The Dawkins Talk Crisis

Richard Dawkins was on television the other night and as usual he was jawing about God again. I suppose this is because he wrote a book recently that has “God” in the title. I read somewhere that Professor Dawkins is a biologist. I must say, why does he not write a book about biology? Then perhaps he could get on the telly and talk about something he might actually know something about. I am sure he could tell us all sorts of fascinating things about amino acids and helixes and chromosomes, and not come anywhere near all the nonsense he becomes entangled in when he talks about God.
To begin with, he says that science is very close to explaining questions of ultimate reality, without the “God hypothesis”. Now even as a scientist Dawkins should know that we are as close to this as we were a hundred years ago or five hundred years ago or three thousand years ago. The fact is, we are living in a bubble which we, for want of a better name, call “the big bang” and there is simply no way for us to scientifically study what is outside this bubble. But even if we could somehow penetrate this finite but unbounded world we find our selves in, we would probably be left with the same dilemma we have had since antiquity, either an infinite regress of finite propositions or a finite regress to an infinite One.
But ontology aside, Dawkins’ bigger problem is ethical. He keeps acting as if there were some objective morality; but (like every atheist I have ever known) he gives no indication as to where this might come from. Naturally the root of any moral paradigm must be its creation myth, since teleology is central to any ethical principle. But Dawkins’ creation myth (if you can call it that) is apparently evolution by natural selection. Now this is not really a creation myth but rather an epic story, which is not to say one cannot draw moral principles from it, it is just that those principles would be somewhat borrowed capital. However, the real problem with the moral principles one might glean from the proposition of evolution through natural selection is, they have very little to do with what Dawkins apparently thinks is rite or wrong.
For example Dawkins apparently thinks there is something wrong with slavery. Now I would like to know how exactly he gets this idea out of natural selection, whose primary ethical principle is, “live long* and procreate”? How is it fundamentally different for me to use a member of my own species** to achieve longevity and progeny than for me to use a member of another species, or an inanimate object for that matter?
He also fusses about proper treatment of the female. Now proper care of the female is important, indeed critical for the fundamental ethic of evolution. But this does not seem to be what Dawkins is referring to. In fact he seems to want to take an evolutionary step backwards, and make our female more like our male.
Finally, just what is Dawkins point? I can understand the theist’s urge to evangelize; after all, if there really is a God, then it follows that we should all strive to be pleasing to Him. But if there is no God, then who really cares?



*Actually living long is wholly relative to procreating.

**Since nature’s sole means of sorting living things is the species, it may seem as though there may be a difference here. But since according to evolution, one species can become many over time, and thus my progeny and my slaves may be of a different species in the future, my chauvinism would still be appropriate.