By MURIEL GRAY
Added: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 00:00:00 UTC

Muriel Gray rejoices in the existence of two great men called Richard

Given that we're forced to consider what a disgusting species we are on a daily basis it's sometimes harder to respond to humanity's highs than its lows.

In the closing days of another triumphant and magnificent Edinburgh International Book Festival, the hottest ticket in town was a session between the evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins and the former bishop of Edinburgh, Richard Holloway. It was an instant sell-out for good reason, not least that both men are highly controversial figures.

Holloway, as we all know, is the church leader who questioned his faith and found it wanting, and Dawkins of course is not simply world famous for his pioneering and award-winning scientific work, but also for his aggressive views concerning organised religion. A couple of audience members before the session began admitted they were worried that the two men might come to blows, or that a fundamentalist audience member might use the event to launch an offensive verbal attack on Dawkins. Instead the hour that seemed like five minutes was one filled with two startlingly intelligent men, each brimming with humanity, drawing personal pictures of just how awesome, mysterious and wonderful existence is. The sheer joy of hearing Holloway still trying to draw poetry and meaning from a religion he is not quite ready to dismiss completely out of hand, as Dawkins listened eagerly, trying to assist him without dismissing his desires as ignorant, was breath takingly inspiring. And all this was book-ended with Dawkins's views on birthing universes, black holes, and the future of the human species when we start to form ourselves from silicone and alloys instead of vulnerable flesh. Now that's what I call entertainment.

However, the most dreadful, in fact utterly unbearable, part of the evening was that it stopped after an hour. Back out into the night we went, into the real world where, locally, idiots with power over the faithful rant about aspects of government sex education initiatives that don't exist simply to stir up conflict and where, internationally, savages sink to new lows of human depravity by blowing up children in schools, and where, globally, the once great country of America looks as if it might vote back in a band of vicious thugs to drag it and the rest of the world even further down into the abyss.
Of course as usual, the connecting heart of all these and many more countless dismal black marks on our human copybook is religion. Well done everyone. I'm sure your gods are all terribly proud of you. Dawkins, desperate to see his impossible dream of a world without religion, expressed relief that few religious people were as eloquent, intellectual and poetic on the subject as Richard Holloway, otherwise its force would be very much more powerful. Of course he was joking. How could religion be any more powerful than it already is, tearing a screaming world apart at the seams? But the point he was making was that the many destructive forces of religion, as opposed to the few beneficial ones, are almost exclusively wielded by those with limited thinking power.

This is a commonly held view, but does it hold any truth? The recent revelations that George Bush is in fact profoundly and quite genuinely religious, and not just making it up to win votes from the redneck knuckle-draggers out on the plains as many suspected, is actually one of the most chilling pieces of news yet. That a man who believes he is doing precisely what Jesus bids him is the one in charge of the largest military power in the world is not something that aids a good night's sleep, and it would seem rather obvious that Dawkins is right in this instance at least. But which, in the Dawkins joke, is correct? That Bush is stupid therefore Bush fears God? Or is it that Bush fears God therefore Bush is stupid? What about Bush is stupid and Bush fears God, no connection?

Just imagine for a second if a genie granted Bush an intellect as lofty as Richard Holloway's for 24 hours in place of the near-simian one currently possessed by the President. What would happen? Does intellect always breed compassion and humanity? Not necessarily. History has provided us with a handsome variety of psychotic killers with highly tuned minds.

Equally, Holloway's gentleness, wisdom and altruism might well stem from upbringing or experience, not just because he can rationalise the irrational (and we're well aware that uneducated people of limited intelligence can also be very kind and wise individuals). But would a magically enhanced Bush with the new ability to understand the clay-footed provenance of his religion, yet still appreciative of the beauty of its metaphors and mythology, suddenly realise what a monster he had become? Possibly, but unlikely given his upbringing by the venal, beady-eyed ogres that make up the Bush family senior. Would he cease to believe in God, now armed with the knowledge of when, where and why we made him up? Again, not necessarily. Many otherwise smart people choose deliberately to put aside reason and fact for the solipsistic pleasure of believing the universe has been created for them and their unique place in their god's plan.

So if intellect is not the tool that can defeat religion, what can? Dawkins and Holloway ironically provide the answer themselves. Both men demonstrate a love of humanity that is entirely selfless. They both wish to see lives saved, improved, explained, but neither expects rewards in this or some concocted afterlife. It's a love of their fellow man that is based on the simple, awestruck appreciation of the miracle that is being alive, and if it could be bottled and sold then our churches, temples, mosques and chapels, punting their messages of reward for blind adherence, would crumble to dust. Who could be a terrorist who loved his fellow man more than his cause or his god? Who could harbour paedophiles to protect their religion who loved children more than their church or their god? Be a Richard. Save the world.

Glasgow Sunday Herald, 5 September 2004

TAGGED: ATHEISM, COMMENTARY, RELIGION