Richard Dawkins on Religion and societal harm
Dawkins argues that faith — belief without evidence — is inherently dangerous and that religious moderation provides cover for extremism.
Dawkins's case against religion's societal impact centres on faith itself. He argues that the very act of teaching children to believe without evidence — and to regard unquestioning faith as a virtue — is a form of intellectual abuse that makes societies vulnerable to extremism, pseudoscience, and authoritarianism.
He is particularly critical of religious moderates, whom he sees as enabling extremists. By insisting that faith is a virtue and that religious beliefs deserve automatic respect, moderates create the cultural conditions in which fundamentalism thrives. The 9/11 hijackers did not lack faith — they had too much of it, and too little reason.
Dawkins has also documented religion's role in opposing scientific education, reproductive rights, stem cell research, and the acceptance of homosexuality. These are not aberrations, he argues, but the predictable consequences of an epistemology that privileges revelation over evidence.
“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.”
“Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that.”