ABSTRACT
In Chapter 1 I suggested that, although the basic beliefs conveyed by a literal reading of religious texts are unacceptable, a purely critical approach to religion is inadequate and perhaps at present inappropriate. ‘Inadequate’ because religion has already withstood many critical analyses, because such a critique deals with the explicit or theological components of religious systems and may not reach the intuitive ones, and because it is possible that a catalogue of the iniquities to which religious belief has led or which it has been used to justify will not nullify the positive consequences that other aspects of religious systems have for some. For those who want to undermine religious systems (Dawkins, 2006), it is necessary to understand the bases of religion’s ubiquity and success as well as its defects. And their approach is ‘at present inappropriate’ because we must ask whether the time is yet ripe. In the UK, belief in the literal truth of the Bible has diminished over the centuries, but are we yet ready to abandon the whole religious system? You and I may be, but would that be the best thing for everyone? Although based on the incompatibility between modern knowledge and a literal interpretation of religious beliefs, such a suggestion would involve taking away what appears to be a source of comfort to many people and what is seen (though incorrectly) as the basis of our moral code. Should we not first make sure that we have made an adequate assessment of religion’s costs and benefits and, if appropriate, that we have an adequate substitute? This is not just sitting on the fence. The biblical story of the creation is a
myth: on no account should it be taught as truth. The same goes for much of the Judaeo-Christian Bible and other so-called holy books. Single-faith schools should be discouraged as they breed intolerance of other views. But a destructive approach to religious belief usually assumes that belief in dogma is all there is to religion, and neglects the facts that religion can bring comfort as well as catastrophic wars and that moral principles have been purveyed by religious systems though they did not invent them. Here is a question of critical importance for the future: how can those products of a religious outlook that are valuable to some be preserved when the beliefs are rejected as man-made myths?
