Oh my, I do love the cool, calm, and rational thinking...

... of a scientist. Especially a brilliant, cool, calm, and rational scientist such as Richard Dawkins. Frankly, he intimidates me. He frightens me with his knowledge, his razor-sharp logic, his brilliant inductions, and his devastating use of facts and figures. For example:

Catholics think I have a special animus against them, whereas I'm an equal opportunity offender. I think Catholicism is stupid and dangerous; I think all religion is stupid and dangerous. I was raised Catholic so I know more about that...

Oops, sorry; that was Bill Maher, an unfunny "comedian" who apparently makes a living blathering like a monkey on crack (no offense to drug-addicted monkeys intended). Okay, here is the cool and cerebral Dr. Dawkins:

What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders.

Ooh, that was cool! Let's give brilliant a try:

The Anglican church does not cleave to the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast; nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite. It does not send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV. Whether one agrees with him or not, there is a saintly quality in the Archbishop of Canterbury, a benignity of countenance, a well-meaning sincerity. How does Pope Ratzinger measure up? The comparison is almost embarrassing.

Devastating! Let me catch my breath! [Gasp, gasp] Okay, how about calm?

For some, the motive will be homophobic bigotry, and a consequent dislike of the efforts of decent church leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury to accept those whose sexual orientation happens to deviate from majority taste. Never mind that they will be joining an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture.

Turning to the motives of the poachers, here we find cause for real encouragement. The Roman Catholic Church is fast running out of priests. In Ireland in 2007, 160 Catholic priests died, while only nine new recruits were ordained. To say the least, those figures don't point towards sustainability. No wonder that disgusting institution, the Roman Catholic Church, is dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp: "Give me your homophobes, misogynists and pederasts. Send me your bigots yearning to be free of the shackles of humanity."

Whew! I hope someone is taping this for posterity. And now let's hear it for rational!

Archbishop Rowan Williams is too nice for his own good. Instead of meekly sharing that ignominious platform with the poachers, he should have issued a counter-challenge: "Send us your women, yearning to be priests, who could make a strong case for being the better-qualified fifty percent of humanity; send us your decent priests, sick of trying to defend the indefensible; send them all, in exchange for our woman-haters and gay-bashers." Sounds like a good trade to me.

Mercy! The man is a wit wrapped in a genius outfit, swaddled in sassy, deep-fried in searing sarcasm, and smothered in spicy polemics. Throw in a 20 oz. lemonade and a Charles Darwin action figure and you have a super-duper Man of Science value meal that kids ages 6 to 12 can enjoy—well, at least until they throw up and grow up.

Here's the thing: I know quite a bit about basketball and tennis. I know nothing about cricket and water polo. Likewise, Dawkins apparently knows quite a bit about biology and other physical sciences. But he's clueless about theology, philosophy, and the Catholic Church. What's more, he doesn't seem interested at all in really understanding it, even for the purpose of attacking it more effectively:

Ignatius Insight: Dawkins' field of expertise is biology. How would you rate him as, first, a philosopher, and, secondly, as an apologist for atheism?

Fr. Thomas Crean: I do not think he is very interested in philosophy. He refers occasionally to Daniel Dennett, but that is about all. He seems to take materialism as self-evident, but he doesn't make any serious effort to explain thought or free will. He refers at one point to St. Thomas's "five ways", but his discussion of them is extremely cursory, with major misunderstandings. There is no mention of Plato or Aristotle in his book. His impatience with "religion"is such that he is not really disposed to weigh carefully any arguments in its favor, which is obviously the very reverse of a philosophical frame of mind.

As an apologist for atheism he has some useful qualities, such as passion, a tone of conviction, a desire to make converts, ready invective and an apparent concern for the psychological (I almost said "spiritual") welfare of those whom he is trying to convert. On the other hand his stridency must surely reduce his influence with some people, and his lapses of logic with others.

Ignatius Insight: Throughout God Is No Delusion you point out numerous errors of logic and fact in Dawkins' work. In your opinion, what are some of the most egregious of those errors? Based on his book, what sort of research did Dawkins put into studying Christian history, theology, and philosophy?

Fr. Thomas Crean: I think one of his worst faults is the tendency to reason in a circle. For example, to explain why religion is so widespread even though in his opinion it is irrational, he says that it is evolutionarily useful. Why? Because it helps survival if, in general, one tends to adhere to the philosophy if life that one has once adopted. But the question at issue is precisely why so many people adopt theism as their philosophy of life, rather than atheism. So his explanation amounts to saying that theism is so widespread because so many people adopt it.

I suspect that he did very little research into Christian sources before writing his book. He quotes occasionally from the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, which is of course available on the Internet. Sometimes his misunderstandings of it are quite funny, as when he quotes a passage in the entry on "Purgatory" called "proofs of Purgatory", where the author has referred to the immemorial Christian custom of praying for the dead. Professor Dawkins seriously supposes that the author intended this as a 'proof' that would convince an atheist such as himself!

What is perhaps more surprising is that he has not done more research using anti-Christian sources. I should have expected that there would have been more about the Crusades, for example, or the Inquisition. But in fact he doesn't seem to be very interested in history, any more than in philosophy.

Read the entire interview with Fr. Crean, O.P., author of God Is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins seems to have the same obsessive desire for attention and Catholic-bashing as does Maher and John Spong. Here is what I suggest they might consider doing for their next publicity stunt: they should stage a mock "same sex" marriage with Dawkins as the groom and Maher and Spong as the brides. Charles Schumer and Arlen Specter should "officiate"; Shumer can dress up like Charles Darwin and Specter can dress up like a former Republican senator. Elton John can sing "It Ain't Gonna Be Easy." The wedding should be held right outside the doors of a major mosque, preferably in Saudi Arabia or another Muslim country. The event can be televised live on MSNBC and the Science Channel.

Hey, it's just an idea. And I'm not saying it's rational or even brilliant. But it is more interesting than anything Dawkins and Co. are saying.

Comments

[Laura]

Thanks for a great post! I laughed so hard I almost fell out of my chair! Actually, I heard an interview with Richard Dawkins on MPR the other day, and I was absolutely flabbergasted by the ignorance and flabby thinking he displayed. He employed the usual "religion is a crutch" arguments, plus the bizarre idea mentioned in the post that the idea of religion is useful in an evolutionary sense because people need an explanation for the unexplanable (the idea being that the unexplanable is only unexplanable until science catches up). What I found most intriguing was his idea that "spirituality" amounts to an uplifted, emotional feeling in the chest when encountering artistic or natural beauty, and that "spirituality" has been "hijacked" by religion! Let me get this straight: spirituality, which deals with the spiritual realm, the unseen, spirits, (hence the word SPIRITuality) has always been the province of religion. Yet this religiously bigoted and illiterate person has the nerve to define spirituality as a squishy sort of emotional reaction to beauty (which, in my observations seems to have replaced actual spiritual inclinations, especially in the secular crowd), and then to say that this squishy emotionalism has been hijacked by religion!!

If this is the best the atheists have to throw at us, we've got nothing to worry about, except, perhaps, all the other equally bigoted and ignorant people who actually believe their nonsense. Let us pray that people will be smarter than that.

[M. Jordan Lichens]

I will never understand why Bill Maher is such a big name among atheists. Sure, he doesn't believe in God, but he also doesn't believe in germs or vaccines and mocks "Western Medicine" with such arrogance. Dawkins and Co think Christianity is dangerous, but if we had Maher running the show it would truly be a return to the Dark Ages; well, we'd have the plagues and chaos without the positive points of art, literature and culture.

[Kevin C.]

"The man is a wit wrapped in a genius outfit, swaddled in sassy, deep-fried in searing sarcasm, and smothered in spicy polemics."

Talking about yourself again, Carl?

[vivificat1.blogspot.com]

Richard Dawkins is as brilliant as a black hole and I mean inside the event horizon.

Bill Maher and the whole coterie of "comics" in HBO are also headed for the dust bin. Their shows survive because they enjoy a priviliged corner in cable aimed at a supposedly "sophisticated" niche audience. Were they to compete in an open, Nielsen-driven market, they would have perished long ago.

-Theo

[ocdsister]

As a PhD in the biological sciences, and former medical researcher, I am OFFENDED every time Dawkins is mentioned. He is the sort of individual that gives science and scientists a false and negative image. I actually don't know anyone in my field that pays attention to that man. May God forgive him, Maher and company... For their sake, I hope they don't know what they're saying. May the Holy Spirit enlighten their hearts and minds, that they may recognize the great harm their obtuseness and arrogance are instigating.

[Jack]

Maher is basically a no-talent. He has never made me chuckle let alone laugh. He's just a nasty, snide guy.