The Dawkins delusion

First of all I’m not willing to waste my time and energy for such pointless debate about whether the God exists or not, because I think everyone is agnostic subconsciously, regardless how considers oneself. We simply have no enough self knowledge to determine what we believe in. This is out of our control altogether. Even Richard Dawkins has no capacity to decide what he believes in. There’s no such thing as believer or non believer, only those who strive to believe they are believer or non believer. In this topics I rather want to react to Dawkins’ “the science fulfills everything” idea, which is simply not true. Don’t get me wrong, I am a true fan of science, but the science alone can’t give an answer to philosophical and moral issues (which is one and the same), and this is not a duty of science either. The science virtually has nothing to do with art for instance. Of course there are a scientific explanations for all of these stuffs, but with these explanations we are not really satisfied, and not because we are irrational. On a contrary, the philosophy is a rational process, just like moral. The science can’t define such philosophical and spiritual questions, what is good and evil, or what is the necessity of being moral. My point of view, which is not scientific, rather philosophical, the morality is something that is working inside us, but not up to us. It’s something that is better, greater than us, and for every human being the moral rules are the same without knowing each other, as the law of physics applies to everyone on the planet. We as humans have no capacity to create, alter, or over judge moral rules. That’s why Nietzsche was wrong (which I’ll cover that in more detail in another post). This is why the people rightly considered that the morality can’t be else, only divine. This is the reason the people strive to believe in God, because the God unlike the Easter Bunny is a representation, abstraction of transcendental morality. This is the reason the man is considered image of God, because we have a capacity to follow our conscience and make moral decisions. Of course this proves nothing about the existence of God, at least scientifically. This is an explanation only about the necessity of religions, and spirituality.

Of course you can still believe in transcendent moral rules without believing in transcendental God, and you should, but at the level of average intelligence it is very difficult if not impossible. Take a look at the scientific explanations of morality, for instance: ‘During the evolutionary process the empathy and compassion evolved amongst human beings, because this helped the species to survive in the harsh environment. Those who helped each other had an advantage over who didn’t, thus they were succeeded to pass their genes.’ This is certainly true, but who cares about morality this way, and who really bothers with explaining the morality? According to this, the morality is nothing any special only a survival strategy, a biochemical process in the best cases. And the most important the science can’t explain why we should be moral. What if the surviving strategy changes, and in the overpopulated world the constant massacre helps keeping the balance? The science does not prevent us from murdering, raping, looting, hunting our fellow human beings, which is evolution in action (the strongest survives). If we don’t consider our fellow human being image of God, he or she has no soul, nothing any special, only a monkey offspring. Why we should not take an advantage of this, as we hunt animals down? Even in that case we don’t want to hurt each other, because the empath is already in our genome, why we should be virtuous, if we can use each other to satisfy mutually our sexual desires, since promiscuity helps the species to survive even more effectively? Why we should bear commitment which has nothing to do with science, evolution, and passing our genes? Needless to say this approach undermines and destabilizes the whole social structure, which will be described in detail in my another essay, but it’s a consequence not the reason of why. Moreover the science can’t explain why we should be rational either whatsoever. The atheists fail to fix this issue. Perhaps Richard Dawkins is a brilliant ethologist, evolutionary biologist, but an awful philosopher, which is perfectly fine. There’s no room for everyone in the art of philosophy, as there’s no room for everyone in science. We can’t be excellent at all fields. I have problem with arrogance, dogmatism, and bigotry in which the atheists ironically beat the theists very often.

Unlike Dawkins I don’t get irritated with irrationality, because I fully understand not everyone has a capacity to be rational, but everyone has capacity to differentiate good and evil, and based on this make moral decision. If believing in God makes someone better why his or her ‘irrationality’ should piss me off? Who am I to judge what is the best for others? In fact no one has a capacity to be really atheist, no matter how they strive to accomplish this, simply because we can’t really control own brain, and the moral abstraction is a highest aim. Ignoring this in social level leads us a bottomless hell, as the history of Twentieth Century provides a clear evidences about this. And this is what Dawkins fails to understand. You can make the people atheist the surface, beneath it not because outside the controlled mind there’s no such thing as atheist, but you can’t make them more rational with it. If the masses no longer want to believe in God, they tend to believe in secular religions, political ideologies, which is called to fill the spiritual vacuum, void that the religions left behind, and those are even more harmful because none of them are representation of transcendental morality, but the moral relativism. The secular religions, ideologies are similarly irrational, but even more amoral, because they endow some people with divine power. As a result quarter billion people were slaughtered during the last century in peace time in the name of the secular god, the state. Yes you can claim, even so many people were slaughtered in the name of religions, but this can’t change the fact, that the atheists are not capable to fix the moral issue, and in name of religions especially the Christianity more things were built than destroyed. Everyone can be convinced of this by visiting any major city in Europe, which are all tourist attractions at the same time.

With no transcendental inspiration how the gorgeous medieval cities were built?How can the atheists fill the vacuum that the natural human spiritual longing left behind with questioning ten thousand years cultural heritage, because they were all inspired by ‘irrationality’? We have to see with no spiritual inspiration will be built nothing that beauteous, just for merely scientific and administrative purposes. This is why the modern architecture is ugly and ungainly. This is another fact that atheists no way can understand. How they’re gonna handle that intellectual wasteland with questioning not only ten thousand years of cultural legacy but also legitimacy of basic philosophical truths and approach of morality, which is the only satisfying approach of morality for humans?

The philosophy perfectly can solve that the science can’t explain, even the theological approaches are better solving this, than science, I admit the religions aren’t an ideal solution about answering philosophical questions, and moral issues, fut far better than the solutions of atheists and radical securalists, moreover the religions mean the slightest evil for humanity. As Dawkins used to voice with preference, what would happen if he will meet God, which is, quoting him, very unlikely. He would ask him: who are you, Shiva, Jehova, Zeus, ect..? The answer of God might be: I am who represents what is a best of you, your moral being, conscience, self judgement. In fact we meet God every single day, when we can’t cope with our bad conscience, or hide from our own judgement on ourselves, which is the most ruthless judge. The God is a representation of the upper good, as Jesus represents the best that man can achieve, living with no sin. While the nation, government, state represent the masses, or the illusion of power. I say ‘illusion’, because none of them exist in the reality. Yes, you’ve read it well. There’s no scientific evidence that the nation, government, and state exist, as there’s no evidende that the God exists, they are all fictions. The statism is an alternative religion. But when we began to believe not in representation of morality but in representation of moral relativism, some dramatic turn will take place in collective consciousness of people, they are suddenly acquitted of the consequences of our actions. Seemingly fearing the intellectual influence of classical religions is very irrational reaction of atheists, but seeing them favoring secular political ideologies, their reaction becomes understandable. When they get pissed off about Ten Commandments, which were virtually never in legal practice in the history, but their eyes don’t even pop on slaughtering of hundred thousands innocents by atheist governments for similarly irrational ideological purposes, when they make a fun of Christian saints and scholars, and celebrate mass murderers. Because the atheists are not irrational while doing this, they just fear of losing their intellectual influences, control, and popularity. It’s not about ‘rationality’, of ‘science’, it’s about vanity, and arrogance. And that assumption that the scientific progress is the solution for all problems of humanity, is simply a lie, as the clear empirical evidences show, and common sense dictates. The scientific progress can be extremely dangerous, just enough to mention when the world was on the verge of nuclear destruction, even the global warming theory advocates this statement. And the birth control pill that made the sex safe from pregnancy, solved what? The sexual revolution broke out due to this, undermining the society, and making the AIDS world pandemic. This is how the birth control pill helped exploiting the women in the Western world, ironically, and paradoxically. The scientific improvement doesn’t make the people wiser, but the opposite is the true, it offers a room for avoiding the negative consequences of irresponsible behaviour, and power, and control over more people for less, which produces exclusively even more irresponsible behaviour as the two examples show. Please do not get me wrong at any way, I am not an opponent of scientific improvement, I just proved that it’s not always beneficial, and not a solution for every human problem.

The choice is neither between Theism and atheism nor between Jesus and Darwin, because the human is the religious species, which is a scientific fact, having no capacity of being really atheist. The choice is between the representation of morality or representation of moral relativism, simplifying between good and evil, and not between rational or irrational. The good news is, you don’t have to believe in God to accept this argument. It’s not up to you what you believe in anyway. The belief system is out of human control, as the universal morality is as well. You only have that choice, how to strive to be open minded, and less dogmatic. Ironically not only the six days creation believers but the radical atheists tend to fall in trap of dogmatism, and bigotry. What else could be explained by that they’re eager to destroy the belief in God not only by scientific but rather moral arguments, while they fail to explain why we should be moral and even rational. Neither can violate the rule of evolution, and Darwinian principles. I don’t rule out that being an atheist excludes of being moral, or even more precisely being a believer of being an atheist, but without knowing the reason and benefits of being moral, it’s an extremely difficult task. And that’s all about it.

Thank you for reading me.