“Dawkin’s publicity stunt provides a most revealing insight into the mind and manners of the evolutionary biologist turned atheist celebrity. It certainly provides more insight into the man than does the first volume of his autobiography, An Appetite For Wonder, which appeared last year to far too much acclaim and approval. It often reads as though the author were an extremely agitated caricature, unaware that misplaced hubris is hilarious.”

I recently interviewed American atheist leader David Silverman on my television show. He became a legend in his own lunchtime recently when his organization’s booth was first accepted and then rejected by CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. It’s a grand collection of right-of-center activists, authors, and politicians, and all sorts of groups and causes have booths and displays. There are, of course, atheists at the conference and there is a strong secular tradition within libertarian conservatism.

Silverman’s problem was that his group had purchased enormous billboards labeling all religions a scam. He is evidently not an atheist conservative looking to built bridges with Christian conservatives but a rather aggressive God-hater full of the usual disdain for, and ignorance of, religious faith.

Which brings me to an equally aggressive but more intelligent atheist who is seldom out of the news: Richard Dawkins. In April of 2010, Dawkins announced an initiative to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when the pontiff made an official visit to Great Britain later that year; the ostensible reason was Benedict’s alleged involvement in the Catholic clergy abuse crisis. Benedict was then 83 years old and in poor health. His already difficult job was made even more challenging, it seems, because of a campaign against him by some Vatican insiders precisely because he was so active in exposing and punishing abusers. It appears this was very likely one of the factors that led to his resignation three years later.

Dawkin’s publicity stunt provides a most revealing insight into the mind and manners of the evolutionary biologist turned atheist celebrity. It certainly provides more insight into the man than does the first volume of his autobiography, An Appetite For Wonder, which appeared last year to far too much acclaim and approval. It often reads as though the author were an extremely agitated caricature, unaware that misplaced hubris is hilarious. Yet Dawkins is not merely some boiling obsessive searching for attention but a genuinely influential thinker and author. He’s not a fool and he surely knew that the abuse horror in the Catholic Church involved, at most, 3% of clergy, that the vast majority of cases were of the past, that abuse rates are far higher in public schools, and that an arrest of the pope was impossible.

The arrest, of course, had been suggested merely for publicity. And it was publicity built on a deeply flawed premise. Perhaps Dawkins does have this selfish, genetic need to be noticed (yes, the pun is intentional). Whenever the cuttings file diminishes, he can be counted on to make another outlandish statement or growling comment, often ill-informed or simply annoying, such as his recent attempt at schoolboy-ish, smutty poetry (described by the fawning Independent as “An innuendo-filled poem of magnificently smutty genetic proportions…”). It’s as regular as clockwork and just as repetitive and boring. The Benedict incident also showed Dawkins as a man supremely comfortable with silencing those with whom he disagrees, as his atheist followers—and they often act in a cult-like manner—demonstrate on a regular basis.

Benedict seldom responded to attacks when he was Pope, but did so last year, after his resignation, in a letter to a more respectful Italian atheist. The pope emeritus explained:

“An important function of theology is to keep religion tied to reason and reason to religion. Both roles are of essential importance for humanity. In my dialogue with [atheist philosopher Jürgen] Habermas, I have shown that there are pathologies of religion and — no less dangerous — pathologies of reason. They both need each other, and keeping them constantly connected is an important task of theology. Science fiction exists, however, in the context of many sciences. … Even within the theory of evolution, a great style of science fiction exists. Richard Dawkins’ selfish gene is a classic example of science fiction.”

Read More