Saturday, 25 November 2017

The Rationalized Insanity Of Richard Dawkins

I've mentioned before that as I grow older I feel myself being drawn to a more Neo-Reactionary, Traditionalist style of Nationalism, that fundamentally we're engaged in a spiritual struggle as well a material one, that if the material is allowed to run unfettered and rampant it will lead to nothing less than horror.

 To illustrate this point let us turn to a recent blog post by ''New Atheist'' Godfather, Richard Dawkins. The context here is that Dawkins announced on Twitter that he was about to visit Africa to attend a conference on elephant conservation, somebody called ''RightWingRebel'' replied to Dawkins announcement with this:
''Nice to see you're fighting for the lives of elephants but attacking the rights of the unborm''
This is of course related to the wider New Atheist war upon Christianity and correlating issues such as abortion, Dawkins belonging in the pro-abortion camp. Dawkins then went on to write a full article justifying himself, after a brief preamble Dawkins gets down to business...
So, let me turn to RightWingRebel’s reply to my tweet. It reeks of speciesism. An elephant is a mere “animal” while an unborn person is human. But the elephant has a highly developed nervous system and is beyond reasonable doubt capable of feeling pain. Indeed there is no reason to think an elephant feels pain any less acutely than adult humans do, let alone human embryos. There is even suggestive evidence that elephants feel grief, mourning the death of friends and relatives.

So we'll leave aside Dawkins's preposterous term ''speciesism'' for now and examine what he's saying. A fully grown elephant can think and feel and show empathy and an unborn child cannot, therefore the life of the elephant is worth more than that of the unborn child. Dawkins uses the term ''embryo'' dishonestly here, this is not what the anti-abortion activists are talking about, in Britain abortions are perfectly legal until 24 weeks and ''RightWingRebel'' did not specify either way. By talking about embryos Dawkins is trying to strawman the anti-abortion argument.

 It is perfectly understandable that Dawkins uses the example of elephants because it was his conference in Africa which sparked this debate, however, the attributes Dawkins assigns to the elephant are typically mammalian and apply to a vast array of living species, including species of fish. The common rat has been proven to show signs of empathy toward other rats too. So now that we've dealt with Dawkins half truths we can delve into what he's actually said in his piece.

This is a baby at 24 weeks, it neither loves nor hates, it has no empathy and shows no warmth or emotion.

This is a fully grown rat, it fears and nurtures and has been proven to be empathetic to other rats when in danger.

To use Dawkins own arguments and logic, to draw them out in the same manner he does when attacking Christians, the rat is of more value, more worthy of life than the unborn human child. Indeed, he's conjured up a new boo word ''speciesism'' to attack people with when they call him a lunatic and his code of ethics a horror show.

 How in God's name did such an intelligent man arrive here? In actual fact it's his obsessive desire to refute an abstract moral framework which has landed him here, having spent 30 years pillorying the foundation of Western morality he finds he must offer something to replace it with, and such answers can only be found in rationalism and science. 

From this perspective an unborn human child without a memory or personality or sense of self is nothing more than a sack of meat.
 And I know how Dawkins and the New Atheist crowd would react here, they'd sneer and tell me that I'm arguing through ''feelings''.

What other arguments might RightWingRebel, or someone of similar intellectual calibre, deploy? The embryo may not be capable of much yet, but it has potential. By killing it you are depriving a potential person of future life. Yes, and in exactly the same way a woman is depriving a potential person of future life every time she refuses unprotected sexual intercourse when fertile. So much for the “potential person” argument.
This is a variation of the ''What is white?'' argument familiar to white nationalists, this argument holds that because we have hills we can't have valleys, because human life moves from something which looks like a tadpole to a fully formed human wiggling its fingers in the mother's womb, it's absurd to feel more empathy for one than the other. You do not ''feel'' for a wasted sperm, so why worry about the baby the abortionist is hacking to pieces inside it's mother's womb?

 This cold, rational logic might well be consistent, but it's wrong, deeply and horribly wrong. Indeed, it's designed to overturn our very perception of a ''right and wrong''.

 And it isn't even consistent either...

 My question to Dawkins would be ''Why should I care that the elephant or rat shows more empathy than an unborn human child?'

 Presumably, Dawkins would call me a 'speciesist' but as I'm as indifferent to that word as I am to the word ''racist'', I simply don't care, I'd like an argument, not his ''feelings'' and besides, I know for a fact Dawkins has no scientific argument to support his claim that I should show as much empathy for a clever rat than an unborn child, because Dawkins himself educated me on the subject via his book ''The Selfish Gene''.  Ethno-Nationalism is pretty much a politicized incarnation of the Selfish Gene

Here we arrive at what we may think of as the ''Dawkins dilemma''. Having spent a career explaining evolutionary biology which depicts life as pitiless struggle between individuals, subspecies and species to propagate themselves, Dawkins must decide what these implications have for his political opinions. He could have adopted a full-on ''Will To Power'' Nietzschean stance and been relatively consistent with his understanding of science and Darwinism but his politics would resemble something like National Socialism and that doesn't go down too well at swanky dinner parties hosted by his peers. 

 Instead Dawkins has adopted a milquetoast liberalism, however, he's still left with the problem of promoting scientific understanding which flies in the face of that liberalism, the whole mess has been unwittingly captured in this meme: 

And so now, in the name of scientific truth and rationalism, we must war upon scientific truth and rationalism, they must be defeated, tricked, we must ''upset their designs'' without a shred of evidence beyond Dawkins's feelings, for Dawkins's yearning that the brutalities of nature were not as they are, because they're fundamentally illiberal. 

The natural order dictates that a human have more empathy for an unborn human than a sensitive rat or fish, because we're selfish, it's perfectly ''rational'' for us to ''feel'' that way.

The New Atheists stared into the abyss and didn't like what they saw, so they scuttled back into a shell of squishy liberal sophistry, from there they rationalized to themselves that as living beings screaming through space on a watery rock without purpose, no living being is of more worth than another, and that a sentient being is objectively of more importance than a blubbery sack of fat in its mother's womb, despite the fact that genetics demand we think the polar opposite.

 The cruel irony is that their shambolic attempts to codify and moralize their stance through double think reveals a world even more brutal and harsh than the one we inhabit, this thinking will not lead to a bright future, this is a morality which gawps in wonder at a mouse in mourning while advocating a baby human have its skull crushed with calipers in order to tear it from its mother's sanctuary. 

 This barren wasteland, devoid of any meaning or beauty beyond the strictly material will never produce anything to lift the human soul because humans don't have souls, and beauty is subjective so, what's the point?

 Far from being convinced by Dawkins's arguments I actually feel the urge to run into Durham Cathedral and throw myself before the Almighty, and I'm not even religious...

Please consider a small monthly donation


Become a Patron!

No comments:

Post a Comment