ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Richard Dawkins and the Mythology of Science

Updated on December 28, 2009

Yesterday I spend an hour or two watching 'Enemies of Reason' in which Richard Dawkins picked his way through alternative health fairs, water dowsing trials, and conversations with spiritual health gurus with remarkable good cheer only broken by asides to the camera in which he noted the downfall of science amongst the common man and reminded us that it is science that has given us the longevity to live for eighty years whilst imagining that chakras, invisible sky gods and laws of attraction are providing us with prosperity.

Throughout the documentary, Dawkins lamented repeatedly that we no longer regard scientists highly, that instead we regard them with mistrust. This mistrust of science is so deep seated that when a half baked magazine article announced some unproven alleged links between the MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) vaccine and autism, parents began to not inoculate their children. Within a couple of years, Britain saw the first death from measles in over a decade. Oops.

Whilst I admire Dawkins, his journey has always seemed something like that of Atlas with his boulder. He decries myth and superstition and encourages us instead, to seek facts. Dawkins seems to believe that if only everyone could be educated, they would set aside superstition and embrace science. We would see a golden age of reason in which proof is paramount and evidence is key.

But Dawkins ignores the very nature of humanity. We are, by our very natures, silly, superstitious little twits. We are primed to see spirits in trees and rocks, we are primed to believe in ghosts (it is said that the same mechanism that allows us to understand the existence of real people who are not immediately in our presence can also be triggered to make us believe in ghosts,) we are primed to believe in what Dawkins so rightly calls 'mumbo jumbo.'

Your average human is not interested in discovering facts, which are usually fairly cold. Science does not affirm the importance of a single human being in a way that myth and religion do. In science, your death is a matter of statistical analysis, in religion, your death is a beautiful homecoming to the life force that bore you. Given a choice, most people will prefer to believe in the latter rather than the former, no matter how much evidence exists for the former.

Your average human is interested in weaving a rich tapestry of story and myth that justifies his or her existence and provides comfort at the end of life. Dawkins says that this is a dangerous tendency that must not be tolerated, and in many respects, he is right. People who pray for the health of the child in the diabetic coma rather than seek medical treatment for it, are, evolutionarily speaking, carriers of maladaptive religiosity traits. However, as Dawkins himself discovers, people who believe in supernatural phenomena do so honestly and wholeheartedly. When dowsers are presented with evidence that shows they do not possess the powers they believe they have, they are not so much angry as they are genuinely puzzled and confused.

More written about all this in Part Two.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Scribenet profile image

      Scribenet 7 years ago from Ontario, Canada

      I am so glad I have just discovered your writing.

      Eloquently written...indeed, a life of hard cold scientific facts is like a life with "just" hard cold money and material things; efficient and very practical, but devoid of any particular richness and depth.

      It is in the imagination and arts and yes, mythology and spirituality that we truly become creatures worthy of our great imaginations...

      All our inventions came from minds who the scientific dry sorts derided as fools: "It can't be done...pure fantasy and idle mischief."

      I loved your phrase: "Your average human is interested in weaving a rich tapestry of story and myth that justifies his or her existence and provides comfort at the end of life."

      Equally,I cringe at anyone that says: " that this is a dangerous tendency that must not be tolerated."

      It is "the must not be tolerated"...that I find particularly offending. Like, why is story and myth dangerous...sounds like a "fanatic" to me...maybe one not to be "tolerated", huh? Thank goodness I do not know of Ricard Dawkins...sounds boring and single-minded!

    • Nolyn profile image

      David R Jennys 7 years ago from South Dakota, U.S.A.

      What we need again in our society are scientists like Newton and Faraday (and today, Collins) who got excited at scientific investigation as a way to better understand the created world and come to know their Creator better. With scientists like them, their faith in God was strengthened rather than diminished through their scientific discovery. There is no reason that science and faith cannot work hand in hand; they are not by definition exclusive of each other.

    • profile image

      ILoveLingerie 8 years ago

      I am not religious and trust in science. Therefore I kind of share his view, but I think it's wrong to dismiss anything not being proven to exist by science because there are things that cannot be explained by science.

      Maybe there is something divine or maybe ghosts exist. I mean we can't be sure, you know.

      I think no one should deny things you cannot know for sure.