The Case For The Existence Of Dawkins

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: 

1. “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…”
2. “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. 19^th Century Germany had Friedrich Nietzsche, 18^th 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.