Another factor has been the explicit appeal to religion in the formation of anti- Western revolutionary nationalistic ideologies, classically exemplified by Iran. More broadly, concern has grown over the role of religion in the shaping of civilizations and in the fomenting of hostility between and among different civilizations, not least because of Samuel P. Huntington s argument that such conflict is systemic and likely inevitable. Anyone familiar with the contours of recent discussion of the role of religion regarding politics and conflict will be both gratified and frustrated by the present book. The certainty in question is that of ideological commitment, which is held to generate intolerance and militancy toward persons informed by rival, often equally certain, commitments. Put this way, Dawkins position is a play upon Chesterton s characterization of tolerance as a virtue of people who do not believe in anything.
Belief leads to intolerance and ultimately to conflict.
More generally, Dawkins position is a version of Enlightenment- induced suspicion towards religion. Perpetual peace will come about only by transcending specific religious differences in the name of a higher rationality. Nor is the claim attributed to him that religion as such causes wars addressed except indirectly by Martin, whose interest is whether Christianity causes wars. This is no small question, but it does not meet the thrust of Dawkins assertion or the assumptions about all forms of religion that can be read through it. So Dawkins as a foil does not, in the event, turn out to be useful.