http://www.smh.com.au/news/books/the-man-who-feuded-with-god/2006/12/20/1166290619733.html?page=3One 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?
