http://www.smh.com.au/news/books/the-man-who-feuded-with-god/2006/12/20/1166290619733.html?page=3
One of the traditional arguments in favour of religion is that it
encourages people to do good. In his recent book Sacred Causes, the
historian Michael Burleigh asked, "When have committed rationalists
ever operated soup-kitchens, hotlines for the suicidal or hostels
for crack addicts?"
When I put this to Dawkins, his eyebrows rear briefly above the
frames of his glasses.
"Let's say for the sake of argument that is actually the case,
although I've never seen any evidence," he says. "What would it be
proving? Might it not be showing something rather ignoble, namely
that perhaps everybody does good deeds if they think people are
watching? Religious people think God is watching them all the time.
If I thought there was a perpetual spy-camera in the sky looking
down on everything I did, then I think I might behave a bit
differently to the way I do."
In essence, The God Delusion consists of Dawkins setting up every
rational argument for believing in God and then shooting them down
one by one. Along the way, he cites the case of Darwin's cousin,
Francis Galton, who concluded - not unreasonably - that if prayer
really worked, the Royal Family would be astonishingly fit, as
entire congregations prayed for their health every Sunday.
But the awkward thing about faith is that it's a thoroughly
irrational business and thus immune to any kind of argument. As a
species, we remain as stubbornly susceptible to believing in God as
we are to being superstitious.
I mention an interview I once did with Woody Allen - another
confirmed atheist - who told me that every morning he cuts his
breakfast banana into seven pieces for fear that his world might
collapse if he didn't. To my surprise, Dawkins also admits to
having a superstitious side.
"I've certainly done that sort of thing - not stepping on the
cracks in the paving stones or having to get over a certain line
before the door slams behind me. I suspect it's extremely
widespread and I could imagine it becoming quite dominating if I
didn't have the armament of rational thought. Even then, I could
imagine being frightened of spending the night in a notoriously
haunted house, although rationally I don't believe in
ghosts."
But isn't it odd that we - and Dawkins in particular - are still
troubled by these irrational fears? If they really are as primitive
as he's suggesting, wouldn't he expect them to have died out, or at
least diminished, as human beings have become more
sophisticated?