Moderate Religion: Culpability and Possibility

Richard Dawkins talking at Kepler's bookstore
Richard Dawkins talking at Kepler's bookstore (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



In The God Delusion, Dawkins writes:


Non-fundamentalist (i.e., moderate) religion is accused of making it easier for fundamentalist religion to survive. How? Because, as Dawkins notes, religion (both moderate and fundamentalist) promotes faith. Faith limits discourse, restricts the sort of questions that can be asked, and thus fosters delusion. By teaching their children that strong faith is virtuous, especially when one's faith is tested and manages to survive, believers strengthen all religion - not merely the moderate type.

Unfair criticism? I don't think so. To teach a child to value faith is to teach a child to reject reason and to devalue thought. Faith puts emotions and desires above reason, science, and critical thinking.

But moderate religion does not have to remain locked in faith. Consider an alternative possibility. What if moderate Christian parents taught their children values such as compassion, empathy, and tolerance - values which are not in any way derived from scripture - along with their religious traditions and customs. Instead of learning to take pride in any sort of faith, these children might learn to appreciate the power of critical thinking. They would grow up valuing church, respecting their religious heritage, and wanting to participate in religious rituals because they would identify with this tradition. However, they would also have an adaptive moral base from which to operate and an appreciation for reality-based thinking. They would accept most of the core values Christians claim are central to Christianity but without the mental headlock of faith.

Implausible? Probably, but I'm not sure it has to be. Just think of the possibilities!