Is Science a Religion?
by Richard Dawkins
The 1996 Humanist of the Year asked this question in a speech accepting the honor from the
American Humanist Association.
This article is adapted from his speech in acceptance of the 1996 Humanist of the Year Award
from the American Humanist Association.
It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad
cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's
great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. And who,
looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not
exceedingly dangerous? One of the stories told to the young Muslim suicide bombers is that
martyrdom is the quickest way to heaven -- and not just heaven but a special part of heaven
where they will receive their special reward of 72 virgin brides. It occurs to me that our best hope
may be to provide a kind of "spiritual arms control": send in specially trained theologians to
deescalate the going rate in virgins.
Given the dangers of faith -- and considering the accomplishments of reason and observation
in the activity called science -- I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems
to be someone who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion like ours.
Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?"
Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of
religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious
faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from
the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are
held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on
the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists.
One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the
fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially
look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly
strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study
the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a
belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the
private wall of faith where I can't reach you.
Now in practice, of course, individual scientists do sometimes slip back into the vice of faith,