EU - USA
Open Letter to Mr. Gary Wolf, et al.
Note Added on
August 8, 2008
Dennett pointed out to us that he is not as radical as
Professor Dawkins and Mr. Harris are. Something that we were able
confirm from excerpts of Professor Dennett's book - Breaking the
Spell - forwarded to us. As an easily
understood oversight, Mr.
Wolf seems to have lumped them together in certain parts of his
article, i.e. "They condemn
not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is
not only wrong; it's evil." . We are taking this opportunity
to correct such misconception.
The cover article of the November 2006 issue of WIRED Magazine featured: "THE NEW ATHEISM" - No Heaven. No Hell.
Just Science. - Inside - The Crusade Against Religion. (1)
The well written article was authored by the contributing editor of the
magazine, Gary Wolf.
Mr. Wolf, although himself quite
confused about God, Religion and Science, proved to be a good writer since his
presentation was well balanced and informative. For that, we thank him.
For our readers we will first identify those
who, according to Mr. Wolf, constitute the core of the "newest religion
in town" - The Church of the
Non-Believers. We shall
refer to them as the "Kardinals" of this new religion.
Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist, University of Oxford
Sam Harris, Neuroscientist,
Founder and Chairman of the Reason
Professor Daniel Dennett,
Philosopher, Tufts University
We will be commenting upon what we read in Mr. Wolf's article. We will not research the
work or background of the "Kardinals" of The Church of the
Non-Believers. Based on
learned about them in Mr.
article, it is certainly not worth my time.
Mr. Gary Wolf, Contributing Editor
P.O. Box 37705
Boone, IA 50037-0705
gary at aether dot com
It has taken me one week since I
read your article,
"The New Atheism," until
I could write this letter and remain charitable throughout it toward the three atheist Kardinals.
The first item of the article that caught my attention was, and I quote
you: "They (the Kardinals) condemn
not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is
not only wrong; it's evil."
If I had just landed in my personal UFO, arriving from someplace in
the Orion constellation and, knowing nothing about the Earthlings,
surveyed the variety of gods that the Earthlings claimed to adore since
dawn of time and how religion has been practiced in the same period - I
would agree with the Kardinals.
You may not find that strange at all. Indeed, as we read elsewhere in your article, the Kardinals feel that there are many
"closeted" atheists in the world who have "no guts" to come out . The
difference with me is that I pray
and meditate five rosaries every day, offer the Sacrifice of the Holy
Mass daily, and
offer a variety of other daily prayers and acts of reparation.
That is: If the
reality of God and Religion
are going to be evaluated by how they have been mostly represented by
informal and formal religions, since the dawn of time, the Kardinals' evaluation would indeed be
correct. As a matter of fact, if it
were not for concern of having my car firebombed, it would sport one of
those bumper stickers that reads: Lord, save me from
What amazes me is that such
individuals who, with much
fanfare, present themselves as society's "Intelligentsia" and "The
Leading Lights of Reason" have not recognized that very obvious fact.
Professor Dawkins speaks about whose responsibility it is to
prove or disprove God. Gentlemen, gentlemen.... the belief in
God, by definition, is based on
Faith. The belief in any scientific discovery is based on concrete proof. If one believes in a
scientifically proven God, there is no faith, and without faith there is no Salvation. If there
is no Salvation, why even bother with the concept of God?
Scientifically "proving" God is as
asinine as announcing that we have developed dehydrated water. Please, gentlemen
Kardinals of atheism! You should at least try to act the
intellectual part that you pretend to play.
You quote Professor Dawkins as
saying "I'm quite keen on the
politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism."
to me like
a policy statement by the Opus Dei (3).
The principle is the same, if one only changes "atheism" to
Escriva"; in essence it would be like changing the word "round" to
But, once again, I find another point of agreement with Professor
Dawkins. You quote him as saying:
intelligent people are mostly atheists. Not a single member of either
house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add
Either they are stupid, or they are lying. And have they got a motive
for lying? Of course they've got a motive! Everybody knows that an
atheist can't get elected."
Professor Dawkins, they are neither stupid nor closeted atheists. They are
"believers" indeed - which of course brings us back to one of my
original statements: If
God and Religion are going to be judged by how they have been mostly
represented by informal and formal religions, since the dawn of time,
Prof. Dawkins' evaluation of God and Religion would indeed be correct.
You state, Mr. Wolf, that: "Dawkins
does not merely disagree with religious myths. He disagrees with
tolerating them, with cooperating in their colonization of the brains
of innocent tykes."
Because I espouse neither Professor
Dawkins' position nor the manner in which God and Religion has been
represented throughout millennia, I must take exception to this sophomoric statement. After
all, if I were to
logic, I would not want the brains of innocent tykes to be colonized by the
incoherent logic of Professor
Dawkins and the other Kardinals. Professor
Dawkins should realize that, in absolute terms, he is in "the same bag"
with those whom he vehemently attacks; there is no difference whatsoever.
I shall give you an example - a very current example - a political
problem in Spain.
The Socialist government has
essentially pulled out Religious (that is, Roman Catholic) Education
from schools and replaced it with a subject which promotes - under the
guise of fostering tolerance - behavior which is not the norm ("norm"
statistically speaking). This, of course, is an
overcompensation to the past "religious" behavior which Professor Dawkins correctly denounces.
Since I am a firm believer of only
criticizing if I can offer a solution, this is what I would do:
Replace the brainwashing "Traditional Religion" classes with a subject
which would teach children
behavior and community living as well as an overview of major religions
and beliefs of the world. The parents would, while the children cannot
yet make an intelligent decision, raise them in the family faith
without any coercion and the clear understanding that as they become
better informed, they will be allowed, without any family condemnation,
to practice whatever faith they wish to pursue.
Maybe Professor Dawkins would say: "What? Have those little tykes
baptized? Have them
Communion? Heavens to Betsy!" (no, I guess the Professor would not use
that expression...) To which we would respond: "Why worry? If there is
no God those "empty" rituals will certainly not affect them in any way,
Atheism and Faith constitute a two
If one feels that he has
to impose his religious - or lack of it - views on others then one is
operating from a position of weakness a la Opus Dei or a la Professor
Dawkins. A "good product",
well presented through simple example,
"will sell itself"; conversely, a "bad product" relies on
coercion to "be sold".
Let us now talk about those who -
for whatever reason
- believe in God and practice
a religion without fanaticism. What should The Church of the
Non-Believers do about that
group? The "Final Solution" - Part II?
Of course not - The solution was given precisely by a scientist
centuries ago. I am sure that these "Illuminated Kardinals"
of The Church of the
heard about the imaginary numbers used in Mathematics. We are also sure
that said luminaries know that those numbers - which do not exist (that
is why they are called imaginary)
- were developed by Rafael Bombelli in 1572 to resolve mathematical
problems which could not be
solved with the "real numbers" used in mathematics at the
Well, if those individuals need, in order to
properly function, to believe
in God, practice a religion (without fanaticism), and are constructive members of society -
what would the problem be?
In closing... I was somewhat amused when I read that these
luminaries pretend to replace God and Religion with Reason. If men (who probably were
greater stature than the three Kardinals of atheism) tried this in
the French Revolution (5) and it failed, what makes the Kardinals
think that they will make it work now? Because science has discovered
the human genome
or has made ingrown toenails a plague of the past?
It does not take the proverbial "rocket scientist" to stand back
and look at the French experiment: A tyrannical abusive monarchy was
deposed together with its
the Roman Catholic Church. After a blood bath and a failed attempt to
establish the Reign of Reason, France ended up, not with a despotic
monarchy.... but with a despotic Emperor - Napoleon, etc.
Humanity's stupidity is only surpassed by its inability to learn
from past mistakes - just as the Kardinals have proven if we are to
take Mr. Wolf's report at face value.
Regarding Evolution and Creationism
- as we have shown (6) - they need each other. Alone neither can
stand. Pitting one against the other is just another marketing technique for religious and anti-religious propagandists.
I could go on
but perhaps I have made my point
- at least for the record since Messrs. Dawkins and Harris
will not change positions based on anything that I have brought to
light. They simply can't. Without maintaining their current
controversial position, their "glory" in the eyes of other men would
evaporate... and then, what would they have left? A part time job at
the local Walmart?