I don't want to come across as necessarily agreeing with Dawkins' essay, but
I think that part of the point has been missed here.
G. Marc Turner wrote:
> My reaction...
>
> Of course, this assumes that people place a value on
> self-preservation over everything else.
>
> No matter how hard we try, and how careful we are, we will
> eventually die.
But the point was that many people - most if not all of those we
refer to as "religious" - do NOT believe that they will eventually die. Or
rather, that they will die, but that's not the end of things for them, which
is really the same thing as not dying (better, in fact, as not only does
your consciousness goes on, but you're also in god's presence, reunited with
lost loved ones, get umpteen black-eyed virgins, whatever...). This will
turn out to be central to his essay...
He continues:
> So, if you feel that you can make the lives of your friends, family, etc.
> better by killing someone, then committing this act would leave a positive
> legacy because of the good you see it bringing to people. It doesn't
matter
> if you die or not, because you know you will die eventually anyway. You
> would be becoming a martyr or hero for a cause, and that cause does NOT
> have to be religion.
>
> So, even without religion, it would not prevent people from
> committing such acts. The premise his argument is based on is one of
> self-preservation and that religion provides a means of overriding the
instinct of
> self-preservation. Religion is not the only thing that can
> override it leading to actions such as what happened.
That argument may be necessary for those without religion to die for
a cause, but it's not the one that Dawkins intended for those who DO have
religion. His point, again, was that on top of that possible reason for a
suicidal action in support of a cause, religion may also allow people to
believe that they can commit such an act WITHOUT DYING (or more accurately,
again, without one's self coming to an end, which is essentially the same
thing). Leaving a legacy, but being gone is one thing. Supporting your cause
with a suicide attack, leaving a legacy, AND not actually dying is another
thing entirely. The point wasn't that without religion, no-one would be
willing to die for a cause. It was that religion provides a way to convince
people to knowingly die for a cause while at the same time believing that
they're not dying for a cause.
Whether or not believing that one survives (in essence) such an
action is a contributing cause to suicide bombings is a question we'll
probably never have an answer to, and I agree that Dawkins seems to have
gone overboard here, as he appears to just _assume_ that it is the case. But
on the other hand, it is a reasonable conjecture (oh, and one that is
independent of the question of whether or not religion also brings good, for
example in the form of comfort, stamina, or motivation). I would guess that
it _would_ be more difficult to get volunteers for this kind of action out
of a pool of folks who believe that death is the end of consciousness.
Again, though, I doubt that we'll ever know, and I'm not sure that I want
to.
All of that being said, I think it is irresponsible of Dawkins to
have written and published this right now. Were I religious, I probably
WOULD find it as bad as Falwell's odious comments. Oh, and Paul Brandon's
point that these men did not fit the standard profile is not a trivial one -
it seems pretty damaging to the parts of Dawkins' argument that refer to
"testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this
world". Another reason not to jump in so quickly with this kind of blame.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
