Extremely Worrying

Clearly worried about the recent levels of attention being paid to him, Richard Dawkins has just surpassed himself in an attempt to regain the spotlight. He has now turned his attention to fairy tales and warned of the danger of inflicting them on children because they “inculcate a view of the world which includes supernaturalism”. He urges us to promote a sense of scepticism in our children presumably so that they can become more like him.

I was listening to a radio show yesterday in which a man phoned in to explain the difference between a doubting Thomas and a sceptic. A doubting Thomas will believe what you are saying if you can just show him an example for him to see with his own eyes whereas a sceptic is someone who still won’t believe you even when you have shown him. Dawkins sits firmly in the camp of the latter.

For a seemingly educated man, his comments do him no credit. This is the same man whose considerable imagination has led to him proposing highly provocative theories within the field of evolutionary biology. Without the sort of imagination which is fired by the very fairy tales which he so despises, I sincerely doubt whether he could have put forward such imaginative theories. That is the point here. Whether people choose to take literally a fairy tale and believe it chapter and verse is simply a matter for them. The wider point which Dawkins appears to have missed is that all fiction is necessarily dependent on a fertile imagination. It begs the question why he would want to suppress a literary form which does so much to expand our imagination. The field of science which has seen such enormous advances in the last couple of decades has always been dependent on the existence of free thinkers capable of putting their imagination to the test. When Watson and Crick finally put forward their structure of DNA in 1953, it needed every ounce of their intellect and imagination to arrive at their solution. The rest is history. When Lyn Margelis proposed the Endosymbiont Theory, she was laughed at by the scientific establishment for years before the enormity of her idea finally knocked them off their feet. To propose that mitochondria only existed in animal cells as a result of an errant bacteria being engulfed millions of years ago was a pretty weird idea. Scientific wisdom now accepts her theory without question and great strides have been made in medicine thanks to her ingeniousness.

Dawkins is most famous for his atheism and seldom misses an opportunity to knock those who profess a faith. It is interesting to reflect that Dawkins was himself a Christian until his teenage years. The analogy of an ex-smoker is irresistible. In his novel Brideshead Revisited, Evelyn Waugh describes a conversation between the agnostic Charles Ryder and the Catholic Sebastian Flyte. Seeking to exploit a weakness in Sebastian’s faith, Charles pours scorn on the idea that three wise men and an ass were present in the manger when Jesus was born. Sebastian replies quite seriously that to him, it’s a lovely idea. Charles immediately goes for the kill stating that we can’t believe in something just because we think it’s a lovely idea. Why not? Here is the point. No man has to justify why he believes in something. In many ways, that underpins the entire concept of faith and people like Dawkins appear to struggle with that. That is their prerogative but it is the right of everyone else to believe in what they choose to believe in for their own personal reasons. If Dawkins had his way, there would be no such thing as faith because he sees it as silly. Well, I hate to disappoint him but faith of one form or another has always been with us and doesn’t seem to be going anywhere just yet. Shock, horror, faith also provides great comfort to millions of people in times of trouble. 

Dawkins, of course, is just another type of extremist because he has views which differ from those of many other people. In a sense, that defines extremism, particularly when he seeks to impose those views on everyone else irrespective of their interest. The emerging row between Michael Gove and Theresa May is far more to do with personal aspiration than it is to do with extremism. Each society has its fair share of extremists. Only when such groups form the majority does trouble ensue. That happened in Germany under the Nazis and the anniversary today of the D-day landings reminded us all of the need to stand up to extremism wherever we may find it. The row between Gove and May has been a storm in a tea cup although both undoubtedly harbour ambitions to replace David Cameron in due course. Its a bit like the rutting season when the stags seek to win a few personal battles in pursuit of the main prize. There's nothing new in that.

In the aftermath of the European elections, much has been written about the emergence of extremist parties throughout Europe. A quick glance through history explains that very quickly. The Nazis only came to prominence when Germany was destitute and we in Britian sometimes fall in to the trap of believing how badly off we are financially. We don't know the half of it. There are countries in the EU today like Greece and Spain which have a much better grasp of hardship than we have. Hardship has always provided the most fertile environment within which to propogate extremist views because a starving man will listen to anyone if they promise food.

Immigration remains political dynamite but is actually really important for any nation. Its no good Britain or any other country promoting immigration and then bemoaning the fact that immigrants want to follow cultural beliefs contrary to our own. It doesn't work that way. Its like trying to make everyone follow one religion. That is stark nonsense. We all have the absolute right to follow our own beliefs provided they don't threaten or endanger those around us - and rightly so. It only becomes a real issue if you genuinely admit more people than you can support and I don't think we're there yet.