I find it fascinating that the pedestrian views of Dawkins is getting so much media. I don’t mean to be so dismissive, but haven’t his views been soundly put asunder by far better minds long ago? This isn’t 1940, after all.

It must be a memory thing. The issue hasn’t been aired in some time in the public. It is much like the popularity of the book ‘Guns, Germs and Steel,’ a massively acclaimed bestseller, but its just basic university entry-level history. We assume that once given, knowledge sticks to the culture. It is shocking how easily it slips off. A state of post-modern humans and the relevancy of the topics.

Dawkins has been given a lot of press here in Canada as well. Is it by the media’s design, or is there no easily credible candidate from the Church that can point out the his shortcomings.

There are but a few observations that need to be made to put him out of his misery:

He is a Christian whether he likes it or not. He accepts the Church’s view that reality is only God, humans and inert matter. Dawkins just leaves out God. That’s all reality is. With that stark definition, does any human feel comfortable? By both accepting and rejecting the question framed by Christianity, he makes our desert that much more lonely. We are humans, alone in an inanimate universe. Bravo for us! What is in us that rebels with a feeling that this is unnatural?

Dawkins also has domination issues. It is endemic in all civilized humans. The ascendant mind seeks control for its safety, security, survival and freedom from pain and domination. We fear a God controlling us with the same wisdom and pain that ancient king/dictators did. So he cannot accept God because it limits his freedom, control and security. As a threat to his freedom, God does not make sense when reality is considered only natural laws of inert matter that science effectively controls. He’s rooked from the beginning. It satisfies the definition of mind culture that he has been socialized into. He’s a prisoner, by choice.

Dawkins only focuses on what science can control. He ignores what it cannot, confident that it will be with enough focus.

Dawkins’ pride will not let him accept that his frame of meaning is extremely limited. It sounds ‘rational.’ But it is a security issue. Meaning is dull literalism. Wisdom is poetic. That is not secure enough for him. He needs something solid to control.

That is probably why the media like him. The thaw from the Religious Right has begun, and journalists want to attack after two decades being merely a part of the entertainment division in the major television networks.

Dawkins view is also the operating system, the assumptions upon which modern society treats the human and natural environment in practical everyday living. Science, business, government, and to a great extent, religion all use Dawkins base as their relationship with reality outside of human consciousness. So he is a reassurance, and civilization loves the vanity of describing itself, feeling confident about our control issues. It is safe and non-challenging.

God is not inert matter. Inert matter does not exist. So the whole logic system that Dawkins demands to ‘prove’ God is based on a false assumption of reality. How can God be justified on a lie? He does not realize how absurd his self-referencing logic is. And it appears the rest of civilization has a hard time combatting him because it is at the heart of even the religious paradigm.

It is not God that needs to be defined. It is Dawkins.