt to supress any attempts to contradict them, or doctrines which are not coherent with their own faith. It is my belief that if one is strong enough in their faith, they should remain untroubled by opposing views. So, on the whole, my opinion on this issue is that it's given me the excuse for an extra blog entry!

Except for one minor criticism. The opinions of Richard Dawkins in relation to this new campaign include these words: ""Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride - automatic tax breaks, unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children." Now, call it paranoia, but why do I get the feeling that Dawkins is using the word "religion" here as a term to disguise the true word he means, "Christianity". Because if he does, he is very much mistaken. The faith no longer has state funding, is heavily mocked in the media, and has long been an acceptable target of criticism (whilst other faiths have the right not to be offended).

Think on, Dawkins. I think you're the one who's been getting the free ride.