Just as Richard Dawkins, I detest temples. I also detest all intermediaries with God. But different from him, I also detest mosques and imans and not only all those priests that sexually abuse of children in Ireland, but those Middle East priests that force girls to marry senior bearded men. I detest even more the Sharia tolerated by coward politicians in the United Kingdom. I do not deny it. For years I have admired Dawkins' work, and I have bought all his books, except for “The God Delusion”, but the reason for that decision will be left aside for later.
There is nothing that would affect the prestige of a scientist more than arrogance. For the last three months, I have been watching videos of Richard Dawkins against religion, espe-cially the virulent attacks against Christian religion, against which he rages as an Islamic would. I could also say I was amazed with his lecture at the University of California, which he titled “I am Offended”. This opportunistic son of Kenyan Colonialists behaves as a First World communist in front of the most liberal public at Berkeley.
The video, published in “YouTube”, shows the cynicism and vanity of a man, applauded after each phrase like “We should be offended when children are told they will spend a life in hellfire”, as one of his slogans read, directed to a mass of idiots hypnotized by the knowledge of the great preacher. Because Dawkins, who considers himself a pure and hard-line atheist, is evidently trying to become the Martin Luther of a new bible called “The Origin of Species”.
Many of my friends, (some of them scientists) are people of faith. They are human beings with moral principles and a tolerance that Dawkins is not able to assimilate. They are honest people that love their Christmas celebrations because they are part of the cultural traditions in which they grew up. Many, (I, among the firsts) admire the works of Darwin, a man beyond his time, extremely modest, whose ideas gave coherence to my scientific vocation in a Cuba in which the one to be worshiped was Frederic Engels, because theism, or Darwin's agnosticism would not adhere to the fundamentalist atheism that Sr. Dawkins is trying to sell us.
The first bulldog to guard Darwin was Thomas Henry Huxley (1). This brilliant intellectual defended the theory of evolution as no one has ever done. Besides, he did it when it was most necessary. His first work to defend the theory of evolution was published in Novem-ber 1859; a month after “The Origin of the Species” was published. But defending scienti-fic ideas is one thing and try to convert them into sacred scriptures is another thing, and the preaching of Dawkins is trying to turn Darwin into a new prophet, and his work on evolution into the “Last Testament” of the 21st. Century.
This is so contradicting. Dawkins is the only scientist that has really convinced me of the great utilitarian value that believing in God represents, and God, it seems, keeps on going his way, silently, completely ignoring the existence of this evolutionist and his populist discourses at universities all around the planet. Maybe it was due to the everyday impor-tance that religion offers to the plain man, that Darwin said in one of his reflexions about the religious education he was given: “beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories”.
It doesn't matter who the celebrity is (a small detail in the universe of life), he or she will be a prisoner of his/her own words. Arrogant scientists become ultimate captives. At the end of the climate change summit at Copenhagen, Mister Dawkins published an editorial in “The Guardian” in which he said: “Whatever you think about global warming and whe-ther humans are responsible, I think we have to salute this remarkable feat of internatio-nal cooperation”. In other words: whatever your beliefs are about global warming, to fight against it until the ruin of world's economy, is a sacrifice of which we must all be happy and proud of.
Who could imagine it? Richard Dawkins: another believer of the Carbonian Cult!
This nonsense forces me to answer him in a way similar to that in which Huxley answered to the Archbishop Wilberforce: "I would rather be the offspring of two believers than be an atheist and afraid to face the truth”. Especially because there is a great difference be-tween believing in God and believing in Global Warning. God, whatever the level of credi-bility you may grant him, offers hope, moral guidance and comfort to millions of people in this world. Global warming, on the opposite, is the religion of eternal punishment, of human guilt against Nature made Deity: humans are all sinners in the new Carbonian Cult.
But, isn't this the same Richard Dawkins, now a believer of the global warming hoax, that said that believers were nothing “pig-headed and ignorant” during his university spee-ches? Shouldn't human beings back only that which is “true” due to evidence? How can Richard Dawkins believe in the apocalyptic climate cult when he himself stated that: “I am not well versed on climate?” Are Phil Jones, Rajendra Pachauri, Michael Mann, or Al Gore scientists that respect evidence?
Scientific culture, as Ed Wilson has said, can be defined: “as new verifiable knowledge secured and distributed with fair credit meticulously given”. How would Dawkins define the culture of editorial obstruction, lies, and the discredit of all the scientists involved and that benefit from the lucrative business of Global Warming? How could the pompous evolutionist become the apologist of thousands of tricked data, politicized editorial obstructions and the shameful profit of the scientists involved in I.P.C.C. and the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit?
Dawkins himself said in 2008: “I am well versed in evolution… and that is why I am happy to take on creationists.” But Dawkins, isn't it pure creationism to invent a “scientific” theory and support it on false data? Didn't you read the e-mails made public before the Copenhagen conference? Isn't a scientific obligation to be well informed before giving opinions on a scientific matter? Why did Dawkins ignore then certain literature in the controversial topic of climate change? Why did he think he should take it on the skeptics on the matter? McCormack (2) was right when he reminded him that “science without integrity is bad religion”.
To consider as a remarkable international cooperation fact the useless efforts of the United Nations to fight against global warming is the same as to back up the creation of a world-wide government that nobody needs; it is like ignoring that it is all a scientifically varni-shed “reality” produced by scientist pregnant with political agendas and economic inte-rests. To obtain them, they do not doubt to destroy the prestige of other scientists that have even partially different opinions. Isn't science a temple where everything is rational and impartial evidence, Mr. Dawkins? At least that is what I think I have heard…
Dawkins' blind hate against believers has made him a fervent believer himself. To talk about the horrors of religious crusades (without considering the political dangers of these times) is like disapprove president Bush's crusade in Afganistan and then vote for Hussein Obama. Dawkins forgets that the most outstanding scientists have also created the most lethal weapons. Or maybe he believes, the same as Isidor I. Rabi did, that nuclear wea-pons are beneficial for evolution, because they generate genetic mutations on the irra-diated species.
Then comes the moment in which I have to mention the “unquestionable” blame of the human being in climate change. Just as if we were an omnipresent, omnipotent species capable of modify everything with our behavior, Dawkins believes us guilty of what is a natural process in which the sun, dynamic changes in the atmosphere, and the very evolution of the planet are the main characters. If that type of science is the ideology to which we must submit to survive as species, I prefer extinction. The science of climate is today the most dishonest discipline that exist and it will one day be collapsed by evidence.
In the same way religious fanatics are the disgrace of faith; global warming fanatics are the disgrace of the world's scientific community. Among which, Dawkins deserves a special mention, not only because he is a believer of it, but also because of his arrogance of only believing in a sole group of scientists. How much is Dawkins charging for each of his lectures? Is he making as much as Al Gore? Even if it were so, Dawkins' contempt phrases thrown against his gentile interlocutors in his numerous YouTube videos, demonstrate that his scientific method, as well as his political nonsense are “Algorian”.
May God forgive him! Dawkins climatic science is starting to sound as the liturgic speeches of the Muslim religion! Only that, in the Carbonian Cult, the beloved prophets are two (Al Gore and Hussein Obama), but the threat to our lives if we are infidels is the same, the apocalypses with high temperatures also, and the promise of salvation if we follow the “suras and aliyahs” of Gore and Pachauri do not change. To the infidels, there is the most absolute intolerance and the absolute prohibition of freedom of speech. Those who criti-cize the new dogma would not find a job even in space science.
And now I will refer to the reasons that convinced me not to buy the book “The God Delusion”. If you take some time to watch the interview that BBC did to the author (avai-lable in YouTube - divided in three parts) you will see a politically correct (for selling purposes?) Dawkins, assuring more than 5 times that he would be incapable of using extreme phrases against Christians. And it is the interviewer who reminds him that those same phrases have been cited from his book. It is pathetic to see the great guru of evolu-tionist atheism admit the extremism of his own crusade.
Darwin said: “Some writers indeed are so much impressed with the amount of suffering in the world, that they doubt if we look to all sentient beings, whether there is more of misery or of happiness. According to my judgment happiness decidedly prevails, though this would be very difficult to prove… If all the individuals of any species were habitually to suffer to an extreme degree they would neglect to propagate their kind; but we have no reason to believe that this has ever or at least often occurred. Some other considerations, moreover, lead to the belief that all sentient beings have been formed so as to enjoy, as a general rule, happiness”.
I think I am not mistaken to say that Darwin was always aware that the human brain needs faith. Even in an old age he wrote: “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe… as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist”.
When I studied animal behavior by Timbergen, Alcock and Wilson's books, I thought I understood that birds did not need experience to survive, but obedience; Obedience to the instinct of their genes and the repertoires of the species. Nobody taught a hawk how to build its nest, and even though, it was almost identical in shape and size to those of other hawks of the same species. Then I asked myself if religion were not the same own opera-tive condition, another biological event of our genes, and not a psychological expression. Not all men had the same gods, but they all had rituals.
Were not our religious beliefs obedient repertoires dictated by specific genes? Haven't they appear and evolve accordingly with our species itself? Why is it that Dawkins, the evolutio-nist, wants to separate from our anatomy what might be a biological and natural beha-vior? I am almost certain in saying that the utilitarian value that religious beliefs produce in search of happiness, have favored our survival, and therefore, our evolution. Why then, is Dawkins so bothered by our belief in God?
Darwin was conscious of the value of faith as a mechanism of survival, even though his agnostic side shook him in face of society, his education and his own life experiences filled him with doubt. In one of his last texts the great scientist concluded: “I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic. Nothing is more remarkable than the spread of skepticism or rationalism during the latter half of my life”.
Dawkins, on the contrary, told us in Berkeley: We should be offended when children are told they will spend a life in hellfire.” Have you seen the opening video created by global warming scientists for the climate summit at Copenhagen? After we watch that, you will surely ask yourselves: how offended we should be when children are told they will all drawn in flooding disasters if they don't act as global warming believers? That is the type of education that Richards Dawkins wants for our children. That is the terror tactics used by climate scientists upon which the great evolutionist lays all his trust.
That is why I recommend all my readers to read “The Origin of Species” by Charles Dar-win. It s a marvelous and intelligent work which everyone should know, and not that “Bible” that an arrogant and opportunist British, wants to sell us as our only guide to salvation. I would tell him the same that the public shouted to the singer of the group Dixie Chicks when she criticized George W. Bush in one of her concerts: Shut up and sing!
As corollary, I want to add a news that, not long ago, made the front pages of TV News programs around the world: The American rescue teams in Haiti had just saved an old lady from the ruins of her house, destroyed by the earthquake. When she was asked how could she survived without water and food, buried under the debris, the woman signaled to the sky and said that praying, because she was sure that God will help her. Dawkins will surely say that prayers have only the same effect as placebo, but the real fact is that his atheism does not produce that kind of miracle, and would not have been able to save her.
Just for that simple and unique reason, I say: God bless the placebo of the faith.
Carlos Wotzkow
Bienne, February, 2010
References:
(1) Huxley T. H. Time and Life: Mr. Darwin's "Origin of Species" in Macmillan's Magazine and The Darwinian Hypothesis in The Times.
(2) Mc Cormack P. An open letter to Richard Dawkins: man-made climate change or is science subjective? www.petemccormack.com. 11 pages.