Dawkins The Influential Fanatic

Professor Richard Dawkins, the neo-Darwinist, did not receive good reviews for his Channel 4 two-part series on religion, “The Root of All Evil”.

Many reviewers – even those who indicated that they were also atheists – said it was over-stated, fanatical and lacking in perspective and common sense.

The sight of Professor Dawkins standing in front of harmless pilgrims to Lourdes caring for the sick and dying, describing the Lourdes experience as the root of evil, the crazy outpouring of a simple peasant girl, and a probable source of infection from those “wallowing” in holy water, was not uplifting.

I thought of two other commentators on Lourdes: one was the late feminist writer Jill Tweedie, who, though not herself a believer, wrote movingly about the way Lourdes demonstrated such a wealth of human compassion and care. The other is Ruth Harris, the Jewish scholar who wrote a fine historical book on Lourdes, examining with forensic detail Bernadette’s life and vision. Though Dr Harris remained religiously neutral, her conclusions about Bernadette were far indeed from considering her just a simple and ignorant peasant – but a young woman of character and integrity.

Despite Dawkins’ claims to advance the case for rationalism and reason, he is far from either rational or reasonable. He comes over as a wild-eyed fanatic who actually avoids rational debate wherever possible.

When, for example, he came to the abortion issue, did he examine the entirely rational, biologically proven argument that Catholic pro-life advocates have put forward for decades: that when a pregnancy commences, this is a human life?

No, he did not. He chose, instead, to seek out extremists in the United States who justified the shooting of abortion doctors. At no point did he mention that such actions have been repeatedly condemned by pro-life advocates and organisations.

Then, fanatics are not interested in bringing reason, perspective, evidence or common sense into arguments. They seek out hysterical extremes in order to “prove” their case.

Dawkins also revealed his own biological ignorance. He referred to the unborn as an “embryo”. The conceptus is only an embryo up to eight weeks’ gestation: after that it is called a foetus. Surgical abortions very seldom take place before eight weeks – it is technically more difficult to carry out the operation that early – so a termination of pregnancy seldom involves an “embryo”.

But like all fanatics, he uses language not in an objective sense: but as it suits him.

He twists politics and history to suit his polemic, too. Repeatedly he cited Northern Ireland as an example of a society driven by religious hatred. But no objective historian would offer such a superficial analysis. The problems in Northern Ireland were rooted in struggles over land: one group of people displaced another group of people – and religion was one of the signifying markers of difference among these groups. It could just as easily have been language, race, colour, ethnicity.

A.A. Gill, who is indifferent to religion, wrote of Dawkins in the Sunday Times: “Scientists all over the nation must hold their heads and groan whenever Richard Dawkins appears on television…He is such a terrible advertisement, such an awful embarrassment. …His splenetic, small-minded, viciously vindictive falsetto rant at all belief that isn’t completely rooted in the natural sciences is laughable….He looks like a scientific bag lady screaming at the traffic…”

A fair description, indeed, of the man’s TV work: and yet, I would add this: Dawkins’ influence is wide, he is revered among the secularist lobbyists, and he intends to go on berating religious faith, and damaging it, wherever he can. Christians should take him very seriously and regard his growing TV fame as a wake-up call to cease quarrelling about footling matters and focus energetically (and rationally) on defending the faith.

The Catholic Herald: 20.01.06