Richard Dawkins: Reasonable Dawinista

The exceedingly Reasonable Richard Dawkins has spoken. There's no further need for debate. Any Reasonable person understands that God is simply over a billion people's imaginary friend. Teofilo of Vivificat! A Catholic Blog of Commentary and Opinion offers Foolish his take-down of the mouth-foaming Darwinista:

Folks, Beliefnet carries today an interview with noted biologist and militant atheist, Richard Dawkins (pictured right). In it, he makes the following statements, quote:

You criticize intelligent design, saying that "the theistic answer"--pointing to God as designer--"is deeply unsatisfying"--presumably you mean on a logical, scientific level.

Yes, because it doesn’t explain where the designer comes from. If they’re going to emphasize the statistical improbability of biological organs—"these are so complicated, how could they have evolved?"--well, if they’re so complicated, how could they possibly have been designed? Because the designer would have to be even more complicated.

Obviously, a lot of people find the theistic answer satisfying on another level. What do you see as the problem with that level?

What other level?

At whatever level where people say the idea of God is very satisfying.

Well, of course it is. Wouldn’t it be lovely to believe in an imaginary friend who listens to your thoughts, listens to your prayers, comforts you, consoles you, gives you life after death, can give you advice? Of course it’s satisfying, if you can believe it. But who wants to believe a lie?

Commentary. Abysmal ignorance often exist in the ranks of the most exalted academics and intellectuals, who because they specialize so much on "their thing," forget, set aside, or ridicule other intellectual traditions, judging the cosmos solely on the basis of their own narrow specialties.

Dawkins either ignores or thoughtlessly set aside arguments such as that of his compatriot, St. Anselm of Canterbury, whose Ontological Argument we may paraphrase, simplify, and overly summarize as follows: If we understand correctly what we mean by "God," we will conclude that it is necessary for Him to exist

Mr. Dawkins refuses to leave his empiricist's prison. He would have to surrender his faith in the Absolute Individual to do so. This has proven too Foolish a stumbling block for such clear-thinkers as our beloved Mr. Dawkins.

Offended by his cold and incoherent rationality? Feel the need to pile-drive him into the next millenia? Well, get over it, because here's a newsflash: he's the mission territory.

That's right. He represents those who need Christ the most. He and his militant atheists represent our failure to completely evangelize our culture. Yes, they have infected academia with the materialism and skepticism heresies that today nurture the Dictatorship of Relativism. Yes, they stand as the guardians of all ideology opposed to Christ and his Church. Yes, they rival us for influence in society and the state. They're still sinners to whom Christ longs to share his presence. Like the rest of us.

We need to bring our peculiar pedigree of Foolishness to them. We need to share the fullness of the Gospel within the citadel of their misguided philosophy. We must stand our ground on their home field and make the case for Christ relevent to their context. We need to demonstrate his exceptionality, and how authentically reasonable our Foolishness is, if we're to introduce them to our Master. We have no other option; our commision is clear.

Do we somehow deserve Christ more? Of course not! Neither do militant atheists, such as the good Richard Dawkins, deserve less.