Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Tryst with Richard Dawkins

A week ago I happen to be in the picturesque and warm medieval town of Olomouc (pronounced Olomoots). A two hour train ride away from Prague in the Czech Republic, Olomouc is a quaint little town of about 100,000 inhabitants. Its narrow cobble stone lanes, ornate pastel buildings, majestic cathedrals and meandering Soviet era trams, take you back in time in an instant. Its history is rich and tragic, but today Olomouc is a vibrant sleepy European city with coffee shops, restaurants, monuments and open plazas attracting a healthy stock of tourists each year.

I was here to screen my new film Salam, at a film festival called AFO, organized by the university and industry partners. In its 54th year, AFO has become a premiere film festival for films devoted to science, history and the human condition. The festival is completely organized by the young students and their energy is palpable and refreshing to experience.

As most European countries, Czech society is fairly homogeneous. The only non-Czech you see are tourists, medical students and some immigrants from the middle east running Shwarma restaurants. Despite an old church on every corner, this nation has the unique distinction of being one of the most non-religious countries in the world. The students I spoke to, were very proud of this fact. But on the same note they were also fearful and skeptical of the right wing government that had come to power and the rising racism, Islamophobia and Antisemitism gripping the country, as a result. The older generation they said had very deep rooted xenophobic views towards "outsiders".

Having gathered an insight into the country, we were not very optimistic about getting a sizable audience to our screenings. The story of Salam, is the story of the Pakistani Nobel Laurette physicist Abdus Salam and the intersection of science, politics and Islam in relation to his life. It is also a story of intolerance and bigotry.

As expected we did not get the audience we were hoping, but we were pleasantly surprised when the world renowned evolutionary biologist and Atheist Richard Dawkins walked in and sat in the first row. Religion and science are two of his favorite topics and our film fit the bill. After the screening he walked up to me and my producer and congratulated us on making a "beautiful and sensitive" film.

Abdus Salam was a devout Muslim. What fascinated me about his story and got me interested in making this film, was how he reconciled his belief in Islam and god, all the while working in an area of physics that was attempting to understand the universe in purely scientific terms. As an avowed Atheist, Richard Dawkins has spent a lifetime writing books and giving talks, making the argument that the two are not compatible.

Richard Dawkins was in Olomouc to give a talk at the festival. He was the main attraction and it was quickly proven right when I saw a long line of people meandering down the block waiting to get into the auditorium. As filmmakers at the festival we got front row seats. As the audience gradually brimmed the 500 seat auditorium to capacity, it became clear how popular he was in this little town. I spotted only one protester outside asking people to not attend and be saved by Jesus.

Without any pleasantries Dawkins walked to the podium and began his talk. With images projected on a big screen behind him to illustrate the contradictions he found in religion and dogma, he made a strong and precise case for science. Eviscerating religious doctrine mostly in Islam and Christianity he lambasted the arrogance of religion's claim of knowing things, when it clearly did not. Listing the astounding discoveries science had made all the way from Darwin's theories on natural selection to current cutting edge work in genetics, he made the argument that unlike religion, when science does not know something, it shows humility, and gets back to inquiry.

Religion on the other hand, without evidence, but with unwavering arrogance and gall, says it has the answers to everything, as god the "master architect" is at work in mysterious and miraculous ways.
And has been so since the dawn of time. For many the dawn of time began only a few thousand years ago.

With lucidity and a glib Oxford demeanor, Richard Dawkins showed the great mind that he is. The response and applause from the audience to his sharp humor, was an indication of where most people stood on matters of religion and god.

He ended the talk by saying, that there is only one life we get and that is all there is. He was fortunate that he was given the one he has, and there was nothing more to it than that.

After a short but terse talk, Dawkins took questions from the audience. One audience member retorted that he had met a priest who had said to him that no one knows what god is. Anyone who says they know who or what god is, is but fooling you or lying. He then went on accuse Dawkins of using religion and the idea of god as a "straw man" to further his own agenda, claiming that there are religious people out there who are progressive and less dogmatic than those he sites.

To which Dawkins replied, it is inconsequential what the priest said he did not know. What is consequential is what he claims to know using his religion as the foundation for knowing.

What we truly know today is vastly different from what we knew a century ago. Through scientific inquiry, with absolute certainty, we not only understand what the universe is made of and how it came to be, but we also know the fundamental building blocks and processes of life in all its complexity.

In contrast, there are numerous facets in nature that are still a quandary. We still do not have a clear understanding on how consciousness works and how the myriad species that form life on earth perceive the world in such different ways. What we do know, is that the size of the human brain dramatically increased in size over thousands of years of evolution. Maybe that has something to do with why humans can look in a mirror and with absolute certainty know they are looking at themselves, and other animals cannot. The quest to unlock more puzzles keeps relentlessly advancing, in line with the human spirit. Some at humanity's own peril and others in absolute wonder.

Richard Dawkins famously said "One of the things that is wrong with religion is that it teaches us to be satisfied with answers which are not really answers at all". There are many who are satisfied with non-answers that gratify their immediate need for comfort and contentment and a desire to have it all. In a chaotic world, that promises to get even more turbulent on a global scale, the enduring institution of religion will always prevail, feeding on humanity's frailty.

The idea of god, the cosmic pilot, the supreme architect, the all knowing, the divine healer and forgiver, the punisher and the purifier, fills a void for many. "God delusion" is real no matter what we truly know, this even Richard Dawkins knows.

It is what it is.

2 comments :

  1. I am sorry Anand I am not able to agree with your views. Knowingly or unknowingly, you have very stong views about faith in GOD and so it happens that you come across people of that nature.Even befor science, all things about universe were recorded in BHAGAVATHAM which is not a religious text but a gives immense details of what the science wants to explore.
    Anyway a good article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for reading. I am sure there is knowledge in the Bhagvatham that is important in a spiritual and allegorical sense. But most of it is experiential knowledge. It is not based on repeatable evidence. The knowledge of science is evidence based and therefore has a very different approach to understanding the universe. It makes sense to believe in an entity like God to understand how things work, especially when faced with doubt. But science chooses to explain how things work in an empirical way rendering the old idea/notion of god obsolete. I personally don't think you can have it both ways.

      My strong views are purely based on what makes sense to me, knowing what we know today. If I had lived a 100 years ago, my views would have been different based on what I would have known then.

      Delete

 
Pingates