To me, this quote illustrates the differences in what we fundamentally believe. It asks why believe in something more than we already have when what we already have is incredible enough. I guess it’s just the natural instinct of a human being, not being able to comprehend death and the thought of not having a conscience. For me the believing in ‘fairies’ isn’t going to make a difference to how well I conduct the life I am fortunate enough to have here and now. In Richard Dawkins’ book ‘The God Delusion’, he explores the lack of reasoning in religion and uses the example of a boy whose opinions and interpretations of life have been affected and influenced by religion through indoctrination as a child. He then writes about how the boy’s opinions could’ve been, if he’d been exposed to the theory of evolution. Darwin’s view that all is “produced by laws acting around us”.

I was brought up to keep an open mind, make my own decisions and be as independent as possible. A lot of children who come from religious backgrounds aren’t encouraged to explore their own ideas in this area and are subject to the religion of their parents. Obviously, we as young people are very impressionable and our experiences as children will effect our likely ‘set’ beliefs and our decisions into adulthood. That is the problem I have. That we are not yet old enough to be certain of the religion we follow or if we are religious at all. We are even labelled by our religions and beliefs at a young age. To quote Richard Dawkins, “There is no such thing as a Christian child it is the child of Christian parents”. And this I feel applies to all religions. Is this not abolishing the child’s right to make their own decisions and be independent? We are not born religious; we should surely make our own decision to be religious?

I also feel that religious views are held more highly and are given more respect than those of the non-religious. Why is this? Why can’t we openly question the theories of religion and its principles without being labelled sacrilegious or a blasphemer?

If we can’t challenge and discuss religion without causing uproar or offence and being seen as racist or bigoted, will it not create more tension in society? The fact is, when religion is questioned, it is not an attack on its positive interpretations and what beneficial aspects it may offer, it is a questioning of its rational existence, how it may be used and how it should be equal to the questioning of any belief system.

Scientists, evolutionary biologists and atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens challenge this accepted norm. They are constantly questioning unproven theories, not with the agenda of disproving them, but in search of truth and evidence from an unbiased viewpoint. Surely their discoveries and opinions are as valid as any religious argument? Why should they be discounted in favour of theories that remain unproven simply because they are challenging something so ‘important’ to society? As Douglas Adams said on the subject in a speech at Cambridge University, not long before he died, “There is no reason why those ideas shouldn’t be as open to debate as any other” and I have to agree.

Although I am an atheist myself, I have no problem with any positive interpretations of religion and I don’t have any issues with any beneficial or affirmative effects that religious interpretation has on people or society. But I personally feel that when it comes to young minds there should be a balance between scientific and religious teachings. Allowing children to think for themselves is all part of the growing up process we should all experience. In the end, shouldn’t there always be discussion for such a big question?

By Daniel Matindale