I was originally thinking about this with regard to Dawkins, but it really applies to lots of kinds of ideological intolerance. It’s reasonable for people to think their own religious texts metaphorically sit closer to the nonfiction section than any other religious texts. Even atheists think their uncodified non-belief is nonfiction while belief is fiction.

But there is a saying that goes something like “Sometimes fiction does a better job of capturing the truth than nonfiction”. People have no problem venturing into the fiction section for other reading, but do it for religious texts? Blasphemy! Never! And it’s a shame. Admittedly I’m Mr. Multicultural Signature Line, but I think religions are very valuable, and a net positive for humanity. The fact that I think they’re fiction doesn’t mean they don’t have some valuable truth in them, even for people who don’t believe a word.

Dawkins also inadvertently promotes a bit of an anti-atheist stereotype by adhering so strongly to the “nonfiction is always superior, fiction provides nothing” viewpoint. There’s an opinion out there that atheism is a lazy cop-out for people who don’t want to make sacrifices and want to sleep in on Sundays*. And Dawkins makes atheism sound like the easy, only reasonable choice. But an atheist only needs to wait until someone they love dies, and then they’ll see that this nonfiction business is kind of a shit sandwich. A little fiction can help a lot of people, if they can believe it.

* Don’t get me wrong. Sleeping in on Sundays is awesome.