On Faith

Richard Dawkins and Martin Marty gave us two sides of the faith-based coin in Pop!Tech's session entitled: "On Faith." Marty is making a case for us to take religion seriously as a societal force: "Challenges posed by religion, which in its many definitions and forms is not going away and probably will not, are so often misunderstood by its adherents and neglected by all others."

What we are missing, he tells the audience, is a sense of perspective on how different we are from the rest of the world. We exist in the "spiritual ice belt" while the rest of the world is embracing religion in its many, various forms. According to Marty, it’s important to differentiate between the moderately religious and the most fundamental branches. He reminded us of religion's uneasy marriage to technology as a proselytizing mechanism.

Marty seems to be asking for a serious examination of what the world values, in all its various forms. He allows that fundamentalism and religion can manifest themselves as a kind of faith in any number of things: science, nationalism, technology, religion, but he invites people to seek out a broader definition of faith and a closer look at its meaning for the majority of the people in the world: "Publics in our part of the world are isolated from all the others and so we underestimate the past, present, and probably future roles that religion plays as killer AND healer."

Richard Dawkins, by contrast, is attempting to limit our tolerance for faith and religion in public life. His approach is bombastic, leaving a "wham bam" with the audience. Unlike science, Dawkins argues, religion and faith remain all too certain of their validity without any rational set of proofs. When Arthur Fink, a Pop!Tech participant in the audience, asked about the possibility of two sets of knowledge (one rational and evidence based and the other coming from an intuition-based knowledge), Dawkins told him that our very powerful brains have evolved to a place where we perceive the illusion of inner knowledge or guidance. This, he seemed to be saying, is merely a product of our brain's survival mechanisms. In the Darwinian rat race, faith still continues to make the final cuts.

Dawkins encourages everyone to challenge religion's place in the public sphere. He calls for a confrontational war on irrationality. Marty, on the other hand, is asking for more understanding. Faith has been around for as long as we have existed as humans, he argues. Instead of trying to fight its existence, why not try asking why it exists.

Dawkins' presentation has its place in the current political environment but it's hard not to think of the growing swaths of converts in areas all around the world. These people are not listening to confrontational arguments and they don't care much for rational thought. They also don't seem to be going anywhere and their numbers are increasing as we speak. Isn't it worth examining what they are looking for?