An explanation and evaluation of the different perspectives on religion offered by Richard Dawkins and Alistair McGrath.

Despite his seeming disdain for constructs created to answer the unanswerable, Dawkins has one of his own, the meme. This is an example of Dawkins attempting to manipulate the issue into the area in which he has some authority, Darwinian evolution. A meme is a unit of cultural information which is subject to the principles which effect genes within the theory evolution; inheritance, variation, natural selection and mutation. Memes are transferred from mind to mind just as genes are from organism to organism. Genetic phenotypes spread through a species if they have an advantage as to the entity’s survival, memes spread through human cultures if they have survival advantage in themselves. As such memes can be detrimental to the host. Dawkins uses this logic in relation to religion, that the meme of belief in a higher being has a very long memetic lifespan because it prays on the human insecurity in the unknown. This gives a scientific explanation for the origin of religion thus showing it to be nothing more than a popularised idea which, as he states later to the book is detrimental to those which hold it. McGrath counters this point by saying that the concept of the meme is folly. He shows that there is no conclusive evidence for the existence of the meme and that how in recent times the concept has been abandoned by most respected evolutionary biologists. He also points out that Dawkins shows no model sample or even defined theory of the meme itself and as such he believes that this is Dawkins simply creating an entity to support his belief about religion. However I would say that although the “meme” as a self supporting entity does not exist it is a very accurate model for demonstrating the transfer of knowledge and social customs throughout many different human cultures and ergo Dawkins points remain valid (if for the wrong reasons).

Despite his seemingly innocuous intentions McGrath attempts to do more than spurn Dawkins in his book. In the first few chapters he talks about how he respects the thoughts and beliefs of atheists and that he only has a problem with the poorly structured arguments of Richard Dawkins. His arguments, although not irrefutable, are at least based upon logical progressions through the fatal flaws in Dawkins’ arguments. Around the last two chapters, his arguments change. More and more biblical quotations find their way in, until by the last few pages, it’s less like reading a rebuttal and more like reading God’s selected works. He also spins the argument from “Dawkins is wrong” to “atheism is wrong”. He then has the hypocrisy to use a Dawkinsian style argument to make an attempt on atheism. The overarching message of the God Delusion is because Dawkins can find some negative effects and flaws in religious thinking; religion is wrong and should be disregarded. McGrath claims to abhor this fundamentalist logic and yet his overarching logical line (much less subtly put nearer the end of the book) is that; Dawkins’ arguments are flawed and therefore atheism is wrong. This is compounded by the last line of the book which has left me with nothing more that a sour aftertaste. “Might atheism be a delusion about God?” This propaganda like finisher leads me to think that McGrath is not the answer to Dawkins but his Christian counterpart.

Throughout his book Dawkins goes out of his way to show that religion is not a solution within society but a problem, perhaps the source of all major global issues today. He describes the Christian god as “a petty, unjust...capriciously malevolent bully.” and draws attention to all of the horrific acts of violence committed in the name of religion today. McGrath rebuts this point on the grounds that “I don’t believe in a God like that...I don’t know anybody who does...The God whom I know and love is described, [even] by Dawkins as ...“Gentle Jesus, meek and mild.” He says that in no teachings of his religion and that where there seems to be this is simply a misinterpretation, set right by Jesus Christ. This I believe is a very poorly constructed point on both sides. As for Dawkins’ “Religion is the root of all evil philosophy” I would say that religion itself has never, in a modern civilized culture, caused violence. It has been used as a vehicle to facilitate violence by manipulative political or pseudo-religious leaders with non-religious agendas. As such abolishing religion (which seems to be Dawkins not so subtle message) would not fix the root of the issue only one of the present methods by which it is propagated and that all that would occur is another easily manipulated medium would be used. Whereas McGrath seems to be incorrect because of the fact that he says that Christianity is exempt from violent manipulation because in the bible Jesus says that the old laws were down to interpretation. As such laws such as homosexuals should be stoned to death upon discovery (Leviticus) can now be ignored. This brings up the issue of what I shall hereby refer to as religious cherry picking. This is when a religious person chooses to accept certain parts of their holy texts and leader’s teachings and ignore others in accordance to their moral preference. This is illogical. If god is as omnipotent and omniscient as he is claimed to be then who are we as his inept creations to modify his word and law? As such, although Jesus does say to disregard these slightly more morally uncomfortable points, who are we to say that his word in the bible is more accurate to God’s will than that in Leviticus? Why was God’s word so ambiguous and interpretable before the ascension of his son than after? Therefore it is not an irrelevance when the Christian holy text states that religious holy war is recommended.

To conclude, although religion can advocate violence, we as sentient humans will interpret it to match their own opinions and beliefs. Ergo the only way that religion will cause violence is when the one interpreting it has a violent agenda which they would be very likely to fulfill with or without religion. As such, no. Religion is not the root of all evil. We are.