A conversation between Richard Dawkins and Pope Francis
What happens when the most outspoken advocate of atheism enters into a conversation with the head of the Catholic Church?
This is a simulated conversation between Richard Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist and author who is an outspoken advocate of atheism, and Pope Francis, the head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State.
Dawkins: Greetings, your holiness. I’m here to challenge you on your faith and reason.
Pope: Welcome, professor Dawkins. I’m always open to dialogue with people of different beliefs and backgrounds.
Dawkins: Well, let me start by asking you this: how can you believe in a God who is invisible, silent, and untestable?
Pope: I believe in God because he has revealed himself to us through his Son Jesus Christ, who lived among us, taught us his message of love and mercy, died for our sins, and rose from the dead.
Dawkins: That’s a nice story, but where is the evidence for any of that? How do you know that Jesus existed, let alone performed miracles or resurrected?
Pope: The evidence is in the historical records of the Gospels and other ancient sources that attest to his life and deeds. The evidence is also in the testimony of countless saints and martyrs who have witnessed his presence and power throughout history. The evidence is also in the lives of millions of Christians who have experienced his grace and guidance in their personal journeys.
Dawkins: But those are all subjective claims that cannot be verified by objective methods. You are basing your faith on hearsay, tradition, and wishful thinking.
Pope: No, I am basing my faith on reason enlightened by faith. Faith does not contradict reason; it transcends it. Faith gives us access to a higher truth that reason alone cannot grasp.
Dawkins: What higher truth? The truth that there is a benevolent creator who cares for us? How do you reconcile that with the fact that there is so much evil and suffering in the world?
Pope: Evil and suffering are not caused by God; they are caused by human sinfulness and free will. God respects our freedom to choose between good and evil; he does not force us to love him or obey him. He also allows natural disasters and diseases as part of his mysterious plan for our salvation.
Dawkins: That’s absurd. How can you call such a plan good or loving? How can you worship such a cruel tyrant who allows innocent children to die of hunger or cancer?
Pope: God does not want anyone to suffer or die; he wants everyone to be saved. He offers us his help through his grace, his word, his sacraments, and his church. He also invites us to share in his suffering through compassion and solidarity with those who are afflicted. He promises us eternal life and happiness if we trust him and follow him.
Dawkins: But why should we trust him or follow him? What if he doesn’t exist at all? What if we are wasting our time praying to an imaginary friend?
Pope: He does exist; he has shown himself to me many times in my life. He has given me peace, joy, and hope even in the darkest moments. He has answered my prayers and fulfilled my desires. He has changed my heart and made me a better person.
Dawkins: That’s nice for you, but it doesn’t prove anything. It could be just your brain playing tricks on you, or your emotions influencing your perception. You have no way of knowing if your experience is real or delusional.
Pope: I do know; I know by faith, which is a gift from God that enables me to see beyond appearances and recognize his presence in everything that exists.
Dawkins: Well, I don’t have that gift, nor do I want it. I prefer to rely on facts, logic, and evidence to understand reality and make sense of life.
Pope: Facts, logic, and evidence are important tools, but they are not enough. They cannot answer the ultimate questions of why we exist, what is our purpose, or what happens after death.
Dawkins: Those questions are meaningless; they have no answers. We exist because of natural processes; our purpose is what we make it; and after death there is nothing.
Pope: Those answers are unsatisfying; they leave no room for hope or meaning. We exist because of divine love; our purpose is to know him, love him, and serve him; and after death there is more than nothing; there is a new life with God and his saints.
Dawkins: That’s wishful thinking; you have no evidence for such a claim. You are basing your hope on ancient myths and legends that have been debunked by modern science.
Pope: Science cannot debunk faith; they are not in conflict. They are complementary ways of exploring reality. Science tells us how things work; faith tells us why they matter.
Dawkins: But faith is irrational; it goes against reason and evidence. It makes you believe things that are not true or possible.
Pope: Faith is not irrational; it goes beyond reason and evidence. It makes you believe things that are true and possible with God.
Dawkins: But how do you know what God wants or does? How do you know that he is good or just? How do you know that he has a plan for you or for humanity?
Pope: I know because he has revealed himself to us through his word, his will, and his works. He has shown us his goodness and justice through his creation, his laws, and his actions. He has shown us his plan for us and for humanity through his covenants, his prophets, and his church.
Dawkins: But those are all human interpretations of what God wants or does. They are influenced by culture, history, and politics. They are often contradictory, inconsistent, or outdated.
Pope: No, they are inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides us into all truth. They are interpreted by the magisterium who preserves the authentic teaching of Christ. They are relevant for all times, places, and people because they express the universal values and principles of God’s kingdom.
Dawkins: That’s dogmatic; you have no room for doubt or questioning. You blindly follow what others tell you without thinking for yourself.
Pope: No, I have room for doubt and questioning; they help me grow in understanding and wisdom. I critically examine what others tell me with discernment and conscience.
Dawkins: But you never change your mind; you stick to your beliefs no matter what. You ignore or reject any evidence or argument that challenges your views.
Pope: No, I change my mind when I learn something new; I adapt my beliefs to new situations. I consider and respect any evidence or argument that challenges my views, but I also evaluate them according to my faith.
Dawkins: Well, we seem to be at an impasse; we have very different ways of looking at the world. I don’t think we can ever agree on anything.
Pope: Maybe not, but we can still respect each other as human beings. We can still listen to each other with curiosity and openness. We can still learn from each other with humility and gratitude.
Dawkins: Well, I suppose that’s something; at least we can have a civil conversation without resorting to violence or insults.
Pope: Yes, that’s something indeed; it’s a sign of hope for humanity. Maybe one day we can even find some common ground on some issues that matter to both of us.
Dawkins: Like what?
Pope: Like how to protect children from abuse and exploitation. Like how to promote peace and justice in a world torn by war and violence. Like how to care for the environment and the poor in a world threatened by climate change and inequality. Like how to foster dialogue and cooperation among people of different faiths and cultures.
Dawkins: Well, those are noble goals, but I don’t see how your religion helps you achieve them. In fact, I think it often hinders you or harms you.
Pope: On the contrary, I think my religion inspires me and guides me to achieve them. In fact, I think it often helps me or heals me.
Dawkins: How so?
Pope: My religion helps me achieve those goals by providing me with a sense of purpose, a code of ethics, and a structure for my life. It also helps me by encouraging me to practice altruistic values such as compassion, kindness, and mercy for the greater good of humanity. It also helps me by inspiring me to seek salvation for myself and others, and to render due worship and obedience to God.
My religion also guides me to achieve those goals by giving me a sense of responsibility that transcends beyond personal to social responsibility. It also guides me by teaching me to respect the dignity and rights of every human being as a child of God. It also guides me by showing me how to cooperate with other people of faith in building a healthy social environment.
My religion also heals me when I fail to achieve those goals by offering me forgiveness, grace, and hope. It also heals me by comforting me with the presence and love of God in times of suffering and sorrow. It also heals me by assuring me of the promise of eternal life after death.
Dawkins: Well, that sounds very nice, but I don’t think you need religion for any of that. You can have purpose, ethics, structure, altruism, responsibility, dignity, rights, forgiveness, grace, and hope without believing in God or following a church.
Pope: How so?
Dawkins: I can have purpose by finding meaning and fulfillment in my own goals and passions. I can have ethics by following rational principles and moral responsibility. I can have structure by organizing my life according to my own preferences and needs. I can have altruism by helping others for their own sake or for mutual benefit. I can have responsibility by recognizing my abilities and obligations as a human being. I can have dignity and rights by respecting myself and others as equal and autonomous agents. I can have forgiveness by letting go of resentment and guilt. I can have grace by accepting myself and others as imperfect and fallible. I can have hope by trusting in the power of reason and science to improve the world.
I don’t need God or a church to tell me what to do or how to live. I can think for myself and make my own decisions based on evidence and logic.
Pope: But don’t you see that you are missing something essential? Something that transcends your own goals, passions, preferences, needs, abilities, obligations, agents, resentment, guilt, imperfection, and fallibility? Something that gives you a higher calling, a deeper meaning, a greater joy, and a lasting peace?
Dawkins: What is that?
Pope: That is God. God is the source and the goal of all that exists. God is the creator and the sustainer of all life. God is the judge and the savior of all souls. God is the father and the friend of all people. God is the lover and the beloved of all hearts.
God gives you a higher calling by inviting you to share in his divine plan for creation. God gives you a deeper meaning by revealing to you his eternal truth and wisdom. God gives you a greater joy by filling you with his infinite grace and love. God gives you a lasting peace by assuring you of his constant presence and care.
You need God because without him, your life is ultimately empty, meaningless, hopeless, and doomed.
Dawkins: I’m sorry, but I don’t buy any of that. You have no evidence or logic to support your claims about God. You are basing your beliefs on faith, tradition, authority, or emotion. You are projecting your own desires and fears onto an imaginary being.
You don’t need God because with him, your life is ultimately deluded, irrational, dogmatic, and servile.
Pope: How can you say that? Have you ever experienced God in your life?
Dawkins: No, I haven’t.
Pope: Then how can you deny something that you have never known?
Dawkins: I can deny something that I have never known by applying the principle of parsimony or Occam’s razor. This principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the best.
The hypothesis that God exists is a very complex and unfalsifiable one. It requires many assumptions and ad hoc explanations to account for the existence, nature, and actions of God. It also raises many questions and problems such as the problem of evil, the problem of divine hiddenness, the problem of religious diversity, and so on.
The hypothesis that God does not exist is a very simple and falsifiable one. It requires no assumptions and no explanations to account for anything. It also avoids many questions and problems that plague theism.
Therefore, according to Occam’s razor, I should prefer the hypothesis that God does not exist over the hypothesis that God does exist.
Pope: But Occam’s razor is not a conclusive proof or a definitive criterion. It is only a heuristic or a rule of thumb. It can be useful in some cases but not in others. It can also be misapplied or abused.
The hypothesis that God exists is not complex or unfalsifiable if you understand it correctly. It does not require many assumptions or ad hoc explanations if you accept it on faith and reason. It also answers many questions and problems that challenge atheism.
The hypothesis that God does not exist is not simple or falsifiable if you examine it closely. It does require assumptions and explanations to account for the origin, order, and purpose of the universe, life, and morality. It also faces many questions and problems that undermine naturalism.
Therefore, according to Occam’s razor, you should not prefer the hypothesis that God does not exist over the hypothesis that God does exist.
Dawkins: I respect your faith, but I cannot accept it as a valid explanation for anything. You are making an unwarranted leap from observable facts to unobservable beliefs. Occam’s razor tells us to prefer simpler explanations over complex ones, and God is a very complex hypothesis.
Pope: I respect your science, but you are limiting yourself to what can be measured and verified by human senses and instruments. Occam’s razor tells us to avoid unnecessary entities over necessary ones, and God is a very necessary being.
Dawkins: Well, it seems we have reached an impasse. We have different criteria for what counts as simple and necessary. We also have different goals for what we want to explain and understand. Perhaps we should agree to disagree on this matter.
Pope: Yes, it seems we have reached a stalemate. We have different sources of authority for what counts as true and valid. We also have different values for what we want to achieve and promote. Perhaps we should agree to disagree on this issue.