Richard Dawkins' frenzy of hatred goes on unabated while unthinking followers cheer the materialist messiah on

The news that the Vatican (through Cardinal Levada: Pope's offer to disaffected Anglicans) was making a special offer to 'groups of Anglican clergy and faithful in different parts of the world who wish to enter into full visible communion with the Catholic Church' came out of the blue - at least for me. As the detail unfolded culminating with the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus it became clear that the mark of Pope Benedict, whose subtlety of thought makes Richard Dawkins sound like a spiteful kindergarten kid, was all over this generous initiative. Those Anglicans wanting to maintain orthodox Christian belief and unable in conscience to accept the road the wider Anglican Communion had taken were given an invitation to join the Catholic Church and still maintain those elements of tradition and custom that did not conflict with Catholic teaching. Many Anglicans long tormented by the unacceptable changes were overjoyed.

The reaction in other quarters to the Pope's initiative was predictable. Some were cautious in their statements. Others accused the Catholic Church of 'poaching' their faithful. Some Catholic dissenters called it an opportunistic political manoeuvre aimed at shoring up a dying ecclesial structure. Totally predictable. The Washington Post has an entertaining selection of reactions, including the usual from John Shelby Spong who obviously still insists on the pretence of being a bishop in a Christian group. It's worth doing a separate comment of Spong's response. My object here, however, is to have a look at 'evolutionary biologist' Richard Dawkins' reaction who has a weblog with that same newspaper. He was asked his reaction to the Pope's offer. Here is his opening statement headed Give us your misogynists and bigots:

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.

You've got to give it to this former Oxford Don who with the contortion talent of a Chinese acrobat is permanently in the act of turning himself inside-out with hatred. Say what you like about him, it is incontestable that he effortlessly verbalises the dark hatred that has made him a worldwide celebrity and the object of adulation for those with similar feelings but lacking the expressive ability - and his refinement of thought, of course. Indeed, if there is a competition for a greatest of something, Dawkins would surely take the cake for that invigorating feeling, you would think.

But on this question of the greatest evil in the world and competition with the Catholic Church, what would Dawkins say to the 100 millions deaths and killings that can be written up on the ledger of dialectical materialism? A whole lot of abusive weasel words, distortion and obfuscation, that's what. How deluded can you be in denying that materialist philosophies have been the basis and justification for the vast majority of violent oppressive revolutions from the French Revolution through to the merciless Marxist groups now terrifying some South American countries? Nothing like this has happened before in human history. The Catholic Church, even if you accept the violence attributed to it through two thousand years (I don't and I have argument and evidence) it does not register on the scale compared with two hundred odd years of materialist political movements. And let's face it, Dawkins' materialism is of a rabid intolerance that would put him at home in the inner circle of Stalin, Mao and that whole bunch of diabolical revolutionary leaders.

This is just it. Everything that Dawkins says and writes presupposes the truth of (philosophical) materialism. His major argument against the argument from Design - who designed the designer? - rests on that assumption. All the points he makes in the Washington Post blog rests on the materialist assumption. Here's a news flash for Dawkins. At the very best, philosophical materialism might be true - but likely not. You see, materialism cannot prove itself in its own terms. This is elementary stuff in philosophical disquisition. Dawkins' outbursts are underwritten by the logical fallacy of scientism. In two and half thousand years of Western philosophy - Dawkins is right there in the thick of it debunking implicitly any sort of Eastern philosophy - there is a vast literature of non-materialist philosophy of at least an equal intellectual status. As a philosopher Dawkins makes an abusive laboratory assistant.

But what are the implications if materialism is true - that the world is reducible to the material, that there is nothing but the material? As many of the great philosophers since the 'Enlightenment' have pointed out, there could be no God, no angels and certainly none of that dotty doctrine the Catholic Church criminally shoves down people's throats. They would be the fantasies of an inferior class whose uselessness at best and harm at worst would earn an evolutionary sentence - extinction. Helped along, if necessary. This all follows logically from the basic premise. There are other logical consequences, however. In a pure material world, there are no such things as enduring moral rules. Good and bad are reducible to feelings of approval and disapproval, of pleasure or pain, of harm or health. Dawkins is logically consistent in sticking up for homosexual unions. One's judgment of homosexuality can only be feelings of pleasure or pain, approval or disapproval etc. But if homosexuality is okay, then so is incest, bestiality and what are called in furtive academic circles cross-generational relationships - paedophilia in other words. The arguments are the same. Dawkins and his mates will scramble to deal with the implications by invoking utility and the harm principle. But there begins a process of qualification, and the road away from uncompromising materialism, examination of which lies outside this modest comment. Dawkins' 'intellectual' position undermines his charges against the Church.

What evidence does Dawkins go on to give for the bald claim that the Catholic Church is on the shortlist for the greatest evil force in the world (it's a pity he didn't mention the other contestants)? Well, with an eye-popping shamelessness he begins by invoking 'a few shreds of decency, traces of kindness and humanity with which Jesus himself might have connected' as a contrast with nasty 'Pope Ratzinger'. What the...!!! Doesn't he know that Jesus is actually the central figure in the Scriptures he so ferociously mocks and lampoons, the figure in the text on which Catholic doctrine is based together with the Tradition that St Paul in his letters (yes, part of the Scriptures?) says is his task is to hand on unaltered? No trouble to mess around with fact and evidence. His constituency is not looking for a tightly argued case. Just hatred and contempt. So he's okay.

Next comes the 'dotty idea' of Transubstantiation - cannibalism, says Dawkins - as evidence for the Church's champion status in evil. Here we meet the rich vein of materialism that runs through this whole batch of juvenile abuse. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is a spiritual mystery that does not follow from a collection of rationalistic propositions. The first Christians were explicit about the faith not being a (rationalistic) theory. The justification for the teaching of Transubstantiation arises from the full context of Revelation. Of course, Dawkins does not accept any of this. And he is free to do so. The point is that the spiritual union with Jesus in the Eucharist does not belong to the sort of materialist analysis that Dawkins' mind is fixed in. In any case, Dawkins really has nothing of substance to say about it. His materialism holds that it is nothing but a wafer of bread that is consumed and that Catholics are just kidding themselves, stupid as they are and criminal as the clergy are that foist such a doctrine on them. At all points, Dawkins' claims reduce to smear, slander and bigotry against people who have a different belief.

He then follows with 'the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite.' What's this word 'nastier' doing there? He cannot mean that holding any given view is nasty if anything other than feelings of disapproval is meant. Dawkins has feelings of disapproval while I quite legitimately have feelings of approval for the Church's stand of the male priesthood and transubstantiation. He's getting excited for nothing - if we want to reason strictly from his assumptions.

While we are at it - consistent with a materialist evolutionary outlook - there's is nothing intellectually repugnant in claiming that women are less use than men - or the other way around. Certainly, the empirical (physical) evidence shows marked differences between women and men. In a materialist context having testicles might just be physiologically signifying. It is irony that Dawkins' idea of (levelling) equality is not to be found in nature. The inequality there is cruel and unrelenting. He continues to undermine his position.

Next we have the 'deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans' about condoms. If Dawkins permits himself to call the Pope a liar he shouldn't object if I return to the compliment. It's either stupidity or deceit. Because either Dawkins has not understood what the Pope said about AIDS and condoms (which is very stupid), or he is lying about it. I have already made a comment on the hysteria that greeted the Pope's words. I don't have anything else to add.

Let's take a tally before we go any further. The Church is a champion force for evil because it restricts the ministerial priesthood to men in its own organisation, an organisation that nobody has to join. I suggest the gulag archipelago might be a little more evil. The Catholic Church is not the Soviet Union or communist China where nobody has a choice and where you're thrown into jail if you follow beliefs that are not sanctioned by dictatorial government. The second qualification is that the Pope says that condoms are not the solution to the AIDS problem. Lifestyle is. Note that the Pope is merely giving a view. There is no Vatican army wandering around Africa to supervise Catholics. And does Dawkins really think that someone who leads a sexually promiscuous lifestyle is going to take notice of the opinion of the Pope? Give us a break. The overwhelming evidence is that abstinence reduces the incidence of AIDS in the community and in a monogamous relationship eliminates it completely. The evidence is pretty skimpy so far for the greatest force of evil in the world, you would have to say.

Poaching is the next charge. Nonsense. You only have to read the offer to know that it is directed at Anglicans who are disaffected. Dawkins' hatred is such that he cannot bring himself to read the evidence. Wonderful adherence to the scientific method. But let's go with the full quote.

Poaching? Of course it is poaching. What else could you call it? Maybe it will succeed. If estimates are right that 1,000 Anglican clergymen will take the bait (no women, of course: they will swiftly be shown the door), what could be their motive? For some it will be a deep-seated misogyny (although they'll re-label it with a mendacious euphemism of some kind, which they'll call 'an important point of theological principle'). They just can't stomach the idea of women priests. One wonders how their wives can stomach a husband whose contempt for women is so visceral that he considers them incapable even of the humble and unexacting duties of a priest.

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.

While estimating the numbers of clergymen that will go across he has to throw in that any women [priests] who consider the offer will be barred. Is he suggesting that some female Anglican priests will be stupid enough to attempt to take up an offer from which they are doctrinally barred? Not really, he was just giving a boot to the head in passing. What follows is truly insulting to the priests considering the move. Even more than that, it reveals a deep contempt for one's fellow human being; if you don't agree with me you're bad. Dawkins claims that their hatred of women, which they will lie about, is the motivation. They, of course, will say there are scriptural reasons, but super intelligent Dawkins knows differently, doesn't he? This is a typical display of the appalling arrogance of a class that disqualifies anyone who does not adhere to their dictates. Whether it's a male priesthood, homosexuality, same sex unions etc, Dawkins and his class will not allow any position, no matter how well argued, that contradicts the established dogma of his materialism. Ideological qualification goes before being a person.

Finally, to show just how compelling Dawkins' reasoning is, he claims that hatred and contempt of women and homosexuals logically follow from the orthodox position on female ordination and homosexuality. They don't. Even a six grader can see that. But, look, as I have said many times, this not an issue of reason, but of ideology. No need to go on. The reasons Dawkins gives for the alleged evil status of the Catholic Church are ideological. There is nothing else. Dawkins nominates a church (which is a voluntary organisation within international society and without coercive power) for the shortlist of the greatest evil force in the world simply because it does not tow his doctrinal line and that of his class.

The ordinary person should be afraid of the gathering strength of Dawkins' class. Very afraid.

Dawkins' blog was dated 23 October. He found it necessary to come back to it 29 October after Damian Thompson of the London Daily Telegraph began a comment with 'Richard Dawkins's latest attack on the Catholic Church is worthy of a dribbling loony on the top of a bus...' Dawkins showing that he can't take what he dishes out whinges about a few trivial points in Thompson's comment. But then comes this (the numbering is mine):

Neither Mr Thompson, nor any of the Catholics who have attacked me for 'raving' or 'hate speech' etc have actually denied any of the charges that I made.

1. The RC Church really does teach the dotty notion of transubstantiation,

2. it really does teach that only men, not women, are capable of performing the trick,

3. it really does tell lies about the alleged inefficacy of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS,

4. it really does promote prejudice against homosexuals,

5. and it really does cover up the crime of sexually molesting children.

If any apologist wishes to deny any of these factual claims, let them do so. Simply to hurl abuse at me is not good enough. Deny the charges or shut up.

'To hurl abuse is not good enough...?' The gigantic nerve and hypocrisy of such an accusation in the context here reduces one to silence. But just for a few moments.

Except for point five which I haven't bothered with here because I have answered that adequately in a number of other comments (e.g.), I have covered these points above. But just to make clear what the core issue is, in the above list of charges against the Catholic Church Dawkins is implicitly saying these are my charges against the Church formulated in my (abusive distorting) way according to my philosophical assumptions and you have to answer them in the same context or get knicked. As I have pointed out, this is really ignorant stuff that has its main appeal to the bigoted unthinking mind.

Dawkins, however, is not finished yet. To conclude his blog he draws on an like-minded ally for whom he obviously has great admiration. 'Even more amusing than Damian Thompson's tirade is the following satire on him, published at Platitudes.org.uk.' The trouble with this litany of ridicule is that it, too, unthinkingly assumes materialism is true. Sorry, there is no proof for such a claim. This juvenile litany, like Dawkins' turgid raves, is for the ignorant and bigoted.

Comment: gerard@gerardcharleswilson.com