Clown Misidentifies Virus

Whatever else he may be, Richard Dawkins is always good for a laugh. Continuing his long-standing tradition of senseless drivel, Dawkins recently denounced religion as a “virus” in a lecture before several hundred at Harvard’s Lowell Lecture Hall. Dawkins, having taken Dobzhansky’s admonition to the extreme, appears incapable of understanding anything (much less biology) except in the light of his own brand of atheistic evolutionary theory.

I unfortunately did not have the opportunity to attend the lecture, but understand from the reports that Dawkins “argued that the widespread presence of religion – despite its lack of obvious benefits – suggests that it was not an evolutionary adaptation.” In other words, it was not a product of blind matter’s fantastical march up the ladder of development to its human culmination. Rather, in Dawkins’ wacky worldview, religion exists in spite of the impressive evolutionary drama, and can be compared to “viruses and worms.” Viruses, of course, are harmful and must eventually be eradicated if we, as evolution’s grand creative masterpiece, are to continue our destiny of progress.

Once again, I find myself asking, “is this guy serious?” I have not yet been able to determine whether Dawkins actually believes the nonsense he foists on others or whether he simply loves a media circus and a good sound bite. After all, a discourse like the one he delivered at Lowell Lecture Hall is more newsworthy, and is certainly more likely to land him another speaking engagement, than a balanced, objective lecture might have done.

In Dawkins’ world, religion is bad, and therefore cannot possibly be the product of evolutionary development. Everyone knows, after all, that all that is good in life comes of evolution. I certainly agree with Dawkins’ conclusion on the former point – religion is not the product of evolutionary development. The reasons for my conclusion, however, have less to do with evolution’s benevolence, and more to do with the complete lack of evidence to support any evolutionary pathway to consciousness, thought, feelings, belief or the other fundamental aspects of human nature that distinguish us from the matter around us.

But blithely pressing forward in support of his position, Dawkins cites some of the ills foisted on humanity in the name of religion, and then carelessly concludes that religion is harmful. For example, one of Dawkins’ pieces of “evidence” is the fact that certain individuals are intolerant of others who are not of their religion. This is an unfortunate fact, and one that deserves careful scrutiny and thoughtful answers, but is hardly convincing evidence that religion itself is bad. And the amusing part about Dawkins’ citation of religiously-based intolerance is that Dawkins is the master of such tactics when it comes to anyone who disagrees with his particular atheistic/evolution-centered worldview.

In Dawkins’ mind, the world would be a better place if there were no religion, because then there would be no religious label upon which to base discrimination. What he fails to see, however, is that everyone would simply have adopted a new label – that of atheism. No, Dawkins doesn’t want to do away with religion, he just wants everyone to convert to his. Then there would be no more religious discrimination – wouldn’t that be a wonderful world!

In formulating his theories, Dawkins apparently chooses to ignore the large amount of evidence contrary to his position. For example, why not acknowledge the tremendous amount of good performed by religious organizations in humanitarian aid and relief, providing comfort to those in need, assisting the indigent, and numerous similar activities? Dawkins ignores these facts, and through his opaque lenses sees only those things that support his particular philosophy.

More importantly, Dawkins, like all faithful evolutionists, conveniently ignores the more complex issues, like the bases for the existence of belief, consciousness and will in the first place, and pretends that these things simply don’t exist, or if they do, they must be the result of misfiring neurons, something that evolution will certainly correct in a blissful future day.

Dawkins casts himself as the prophet of an updated version of Sir Julian Huxley’s “new religion” of evolutionary materialism, which in Dawkins’ mind means atheistic evolutionary materialism. And when the prophet speaks, the followers of Dawkins’ worldview pay obeisance and bask in the hopeful promise of a future day when religion will be vanquished and atheistic rationality will rule the world.

With such a non-stop stream of drivel, however, Dawkins comes off not as a formidable challenger to substantive religion, but as a media-starved clown of atheistic philosophy.

Eric Anderson

December 16, 2003