When the Homily is about Immunology

Richard Dawkins

Through my dealings with my beloved atheist I have had many an encounter with Richard Dawkins' work. And while he is an very interesting read, what he fails to notice is the mirror he is looking at when he levels claims of bias and contradiction against religious people.

Here is an interview I stumbled upon at Beliefnet.

Dawkins has as big an agenda and bias as ANY Christian writer I have EVER read, and yet he continually tosses about such accusations to discredit anyone who might challenge ANY aspects of evolutionary theory...and more than that he outright dismisses the notion of God as being an asinine theory precisely because it cannot be proven by science. And yet when pressed on the issue admits: " Obviously, there are other things having nothing to do with science—music, poetry, sex, love. These are all things that make life, to me, extremely worth living."

Note the omission of God or religion in his list? How is it that music, poetry, love and EVEN sex (how many scientists would shoot him down on THAT one?) all make the list of things that have nothing to do with science and make "life...worth living", but not religion? These things may escape the all knowing entity of science, but not God? Why?

When asked what he would think if his daughter became religious, he answers: "I think she’s much too intelligent to do that..." Wow...now that's some serious arrogance.

As always, the search for something bigger than ourselves is present, even in Dawkins who says : "I think there is something glorious in the universe, in contemplating the Milky Way galaxy, in contemplating the fact that this is only one in billions of galaxies, contemplating the fact that at the beginning of the 21st century, humanity really has gone a very long way toward understanding the universe in which we live and the life form of which we are a part. I find that a truly inspirational thought....My book, 'Unweaving the Rainbow,' is an attempt to elevate science to the level of poetry and to show how one can be—in a funny sort of way—rather spiritual about science. Not in a supernatural sense, but there are uplifting mysteries to be solved. The contemplation of the size and scale of the universe, of the depth of geological time, of the complexity of life--these all, to me, have an inspirational quality. It makes my life worthwhile to study them."

Furthermore, Dawkins sheds light on the issue that finally sent me looking for something deeper than outright materialism and "darwinism" within that context. In this article, he discusses the fact that materialism and natural selection preach certain guiding principals which people can and should reject. Absolute and highly intelligent hedonism IS that guiding principal. Dawkins writes:

I prefer to agree that natural selection is the dominant force in biological evolution, admit its unpleasantness, and fight against it as a human being. I hear the bleak sermon of the Devil's Chaplain as a call to arms. As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian, believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature. But at the same time as I support Darwinism as a scientist, I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs. I have always held true to the closing words of my first book, 'We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.'

Hmmm...further on he writes:

the historic process that caused you to exist is wasteful, cruel and low. But exult in your existence, because that very process has blundered unwittingly on its own negation. Only a small, local negation, to be sure: only one species, and only a minority of the members of that species; but there lies hope.

And my question: hope for what? And more importantly (maybe he tries to address this in his book on which this article is derived), why should I give a damn? You see this is what ruined my atheism, for I could not reconcile these two questions with the hedonism I at once yearned for and despised. If the materialism preached by Dawkins is correct, then I would be stupid to live any sort of life that does anything more than bring me profound pleasure and comfort - and THAT would be growing up and facing reality - not denying God and yet still clinging to the better angels of our nature.

So while I applaud Dawkins for recognizing the need for and indeed the general inclination of people to not be guided by the principals of materialism, I cannot get past his arrogance when he labels people who question evolution as "ignorant, stupid or insane...or wicked." (Did he say wicked?) Perhaps arrogance is a battle he might consider fighting in his rebellion against his own selfish genes?

But of course, why should he?