top of page

Helpful Dawkins



A few days ago in Free Inquiry, Richard Dawkins posted an article directed toward what he called “the vanguard of progressive, enlightened thought”—in other words, those who agree with him. The article concerns abortion, namely, those who oppose it; and it reads like a quarterback calling for a huddle and sketching out a new play.


The thrust of the article is to give pro-choice advocates tools for engaging pro-lifers in the streets. It seems, with the overturn of Roe vs. Wade looming, Dawkins has asked someone to hold his beer, and is getting off the bar stool. Let's look at a couple of his suggestions.


He starts with a bit of empathy.


Put yourself in the shoes of someone who really believes—deeply and sincerely believes—that abortion is murder. You’d count up the number of “babies killed” and liken it to an annual holocaust of hideous magnitude. No wonder they scream outside abortion clinics and even occasionally murder the doctors who staff them. Wouldn’t we all scream if we believed what they believe?


Don’t get him wrong, Dawkins makes it clear that he believes this is a stupid idea. But, he thinks that any solid anti-anti-abortion polemic should start with an acknowledgement like the above. Fair enough. In fact—credit where credit is due—it's even a little helpful because it stimies the familiar pattern of the argument. We all know the shape. Framing pro-lifers as chauvinist-fascists has had, basically, less than zero success. I’d love a more empathetic conversation.


Of course, he has his motives for empathy and they’re far from Christian charity. He states them,


We have to modify our arguments to meet the deeply held beliefs of our opponents head-on. We have to persuade them out of their fallacious belief, their passionate conviction that human personhood begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder.


Which is of course all well and good. The progress of the conversation is only possible when both sides understand each other. And another thing: we—me first—would rejoice if the debate became substantive or interesting in any respect, instead of the garbage fire it almost always is.


Unfortunately, Dawkins scuttles his bid for the high road by setting up enough strawmen for a Nick Cage film. It’s as if he goes in for a handshake, and just before palm meets palm, he quafs his do—he tries to be a nice guy, but bails at the last minute. And it’s not just mischaracterization. It’s mockery, which would be insulting if he was even close to accurately describing the arguments.


Lets take a quick look at his suggestions.


I’m surprised Dawkins chose Donum Vitae as a source for Catholic doctrine on the subject of abortion. It's not intended to be a defense or grounding of Catholic teaching on the subject. It’s a wonky, insider text that was drafted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of The Faith to address very specific scientific questions and their relationship to theology; questions like the ethics of artificial insemination and bioethical standards. Give it a read if you can’t fall asleep tonight.


He misses this fact, evidenced by the way he uses the text. It’s a classic example of cramming for the test. In fact, he dwells on Donum Vitae only long enough to ham fistedly engage Natural Law Theory.


“It would never be made human if it were not human already.” Seriously? Does that mean that an acorn is an oak tree?


This is an oldie but a goodie trotted out against Natural Law by people who, like Dawkins, don't read Aristotle, Mcintyre, Feser, or Koons—just to name a few. No one intelligent is saying that the potential to become something (acorn/ fetus) is the grounds for it to be treated like the thing it will become (tree/ human baby).


Rather, the Catholic moral tradition argues that justice—what we owe others—is rooted in the nature of the thing toward which one acts. In other words, what I owe you is grounded in what you are: a human being. Dawkins seems to think that Pro-lifers hold to some kind of law of potential, where if a thing can become something else, we should treat it in accordance with what it could end up being. Which is as absurd as he makes it out to be.


Catholics don’t believe this—quite the opposite. What a thing becomes is grounded in what a thing is. There is no law of potential that governs a pro-lifer’s sense of justice; there is a fact of reality that governs what a thing can become. So, an acorn should be treated like what it is, an unrealized tree. And, a fetus should be treated like what it is, an unrealized human being. Where else are you supposed to find grounding for your actions? Tea leaves?


Now, Dawkins, or you, may not agree with this line of reasoning. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that Dawkins has engaged it. If you are interested, give philosophers on the subject a hearing. You might learn something.


Either way, once Dawkins gets going on this mistaken idea of what Catholics believe, he digs himself deeper. He says,

But now imagine the potential life you prevent every time you refrain from sexual intercourse. But the “Road not taken” argument rapidly spirals out of control. All too soon we arrive at Michael Palin’s “Every sperm is sacred.” “It is your moral duty to have (unprotected) sex with me because of the potential human life you might be denying if you do not.”


Here Dawkins gets on the wrong horse and rides off in the wrong direction. Holding fast to his bizarre potential-theory, Dawkins reasons that Catholics should think sexual abstention must be immoral because it eliminates the potential for human life. Which is true, if Catholics held to Dawkins’ caricature. But this is no argument against Natural Law. Sperm is not an unrealized human being. I don’t need to tell an emeritus fellow at New College, Oxford, that you need an egg and fertilization for that.


All this to say, if you are a pro-choice person, and you find yourself nodding along to Dawkins article, you are probably a reasonable person. This is because Dawkins purports to help you meet pro-lifers on even turf. Your desire for this is commendable. But, take it from us, Dawkins is not helping you do this. Frankly, he doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about. And your desire for empathy should drive you to more informed sources, Dawkins’ self appointment to “the vanguard of progressive, enlightened thought” notwithstanding.

コメント


bottom of page