Does Richard Dawkins Exist?
by St. Clair Carr,
literary editor, NEW IMPROVED HEAD
Not reviewed in this article:The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. Bantam, 2006.
Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion is being released in paperback. I predict that shortly we’ll be reading news stories from the United States about students being expelled from school for being seen with a copy of it.
This book of course raises the issue of whether the esteemed zoologist Richard Dawkins exists. Many arguments for and against Dr. Dawkins' existence have been proposed. Here we will review the principal ones.
- The argument from design
Many of those who believe in Dr. Dawkins’ existence adduce as proof the considerable number of publications produced under his name. These books, his believers argue, are irreducibly complex. That is, they could not have arisen as the result of random occurrences, and could only exist if there were such a person as Richard Dawkins.
However, even if the books attributed to Dr. Dawkins are irreducibly complex, we cannot logically conclude that they were written by Dr. Dawkins, or even that he exists. We can only conclude that they were written by someone, who need not be Dr. Dawkins. Similarly, the argument that intelligent design exists in nature cannot be used to prove the existence of a god. Nature could well have been designed by Richard Dawkins.
- The cosmological argument
The cosmological argument holds that there must be a cause or source for phenomena such as The God Delusion. The immediate source of the book, of course, is the publishing house which prints and distributes it. However, the publishing house did not produce the book itself, but merely received it from Dr. Dawkins’ literary agent. If we trace the path of causation back far enough, proponents of this view argue, we find that the first cause, or “prime mover,” of The God Delusion is Richard Dawkins. Therefore, so this argument goes, Richard Dawkins exists.
The problem, however, is that not even the believers in Dr. Dawkins’ existence claim that he suddenly appeared out of nothing. The origins of his ideas, for example, can be traced at least as far back as Darwin. Richard Dawkins is therefore not the first cause of The God Delusion, and, if he “exists,” may be nothing more than an expression of the scientific will of Charles Darwin.
- The argument from testimony
Some proponents of Dr. Dawkins’ existence simply argue that enough credible people have personally witnessed his existence that we must accept that he does exist. However, credible witnesses (they must have been credible, since tens of millions of people believed them) testified that in 2001 Iraq had a program to develop weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, credible witnesses report annually that the Toronto Maple Leafs have a good chance of winning the Stanley Cup.
We of course do occasionally see a fellow on television representing himself as Richard Dawkins. The characterization seems somewhat trite, however. The Dr. Dawkins we see on television is to my mind a stock version of the British academic – less stereotyped than Robertson Davies’ own interpretation of the part, but still highly predictable. Is someone who appears to be a stock character of popular theatre likely to be a real person? Andy Warhol successfully passed an actor off as himself, and Bantam has greater resources for furthering impersonation than Mr. Warhol had.
- The argument from miracles
Another argument for the existence of a superior being is that he or she is responsible for supernatural events. While getting a book denying the existence of God onto the best-seller lists is a highly improbable achievement, it is not contrary to the laws of nature. Dr. Dawkins has yet to cause a bush to burn without being consumed, for example, or to heal the sick by touch. There is, therefore, greater evidence of Benny Hinn’s existence than of Dr. Dawkins’.
- The argument from experience
Many believers in Dr. Dawkins argue that while his existence cannot to be demonstrated by reason it can nevertheless be proved by some aspect of our personal experience – common sense, a religious sense, perception, and so on. However, my own experience argues against Dr. Dawkins' existence. I read one of his books some years ago and can’t remember a single word of it. If it had been a real book, I think I would have remembered something about it. And if his book isn't real, there's a good chance Dr. Dawkins isn't, either.
- The ontological argument
Proponents of this view, first proposed in another context by St. Anselm, hold that for us to be able to conceive of a being such as Dr. Dawkins he must first exist. If he did not exist, we could neither deduce nor imagine his existence. Since we obviously can conceive of Richard Dawkins, the argument goes, he must therefore exist. However, my earlier remarks about the stock interpretation of Dr. Dawkins we are given either by himself or by an impostor are pertinent here. If you’ve seen Inherit the Wind, you can conceive of Dr. Dawkins.
Those who believe in Richard Dawkins’ existence will doubtless not be moved to change their opinions by what I have written here. Although a deep religious sense cannot justify a belief in a superior being, it can make one resistant to argument against that belief. His believers will argue, for example, that we cannot conclusively demonstrate that Dr. Dawkins’ does not exist. Well, as “Richard Dawkins” himself observes in The God Delusion, neither can we conclusively demonstrate that the tooth fairy does not exist.
In the end most of us will probably fall back on William James’s pragmatic argument: that, while we cannot conclusively demonstrate Dr. Dawkins’ existence, belief in it is more convenient and beneficial than disbelief. For example, while Bantam has probably never got very far believing in the tooth fairy, believing in Richard Dawkins has paid off handsomely. I suspect it's paid off pretty well for Dr. Dawkins, too.
Does Richard Dawkins Exist? © John FitzGerald, 2007
Click the banner or click here for ACTUAL ANALYSIS
Reviews | Home