Over the last few decades, modern disciples of naturalism
have begun promoting the existence of a new entity. Far from being an abstract
idea, adherents have personified their belief in this entity, ascribing
personal characteristics to it, naming it Richard Dawkins and even assigning it
with common human titles such as ‘doctor’ and ‘professor’. History traces this
popular belief in ‘Dawkins’ as far back as the 1970’s, however others claim
that his existence predates popular belief, proposing an origin date concurrent
with the events of the Second World War.
Here, I shall attempt to survey the main arguments for his existence
and offer a mild critique.
Argument one: Sightings
In recent years, several sighting of Dawkins have been
reported. These range from individual witnesses claiming to have spotted
Dawkins roaming the corridors of the academic facilities from where the myth
originated. Other evidence includes mass sightings. Whole assemblies confess to
have seen him at one time. Even sceptics of Dawkins have come forward as eye
witnesses to his existence.
At first such evidence appears compelling, yet we must not
underestimate the persuasive power of the human brain. Most apparitions could
be easily explained by way of hallucination. The brain has been known to create
‘false memories’, reconstructing and piecing together information to form
fictional recollections. This is particularly true when the ‘memory’ is
desirable to the witness. Considering that the majority of reported sightings are
from Dawkins’ own disciples and those sympathetic to this idea, it is easy to
understand how such a sighting could be the result of wishful thinking. The fact
that most reported manifestations develop amongst those predisposed to the idea
of Dawkins brings into question whether such biased testimonies carry much
weight or credence. In this case, the faith of the ‘eyewitness’ makes them susceptible
to hallucinations of this kind. Such evidence must be filed alongside sightings
of Elvis Presley, suspiciously only seen by those devoted to the man and his
music. Or sightings of Santa Claus witnessed by over excited five years olds.
Sceptical philosopher Dr William Lane Craig had invited
Dawkins to appear live on stage, yet without fruit, fuelling the fire that feeds upon his non-existence. Some may point to mass sightings of Dawkins which
undoubtedly prove harder to dismiss. However, history is replete with examples
of devotees witnessing appearances of mythical figures, even in mass. Whether
we reference mass sightings of UFOs, religious figures or alleged miracles, we
cannot merely plead for safety in numbers. Mass hysteria is a real phenomenon and
results in both a persuasive emotional and physiological affect upon those present.
Argument two: Publications
Increasingly, articles and books have been produced under
the name of Richard Dawkins. Beginning in the 70s, Dawkins’ name has been
attached to several writings. As the adherents to Dawkins have grown, so has
the list of books attributed to him. Although we are no longer in possession of
the original manuscripts of these texts, thousands of printed copies are in
circulation around the world. While at first this seems to be convincing,
analysis of the texts proves inconclusive.
The breadth of material being attributed to Dawkins brings
his existence into question. Some of the material is scholarly, accompanied by
numerous footnotes and references, demonstrating an academic style. Yet other
attributed material includes that of a popular level consisting of a lyrical,
everyman style. Consider these two statements, both attributed to Dawkins:
- “It is a fundamental truism, of logic more than genetics, that the phenotypic effect of a gene is a concept that has meaning only if the context of environmental influences is specified…”
- “I detest 'Jingle Bells,' 'White Christmas,' 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer,' and the obscene spending bonanza…”
How can we reconcile such contrasting styles, tones and
contents? Just as New Testament critiques have deduced that works attributed to
the Apostle Paul cannot all be authentic owing to their varying vocabulary and
content, so we must conclude likewise here. At times, ‘Dawkins’ presents
himself as an evolutionary biologist, and at other times, an ethologist, even a
quasi-philosopher and theologian. As it would be amusingly irrational to assume
that there was only one man behind all this material, we must conclude that
either some of these publications are the work of zealous forgers, or that
Dawkins is indeed a phantom.
Argument three: Influence
Proponents of the Dawkins hypothesis point to his influence
as evidence of his existence. How could a fictional character have such an
impact in popularizing naturalism? Could a figment of modern imagination really
inspire such a joyful stigmatization of faith? And what of his disciples? Why
would his followers devote so much to a person they knew to be a myth?
Powerful as this may be, these questions can be answered
without leaving the armchair. Every generation creates their own Dawkins. Every
culture has their own set of myths they devise to attach transcendent meaning to
their materialism. Dawkins is clearly a concoction of the myths that went
before him. Once you identify the central aspects of the Dawkins myth, you
notice that those elements are merely borrowed and recycled from earlier myths.
19th Century Germany had Friedrich Nietzsche, 18th
Century Scotland had David Hume, ancient Greece had Heraclitus and the USA has
Daniel Dennett. The common threads that run through such myths are evidence
that Dawkins is a invention drawn from a mishmash of the myths that preceded
him.
However, the Dawkinist continues to argue, “given
the extent of his influence that we see all around us, isn’t it more likely
that Dawkins does exist? Can you prove his non-existence?”
Let’s be straight. I’m not altogether dismissing the
existence of some Dawkins or other. Maybe there was once a person called
Richard Dawkins. Maybe he really did live in England and even author a book.
But such a story must have been greatly embellished over time by his followers
and his works endowed with a power that he would never have claimed for
himself. How could anyone proves the non-existance of a Richard Dawkins, or any Dawkins for that matter. Have you scoured the dark side of the moon for traces of Dawkins? Or perhaps Alpha Century is teeming with whole colonies of Dawkinses, or entire undiscovered parallel universes populated with bespectacled humanist professors with degrees from extra terrestrial establishments with alien ivy climbing up the walls. I think not. Rather, it is existence, not non-existence, that must be demonstrated.
So ask yourself the question: have you seen, firsthand, the
empirical evidence of Dawkins’ existence? A DNA test? An original birth
certificate? I fear that no such evidence exists. And until it does, we must
tread carefully. The burden of proof lies with the believer. And therefore brute
rationality forces us to conclude that there probably isn’t a Dawkins, so stop
worrying and enjoy your life.
