Snow 1

Jon Snow

Dr. Albert Einstein

1201 Writing and Communication

21 November 2012

Critique of “Is Science a Religion?” by Richard Dawkins

From being a Christian to a rigid atheist, Richard Dawkins manifests the ideology of

‘Humanism’ to the core. His rejection of religious beliefs and explicit focus on evolutionary

biology as a more realistic explanation of our existence has earned him international recognition.

An instance of such acclaim shapes the context of the article being examined, as Dawkins is

being honoured for his dissemination of humanistic education. In this text, the author draws on

his ideological metamorphosis as he aims to highlight the incompatibility between evolution and

creationism, and simultaneously propagate the merits of a scientific outlook over a religious one.

Since the purpose and definition of human life is a controversial topic of discussion, it is evident

that the author faces a diverse audience, comprising of people who agree, disagree or hold an

undecided opinion with regard to his stance. Therefore, Dawkins compliments his effective

employment of rhetorical questions with a synthesis of sarcasm and wit in his tone in order to

appeal to his polarized readers. However his strongly biased choice of words, along with his use

of fallacious supporting evidence weakens the content of his article, thus preventing him from

fully doing justice to his thesis.

By drawing a parallel between religion and science in terms of faith, explanation,

consolation and uplift, Dawkins attempts to draw attention to the general principles of
 Snow 2

creationism versus evolution as a means of defining life. Through a comparison of elements

common to both belief systems, he highlights how science answers the same questions religion

does, but deserves more credibility since it is free from “vices” and based solely on verifiable

evidence.

In order to compliment his logical progression of ideas, Dawkins makes use of rhetorical

questions that highlight his firm conviction in science as a better theory of existence than

religion. Through this ingenious manifestation of pathos, the author attains a twofold purpose.

First, he succeeds in appealing to the vulnerability of his audience’s emotions by using

“children” as the key subject of his rhetorical questions. As he asks, “How can you possibly

describe a child of four as a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu or a Jew?” he strategically links

the pure innocence of youth to the harshness of discrimination. This gives the reader insight on a

debilitating aspect of religion one would usually overlook, and concurrently instigate an

acknowledgement of the value of science. Through a masterstroke the author compounds this

impact and drives his point home by questioning, “Do you see what I mean about mental child

abuse?”. The second advantage Dawkins obtains from his use of rhetorical questions is an in-

depth exploration of his thesis, for he is able to tackle possible opposition points before the

audience gets a chance to voice them. As he quotes a question he commonly faces,

“Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn’t it?” he cleverly places himself into

the mindset a proponent of creationism, hence countering a primary criticism he would have

faced. This technique develops the validity of his argument, and allows him to discuss his stance

comprehensively. Therefore, through his effective incorporation of pathos, Dawkins accentuates

the structure of his speech and remains a step ahead of the reader.
 Snow 3

In line with the author’s use of synchronized persuasive appeals to convey his message is

the creative interplay of sarcasm and wit in his tone. As the published article is a speech,

Dawkins’ rapport with the listener, and consequently the reader, is built through his strategic

follow-up of irony after every block of factual information. Not only does this method keep the

audience’s attention captivated, it also serves the dual purpose of allowing him to develop his

stance by mocking the follies of religion. An example of this approach appears as he points out

the futile global application of the tradition of the “three wise men” who were led to the cradle of

Jesus by a star. Dawkins sarcastically derides, “We might ask the children by what physical route

do they imagine the alleged stellar influence on human affairs could travel”. Since he is dealing

with a sensitive subject matter, the author’s use of such effective language compliments his

purpose, as it elevates the article from being a mere imposition of his opinion, to an interactive

appeal to the reader’s psyche. Dawkins harmonizes his incorporation of sarcasm with his wit,

such as through his artful deflection of the “accusation of zealotry and bigotry in scientists”.

Using a sharp aphorism, he states, “We’re content to argue with those who disagree with us. We

don’t kill them”. Correspondingly, he humorously alludes “faith” to “smallpox virus”, but calls it

“harder to eradicate”. This clever manipulation of language by the author underscores his

technical expertise, and is inescapably bound to appeal to the reader, even if one does not

approve of the article’s propagation of science over religion.

Even though the article succeeds in capturing the reader’s interest through its coherent

structure, Dawkins’ content is critically weakened by his overriding bias against the notion of

religion. This inherent prejudice prevents him from fairly representing both dimensions of the

argument, and simultaneously affects his choice of words, for he deliberately shapes his text to

lean heavily in favour of his opinion. For example, he verges on sounding pompous as he
 Snow 4

hyperbolically depicts how the glory of evolution ranges “beyond the wildest dreams of saints

and mystics”. Similarly, he exaggerates science by calling it “one of the most moral, one of the

most honest disciplines around”. Such tall claims are faulty, since Dawkins stoops to sweeping

generalizations that lower his credibility. In contrast to this excessively positive account of

evolution, the author’s discussion of creationism is deliberately patronizing. An example of

caricature in his article is his depiction of the “brain virus” of faith as “one of the world’s

greatest evils”. His obvious partiality presents an unfair account of both sides, hence generating

objection from readers who are proponents of creationism. Moreover, Dawkins’ over-zealous

mockery of religion borders on disrespectful debasement, as his choice of language denounces a

belief system people tend to treat with utmost sanctity. For instance, he commits the logical

fallacy of name-calling as he accuses Biblical prophecies of “charlatanry” meant to deceive

people behind a “smokescreen of vagueness”. Similarly he deceives the audience by claiming to

talk about the “virtues” of religion, when he is actually demeaning the creed by calling its

explanations “bad science” and its consolation “hollow”. This discriminatory indictment of

divinity as opposed to his aggrandized depiction of science fails to convince his audience to

support his point of view.

In conjunction with Dawkins’ biased terminology is his use of faulty supporting evidence

that debases his credibility. Firstly, his prejudice instigates him to deliberately choose examples

that highlight his overriding condemnation of religion by presenting such beliefs in a negative

light. Thus, the author chooses to resort to unethical tactics such as intentional distortion of facts

just to present his opinion as the better choice. For instance, he disparages creationist theories of

existentialism by discussing how Hindus believe the “world was created in a cosmic butter

churn”. In contrast, he chooses to describe the intricate “theory of special relativity” to

 Snow 5

underscore how science “far outclasses any of the mutually contradictory faiths and

disappointingly recent traditions of the world’s religions”. Through such manipulation, the

evidence provided for evolution ends up having a greater impression on the audience than that

provided for creationism. Secondly, Dawkins’ unfamiliarity with the wide expanse of religion

makes his provided support incorrect and reductionist, thus weakening the validity of his

argument. An example of his misinterpretation is his claim that “faith was enough” for the

apostles who believed in Jesus’ resurrection, unlike Thomas who “required evidence”. However,

Les Kinsolving verifies that Jesus had provided explicit support of his resurrection by

miraculously appearing before these disciples and showing them his wounds, so Dawkins is

wrong when he assumes faith was enough (“Doubting Thomas and the Resurrection”).

Furthermore, the author unfairly generalizes all religions on account of their mutual component

of “faith” without taking into account the individual differences in each belief system. He also

tends to deviate from his thesis by proving unnecessary information, such as his detailed, over-

dramatic description of “the age of the universe” and the dangers of “astronomy”. Such

superfluous support makes his speech verbose by distracting the audience’s attention from the

author’s purpose. Overall, Dawkins’ poor use of evidence weakens the structure of his article,

and prevents him from doing justice to his readers by depicting both science and religion with

equal objectivity.

While a reader supporting science as a better means of defining human life would be

pleased to read this article, the content and writing style may be considered highly offensive to

advocates of religion. Dawkins’ sarcastic tone, aggravated by his use of logical fallacies, pokes

fun at beliefs held with utmost purity and devotion. This may have been acceptable if he was

actually correct in his assumptions, but he unjustly presents his debatable opinions as facts. For
 Snow 6

instance, his disparagement of the sacred concept of “martyrdom” in Islam is faulty, as Imam

Ali, the fourth Caliph, states, “Beware of the sin of shedding blood without religious justification

and sanction because there is nothing quicker to bring down the Wrath of Allah”, thus

disqualifying “Muslim suicide bombers” as contenders for martyrdom (“The Concept of

Freedom”). Moreover, Dawkins’ mockery of the “72 virgin brides” martyrs will receive in

heaven is also incorrect, as this tradition has a weak chain of narrators, which reduces its

credibility in Islam. For a Muslim, the unquestionable mandate of right and wrong comes from

the Holy Quran, which is an integral source the author has deliberately chosen to ignore as he

derides religious beliefs. Finally, it is essential to realize that every religion is different from

another; hence the author’s grave error in grouping all elements of faith together is bound to

generate fierce censure. Therefore, Dawkins’ propagation of science would have appealed to all

factions of his audience if he had catered to both sides of the argument neutrally.

To his credit, the author does succeed in capturing the audience’s attention and creating

an impact through his clever use of rhetorical strategies. By tackling a sensitive topic with far-

reaching implications, he opens the reader’s mind to a number of significant issues. For example,

the parallel he draws between religion and science highlights an important question – Is it

possible for both elements in exist in harmony? A cross comparison with R.S Thomas’ poem

“Here” shows the inability of religious beliefs to cope with the materialistic ascent of

technology, making the poet question his reason for existence. Thomas states, “I have no where

to go/ The swift satellites show/ The clock of my whole being is slow”, highlighting his belief

that divinity has lost in the war against science (16-18). Another major point Dawkins raises is

the weightage of correct interpretation of religious beliefs. Since the author is unable to

understand the complexity of religion as a whole, he compels the audience to consider if other
 Snow 7

people commit the same logical fallacy. For instance, the West’s failure to appreciate the

diversity of Islam has led to a deep bias against all Muslims since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The

insight gained from the article underlines the injustice of such unfair discrimination, and the

hazard posed by this inability to comprehend both sides of the argument fully. Hence, by

signifying the need to question “Is Science a Religion?” Dawkins paves the way for a better

understanding of global crises, and the possibility of resolving them peacefully.

Even though the author fails to achieve his primary aim, he deserves credit for his bold

treatment of a complex topic. His masterful use of persuasive appeals works to his advantage, as

it convinces his audience of the gravity of the topic, and the importance of choosing the right

side to support. However, his hostility against religion affects his neutrality and prevents his

readers from accepting science as a stronger belief system. His misinterpretation of facts also

weakens his status as a credible authority. Had Dawkins been more respectful and

comprehensive in his illustration of divinity, his article would have generated a more positive

response from his audience. By using impartial evidence and a more reasonable tone to

substantiate the opposition’s side, the author could have delivered a stronger case, and thus

achieved his purpose.

 Snow 8

Works Cited

Dawkins, Richard. “Is Science a Religion?”. www.thehumanist.org. The Humanist, Jan.-Feb.

1997. Web. 21 Nov. 2012.

<http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html>.

Kinsolving, Les. “Doubting Thomas and the Resurrection”. www.WND.com. World Net Weekly,

19 Apr. 2011. Web. 20 Nov. 2012. <http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/288665/>.

"The Concept of Freedom in the Nahj Al-Balaghah." www.balaghah.net. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov.

2012. <http://www.balaghah.net/nahj-htm/eng/id/article/08/03.htm/>.

Thomas, Ronald Stuart. “Here.” Songs of Ourselves. Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd,

2005. 232. Print.