The Dawkins Logic: Why You Should Not Listen to Me

I admit to still being surprised by the sheer ignorance of well-educated, self-avowed intellectualists -- point in case, Richard Dawkins. I think that he is operating, like the rest of us, within the parameters of his hermeneutic, for we all have one. But one wonders whether he fails to perceive his inconsistencies within that hermeneutic.  

For example, Dawkins tweets: "With respect to those meanings of 'human' that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig" (emphasis added). (link) Here, I think Dawkins himself grants us sufficient reason -- even a logical insistence -- why none of us should heed any word he speaks or any word he types with even a semblance of recognition; which is what I am actually doing, but merely for the sake of emphasis. Not only does he maintain no absolute, objective standard for morality,¹ but he cannot even maintain his own standards of morality in any consistent form.

Dawkins has explicitly stated his complaint against the morality of monogamous relationships in his article "Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster." So, then, who shall establish standards for morality? Well, perhaps in Dawkins' worldview, each individual establishes his or her own set of standards. What happens when one person's standards are not the same as another person's, even one's spouse? He writes: "The underlying presumption -- that a human being has some kind of property rights over another human being's body² -- is unspoken because it is assumed to be obvious. But with what justification?" (link) Here is our answer: each person will have to learn to cope with the subjective standards of the other.

One might suggest that Dawkins is merely being consistent within his evolutionary, survival-of-the-fittest hermeneutic, and I think that is a fair assessment. But in this conclusion we also learn of Dawkins' inconsistency. If I am to set my own standards for living -- standards to protect my right to survive -- then those standards may not include even one element to which Dawkins' subscribes. I do not mean materially, as in, what food should I eat or with what shelter should I maintain in order to survive. I mean the subjective adoption of such that is healthy for my own psyche.

But, according to this worldview, everyone should do the same! All people should establish their own standards for what is right and wrong, what is healthy and not healthy, what is good and evil. Mind you, such standards may not include any of the elements to which Dawkins holds; and if this is true, then no one should actually heed a single word coming from Richard Dawkins (or anyone else). As a matter of fact, people should only listen to the voice of their own subjective reason. Every individual is his or her only god. No one has any right to say any word against what anyone else believes to be true. But Dawkins does not live within the consistency of such a view.

Not only are opinions subjective and relative to each individual in the worldview of evolutionary theory, but so is meaning and value. In fact here Dawkins is, again, very inconsistent. Since there is no meaning or purpose in this life, why, then, does he waste so much of his and our time propagating his views, and challenging opposing views? Is he really so unaware of his own passions? Can he really be so self-deceived as to imagine that he finds no fulfillment or meaning in what he does or speaks or believes? Is he really preaching his gospel to no purpose?

No, he finds great fulfillment, meaning, purpose, and satisfaction in opposing religion, metaphysics, and debating his worldview with opponents. Given his obvious determination in pandering his worldview, we cannot assume that even he finds life meaningless. Indeed, Paula Kirby, quoted by The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, writes: "Life cannot be meaningless so long as we have the capacity to affect the well-being of ourselves and others. For true meaninglessness, we would need heaven." (link) No doubt, that latter comment was a rhetorical device, the logic of which deserves its own response.

I am not convinced, however, that Kirby addressed the main argument for purpose or meaning. We still do not know why we should care about the well-being of others. Evolutionary theory -- a survival-of-the-fittest mentality -- certainly does not grant us the slightest notion that we should care one iota for the well-being of others. All that matters in this life is my survival.

Moreover, there is no one to govern over or answer to if I should choose not to care about the well-being of others (or even my own well-being, for that matter). In an atheistic worldview, if I were to kill three billion people, merely because I wanted to, and even if I got away with it, what would it matter in the end? No one would nor could hold me accountable for all those murders; it just doesn't matter. Atheism demands meaninglessness. 

My survival, if you will, informs me that listening to Richard Dawkins (or any other atheist) will harm me intellectually -- for his worldview is not only inconsistent but also illogical, holding no objective standards for morality or truth -- as well as harm me emotionally and spiritually.³ If Dawkins or any other atheist intends on being consistent with his or her worldview, then such must logically acknowledge that my worldview is equally as valid, merely because I have been granted, according to evolutionary theory, to establish my own subjective means of survival. Thank you, Richard Dawkins, for giving us all excellent, viable reasons why we should not listen to you.

__________

¹ James Spiegel argues that lack of viable evidence for theism, coupled with extravagant views of creation via aliens, indicates that "something other than a rational, dispassionate review of evidence is at work behind the thinking of Dawkins and the new atheists." See James S. Spiegel, The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2010), 12. Taking his cue from the confessions of atheists like Thomas Nagel, Spiegel writes: "Perhaps we should consider the possibility that skeptical objections are the atheists' façade, a scholarly veneer masking the real causes of their unbelief -- causes that are moral and psychological in nature." (11)    

² The apostle Paul writes that both the married man and the married woman are anxious in how to please the other (1 Cor. 7:33, 34). The body of the husband in some sense belongs to his wife; while the body of the wife in some sense belongs to her husband (1 Cor. 7:3-4). Our bodies are but one gift we present to our spouse when we vow ourselves in holy matrimony. Dawkins, in essence, perverts marriage and the giving of one's body to his or her spouse into some sort of slavery concept. But he does so solely to advance his sexually immoral views (i.e., non-monogamous relationships). Such makes Spiegel's arguments only stronger (see above footnote).    

³ As a matter of fact, according to Dawkins' meme theory, I cannot even help but to believe in God: these "units of cultural inheritance," which he names memes, are a virus of the mind which predisposes me toward religion (even his peers do not agree with his theory: see Alister McGrath, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life (Malden: Blackwell, 2005), 119-38). Of course, this is just Dawkins' ludicrous pseudo-science, for which he does not maintain even an ounce of scientific evidence. What is odd is that Dawkins valiantly defends the theory that homosexuals are "born that way" -- predisposed toward same-sex attraction -- vying to protect our "cause" at any cost; but then very inconsistently seeks to rid society of "the religious virus," though we, too, are born that way -- predisposed toward belief in God. Neither group can help what they think or feel, having been, according to his view, born that way. By what standard, then, does Dawkins seek to eradicate religious belief and not homosexuality? What would our modern society say to someone who sought to eradicate homosexuality? One need look no farther than any news outlet. Does not religion, then, deserve the same respect? Not according to Dawkins' inconsistent worldview.