More light and a little less heat please
On March 24, 2012 Richard Dawkins spoke at the Reason Rally in Washington D.C. Dr. Dawkins urged his listeners to ridicule and mock religious believers.
For those of you that are not familiar with Richard Dawkins he is an ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and an author. He is the author of the book titled The God Delusion.
His academic credentials include being an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and he was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Sciences from 1995 until 2008. He is also an atheist, a vice president of the British Humanist Association, as well a supporter of the Brights Movement. - from Wikipedia
Here are some quotes from Dr. Dawkins speech at the rally;
“Don't fall for the convention that we're all 'too polite' to talk about religion,”
“Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated, and need to be challenged – and if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt,”
Dr. Dawkins also makes specific claims about the universe which he cannot substantiate. Perhaps he knows this and that fuels his anger towards people that hold religious beliefs. I'll visit this subject a little further along in this article.
“For example, if they say they're Catholic: Do you really believe, that when a priest blesses a wafer, it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?”
“Mock them,” he told the crowd. “Ridicule them! In public!”
“When you meet somebody who claims to be religious, ask them what they really
believe,”
“If you meet somebody who says he's Catholic, for example, say: 'What do you
mean? Do you just mean you were baptized Catholic, because I'm not impressed by
that.'”
“I don't despise religious people; I despise what they stand for,”
Professor Dawkins in his remarks did not really say anything that Catholics have not heard before from an atheist. Anti-Catholic bigotry is not just confined to non-Catholic Christians, anti-Catholic bigotry is the anti-Semitism of the intellectual class.
When one asks someone what they believe for the purpose of ridiculing or mocking them I cannot see any reason to begin the conversation in the first place. If someone asks me what my religious beliefs are I have no expectation that when I finish speaking they will immediately start swimming across the Tiber, nor am I angry or disappointed if they reject what I have said. I just want them to think about what I have said, and I do the same for those that present their religious or non-religious beliefs to me.
I have had conversations with individuals who follow the conversational etiquette model that Dr.Dawkins advocates. My practice is to politely end the conversation as soon as possible before I end up with a hernia trying to hold up both sides of the conversation.
Faith and Reason
Richard Dawkins and his belief in evolutionary development is not really a problem for the Catholic Church when one reads the following quotes;
"As to the Divine Design, is it not an instance of incomprehensibly and infinitely marvellous Wisdom and Design to have given certain laws to matter millions of ages ago, which have surely and precisely worked out, in the long course of those ages, those effects which He from the first proposed. Mr. Darwin's theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill. Perhaps your friend has got a surer clue to guide him than I have, who have never studied the question, and I do not [see] that 'the accidental evolution of organic beings' is inconsistent with divine design—It is accidental to us, not to God." - Blessed John Henry Newman 1868 in a letter to a fellow priest. He was later to be named a Cardinal.
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." - - October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II
"Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man." - October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II
"Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called creationism and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance." - Pope Benedict XVI at a meeting with the clergy in July 2007
From 1860's to the present day the Church has commented on the science of evolution, and after reading the quotes it is apparent that the Church does not reject the research that scientists have done, or seek to denigrate the research. The Church does challenge scientists on cosmological theories, or philosophical theories that state that scientific research proves that God does not exist.
The Theory of Evolution is taught in Catholic schools as a science subject. The Church has stated that Catholic students that wish to have careers in the sciences must understand the theory.
There may be some Catholics as well as non-Catholic Christians that think creationism should be taught as science, just as some science teachers include commentary in the classroom that states that scientific research proves that God does not exist. Both groups have one thing in common, they are wrong.
The Church is not the enemy of science that some might believe. Richard Dawkins would do well to remember a Catholic priest put forth a theory that is just as important to science as Darwin's theory of evolution.
"Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was also the first to derive what is now known as the Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'." - from Wikipedia
Cosmology ( Greek - kósmos, world: lógos, knowledge or science)
At the present time cosmology is the philosophical study of first causes, or the origins of the universe. Cosmology differs from science in that science seeks to discover the mechanics of organic and inorganic matter through observation and experimentation. To put it more simply cosmology is concerned with why, science is concerned with how.
The following statements Richard Dawkins made at the Reason Rally are cosmological statements.
“How is it conceivable,” he wondered, “that the laws of physics should
conspire together – without guidance, without direction, without any
intelligence – to bring us into the world?”
“almost too good to be true,”...... “mechanical,
automatic, unplanned, unconscious process” should produce human intelligence.
“That's not just true, it's beautiful,”
“It's beautiful because it's true,” said Dawkins. “And it's almost too good
to be true.”
The problem for Richard Dawkins is that none of his research, nor the research of any other scientist proves those assertions. He has confused why with how something works. In fact his statements are really a statement of faith, faith that somehow the laws of physics "conspired", faith in the fact that inorganic matter is capable of planning and executing a plan. One hopes that the laws of physics are not pranksters. They might conspire to move all the air molecules from your living room to your kitchen so they can laugh as they watch you gasping for breath while you crawl across the floor looking for air to breathe.
Richard Dawkins is a brilliant biologist, his cosmology is rather weak.
The assertion Richard Dawkins should make is that Scripture should not be used as a scientific document. In fact if Richard Dawkins made that assertion he would find to his surprise that one of the greatest Catholic theologians and philosophers would agree with that assertion.
The following quote comes from The Literal Interpretation of Genesis written by St. Augustine in the early 5th century AD.
"It not infrequently happens that
something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world,
about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars,
about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and
seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such
things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience,
even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though,
and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian
speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian
writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he
saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind
constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was
able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of
obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the
prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."
Credo ut intelligam
"I believe so that I may understand". This is a saying of Anselm of Canterbury. The foundation of his statement comes from St. Augustine, who stated; "crede, ut intelligas", in English; "believe so that you may understand".
Perhaps Blessed John Henry Newman in such a simple sentence is more eloquent than we know.
"I do not [see] that 'the accidental evolution of organic beings' is inconsistent with divine design—It is accidental to us, not to God."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Humanist_Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/1234/richard_dawkins_blustering_polemicist_bad_philosopher_naked_atheist_emperor.aspx
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/dawkins-calls-for-mockery-of-catholics-at-reason-rally/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=3
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm
