The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins - A Critique; edited for spelling and corrected reference to Blessed Damien DeVeuster of Molika’i, Hawaii

Reflections on The God Delusion by Maria – both blogs are combined in this document (http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=278469997)

Last year, I acquired a copy of the much talked about book, The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, partly on the recommendation of an atheist friend and partly to judge the book for myself.

I have to admit that initially I was apprehensive about reading it. What would I find between its covers? Would my faith be shattered? If Richard Dawkins came up with some very convincing reason to believe that God did not exist, it could mean a complete change of life, location, work, beliefs... As it happens, my fears were ungrounded!

I am very glad I read the book. Richard Dawkins raises some good questions and highlights important points. I agree with much of what he says concerning the scandals of religious abuse, and the over emphasis on sin at the cost of wonder and awe. I very much appreciate his lyrical praise of science and creation, and his obvious love of life. However, I am shocked by his audacity at times. He omits important and relevant information, and misrepresents concrete facts in several contexts – either out of genuine ignorance or downright dishonesty. Either way, it is dangerous and disturbing. In the interests of fairness and objectivity, I would like to share some thoughts and reflections from a Catholic perspective, and shed new light on a few of the points neglected or misrepresented by Richard Dawkins as they are important to any discussion of his book. I would be grateful if people could read the full article before responding or forming an opinion.

Are Science and Religion incompatible?

To me, the obvious question to ask is why a universe that is created could not have been created to evolve? In some of my favorite passages in the New Testament, St. Paul speaks of the whole of creation groaning in one great act of giving birth (Romans 8:22) and of creation being brought to completion in Christ (Ephesians 1:10). Noteworthy figures such as Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein and former atheist, Anthony Flew recognize the necessity for a higher being with regard to the laws upholding the universe. To my mind, calling this "Einstein religion" makes no sense. Nature has always been understood as the first book about God and the first revelation of God. Indeed, according to the faith of the Catholic Church, grace builds on nature. It does not replace nature, much less destroy it. Grace sanctifies, elevates and renews nature. Surely one must be open to the possibility that God creates so that his work unfolds in the very unfolding of creation. And is it not the case that anyone who claims knowledge of a more personal God might simply be blessed with another degree of consciousness - and therefore a greater degree of responsibility?

Richard Dawkins speaks of the "father of genetics", Gregor Mendel. He says rightly that Mendel was a Catholic monk, and goes on to claim that he only became a priest to pursue a life of science. Is it his place to judge the motivation of a man he never knew? Apart from which, Gregor Mendel’s motivation is irrelevant. The fact is that he was given the freedom and support needed to pursue a career in groundbreaking science within the confines of the Catholic Church, hardly the action of a religion incompatible with science!

I also might add that I find it strange that Richard Dawkins never mentions the Belgian Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre, professor of physics and astronomer at the University of Leuven who is credited with the discovery of what became known as the Big Bang Theory regarding the origin of the Universe, a theory that changed the course of science. What, a Catholic priest!

Again, I wonder why Richard Dawkins does not consider mentioning The Vatican Observatory, outside Rome, which is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world, and has an dependent research center, the Vatican Observatory Research in Tucson, USA. It is strange that a renowned biologist seems unaware of the existence of The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which was founded by the Roman Catholic Church in 1936 to promote the progress of the mathematical, physical and natural sciences, and which has roots extending right back to the sixteenth century. This academy actually includes some of the most respected names in 20th century science amongst its membership, As recently as November 2008, the same Academy brought together some of the world's leading theologians and scientists for a five-day conference on evolution. Renowned physicist, Stephan Harding and Pope Benedict XVI were amongst the guest speakers. In his speech, Pope Benedict is quoted as saying that there is no conflict between faith's understanding of creation and the evidence of science. I mention these facts because they seem very untypical of a religion which is supposedly anti-science.

Here, I might ask the question, is it reasonable to maintain that we do NOT know how life, the eukaryotic cell and consciousness originated while claiming everything just somehow evolved here and ridiculing the possible existence of God as the primary source? Or to suggest that God probably does not exist while suggesting that life most likely evolved from a higher being/planet/universe, ie. Aliens! Why should it be more reasonable to ridicule belief in God and a supernatural world and propose alien beings and intelligent life elsewhere as the origin of life?

Richard Dawkins maintains that awe and wonder have been too little evident in the way Christianity is presented. He quotes Carl Sagan who says "a religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by conventional faith", thus implying that Christianity does not do this. This obviously poses the important question, what have we done with the Good News? How is it that people cannot see the glory of God in the message of Christianity? Or that they seem so unfamiliar with the praises of creation which fill the Bible? These are serious questions.

Elsewhere in his book, Richard Dawkins accuses religion of preventing medical research because of Christian opposition to Embryonic Stem Cell Research which is being rejected by some well known scientists in the field on several grounds. It is disturbing that Richard Dawkins makes absolutely no mention of the alternative research being carried out. I am speaking of Adult Stem Cell Research derived from cord blood, umbilical and adipose tissue which have produced almost 80 therapies, with a further 350 clinical trials on the way - not a single therapy has been produced using the human embryo - to say nothing of the latest discoveries such as Embryonic-Like Stem Cells and iPS cells, none of which are ethically controversial. I might add that the Catholic Church fully supports and promotes this kind of research and believes that such scientific investigation should be encouraged and promoted, on the condition that it is not in detriment to other human beings. Many scientists and members of the medical profession would support this view. Again, these are hardly the actions of a religion which is anti-science.

The Founder of Christianity

One of the most outlandish claims made by Richard Dawkins is that Christianity was founded by Paul of Tarsus! I mean, what happened Jesus? How did St. Peter disappear? Richard Dawkins mentions that it is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported case, that Jesus never existed, but strangely does not pursue it, probably because no serious and well educated scholar gives much credence to such a case. It is commonly held that Jesus Christ is the founder of Christianity, by Christians and non-Christians alike. Surely it is no accident that Richard Dawkins omits to mention St. Peter, the Apostle. To mention him would necessitate recognizing the fact that Jesus established a Church with Peter at its head (Matthew 16:16-19), and that Christianity can trace its historical and spiritual roots back to Peter who knew Jesus - which is the claim of the Catholic Church! It would mean recognizing a Church which has existed for 2,000 years thereby giving credence to the prophetic words of Jesus that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, and that he would send his Holy Spirit to be with that Church until the end of time (John 16:4-15). It might also answer Richard Dawkins’ important question with regard to criteria for deciding how to interpret the Bible.

Richard Dawkins would have us believe there is no reason to believe the Gospels are reliable as they were written many years after Jesus death and Resurrection, and that the writers of the Gospel did not know Jesus. Whether or not they knew him directly, they certainly would have known people who knew him and experienced him, amongst others Peter - whom he sidesteps in his attempt to discredit Christianity – Mary, his mother, Mary Magdalene, the Apostles, the people who heard him preach and had been healed by him. There is absolutely no reason to suppose they were not used as sources or that they were all dead before the evangelists began writing their Gospels or before St. Paul began writing his letters. In any case, I wonder which is more reasonable: to believe the writers of books who do not believe in Jesus, and are living 2,000 after his life on earth; or to believe the accounts of Jesus in the Gospels based on the witness of people who had experienced him in some convincing way and which were written only 40-70 years after his life on earth?

When talking about morality, Richard Dawkins informs us that good historians do not judge statements from past times by the standards of their own. I absolutely agree, so why then does he constantly make the Bible as exception to this rule? Is he unaware that the Bible is about God revealing himself and about people understanding who God is over a long period of time? Or that when the early Christians firmly believed that the Word of God was eternal, divine, and living, they were not referring to the Bible, but Jesus, the Word (logos) of God (John 1:1-18)? Is he unaware the Word was always proclaimed, written and interpreted by the teaching authority of the Church – as a body - until the Reformation, and that this is still the practice in the Catholic Church. I cannot do the subject justice here, but I strongly recommend that anyone genuinely interested in the Catholic perspective on the Bible take the time to do their own research.

Jesus was an "in-group" person, according to Richard Dawkins. That is to say, he kept to his own group. Is this true? Jesus came into this world as a Jew and addressed himself first of all to the Jewish people, but he also embraced others. But in fact, he was widely known for mixing with women, children, poor people, lepers, prostitutes, and tax collectors, most of whom were powerless, social outcasts. His contacts with gentiles (pagans) include Roman officials, soldiers, Samaritans and people of Greek origin. Not only did he speak to them and heal them, he also held them up to his own people as examples of faith!

Richard Dawkins makes reference to the Parable of the Good Samaritan elsewhere in his book, when reflecting on the impulse to do good. Again, it is strange that he does not mention Jesus as the source of this parable, and that he is actually pointing out a Samaritan, bitter enemies of the Jewish people, as a good example (Luke 10:33-37). It is true to say that in the society in which Jesus lived, love of neighbor only extended to ones immediate family and tribe, but that is precisely what makes Jesus command to love our enemy and do good to those who hate us (Luke 6:27) so radically different. Loving your enemy can hardly be called in group loyalty! Jesus also declared that when he was lifted up, he would draw all people to himself (John 12:32), and his disciples were commissioned to go out into the whole world. He opened up the boundaries and proposed something entirely new. This is also evident in the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12) which Richard Dawkins rightly tell us were way ahead of their time – and ours if we look around us!

Elsewhere, Richard Dawkins makes the claim that Martin Luther King derived his philosophy from Gandhi. Anyone who has taken the time to read a few of Martin Luther King's sermons, most specifically his book, "Strength to Love" (as I have done) will know the source of his motivation. No doubt, Gandhi offered some inspiration, but the fact is that there is a tradition of pacifism within the Christianity, starting with Jesus Christ (Matthew 26:51-52). It is also a fact that Christianity spread peacefully from Jerusalem to whole of the known world within three hundred years, and that followers of The Way (Christianity) were both know and persecuted for their pacifism. They were also accused of and executed for being atheists! In mentioning Gandhi, it should be known that most of his principles were drawn from his Hindu religion, and that he said his social campaigns in India were inspired by the Catholic priest, Damien of Molika’i, who spent his life living amongst and restoring the dignity of lepers in Hawaii until contracting the disease and dying.

The Catholic Church

Leading on from these reflections on Christianity, Richard Dawkins does a particularly bad job of presenting the Catholic faith. Space does not allow me to elaborate on or do justice to several of the subjects he raises, so again, I would suggest that anyone interested in learning more about aspects of the Catholic Faith which he derides such as Purgatory, Miracles, Our Lady, the Communion of Saints, Mortal Sin and Hell rely on sources such as "Basic Catholic Beliefs and Practices" and the Catechism of the Catholic Church rather than the interpretations of Richard Dawkins... However, he does raise three points which I would like to briefly highlight before moving on.

In his book, Richard Dawkins refers to the fact that ordinary lay Catholics may baptize people. This is true, but what he omits to mention is that this is not normal practice. Ordinary Catholics may only baptize someone in the case of impending death, and then by only fulfilling specific conditions and with the consent of the persons in question. Baptism cannot be undone. Having said that, any baptized person is free to reject their Catholic faith at any time in their life, and some in fact do so, just as others embrace the Catholic faith, often as adults. It is important to note that in the Catholic Church, baptism is seen as the first step on a lifelong journey of faith. It is also important to note that the Catholic Church recognizes the good in other faiths and philosophies as a preparation for the fullness of the Gospel. Furthermore, the Church also recognizes that all people of goodwill who are genuinely searching for the Truth, and trying to do good according to the dictates of their conscience and to the best of their ability are on the way to salvation. It even makes the important statement that Christians can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism...

At one point, Richard Dawkins makes a brief reference to Limbo in a footnote. It is worth noting that the existence of Limbo, while commonly believed, has never been part of official Catholic teaching and no mention of it is to be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) which is the official compendium of the Catholic faith. Pope Benedict made a public pronouncement last year in order to remove ignorance and misunderstanding. For the record, Limbo was never official Church doctrine, so therefore the question of infallibility - which he obviously does not understand - simply does not arise here. It is a non-issue.

Speaking of popes, Richard Dawkins also mentions the much maligned Pope Pius XII, saying he is a source of embarrassment to many modern Catholics. In fact, those fully acquainted with the facts know that this Pope supervised a network which saved up to 860,000 Jewish lives – more than all the international agencies put together. Golda Meir, Israel's former prime minister, spoke eloquently on hearing of his death, "We share in the grief of humanity at the passing away of His Holiness, Pope Pius XII. In a generation afflicted by wars and discords he upheld the highest ideals of peace and compassion. When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for its victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out about great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict. We mourn a great servant of peace."

It is also a fact that that many Catholics were sent to the death camps, perhaps the most notable being the Franciscan priest, Maximilian Kolbe, who offered his life in the place of a married man, surviving two weeks in a starvation bunker before being injected with carbolic acid in the notorious Auschwitz Concentration Camp. Many Catholics also defied Hitler, Bishop Van Galen being one of the most courageous and articulate. He spoke out strongly against Hitler, even before he had shown his true colors, and earned himself the title, "Lion of Munster" and the encouragement and support of Pope Pius XII – but no one was listening... It is worth noting that Albert Einstein spoke very positively about the role of the Catholic Church during this period, "Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly".

Memes, Genes, Reason and Morality

Richard Dawkins was responsible for coining the word, Memes, and argues that memes are most probably responsible for the survival of religion. There are two things to note here; the first being that there is, as yet, no positive or concrete proof for such a theory. Memes cannot be verified under a microscope! Secondly, if the theory is correct, it is applicable to all of us, meaning that atheism would also be a virus! Richard Dawkins maintains that we are all mere products of our genes, our memes and the processes of evolution - and nothing more. I do not believe this, and neither do most people, I suspect, if they really think about it. Do memes and genes really explain the heroic lives of people like Damian of Molika’i and Maximilian Kolbe?

In my opinion, to hide behind genes and memes is to abdicate responsibility. If we are merely the final product of our genes and memes, where is the place for moral responsibility, choice and the exercise of free will? In this regard, Richard Dawkins is consistent. He actually declared he was not interested in free will during a television debate a few years ago. But then how, why, and on what grounds, is he holding religious people morally culpable for their beliefs and their actions?

Richard Dawkins also argues that one does not need religion to be a good person, and goes on to explain much of our behavior in terms of evolution. He says, rightly, I believe that there must be some independent criteria for deciding what is moral and what is not, and that presumably this is available to all of us. He uses the term universal morality. In fact what is he saying defines the Theory of Natural Law which in its simplest definition is that "unwritten law" that is more or less the same for everyone everywhere. To be more exact, natural law is the concept of a body of moral principles that is common to all humankind and, as generally posited, is recognizable by human reason alone. Indeed the fundamental principle of Natural Law is that good is to be done and evil avoided. This, I might add is the basis of most Catholic morality.

According to Richard Dawkins, Jesus is a model of this very thesis as he sometimes explicitly departed from the norms of the day around him, and the Beatitudes, as stated earlier, are revolutionary (Matthew 5:3-12). Is this not what is meant by following the spirit of the Law as opposed to the letter of the Law, the law which Jesus brings to fulfillment?

It is worth noting the Ten Commandments, commandments which Jesus cited (Mark 10:19) are commonly accepted by people of good will everywhere, as is the "Golden Rule" in which we are exhorted to do to others as we would have them do to us (Luke 6:31). Indeed, many traditions and thinkers have supported and still support one form or another of universal morality from the ancient philosophers through Christians and Muslims, to modern Kantian, Objectivists, natural rights, human rights and utilitarian thinkers. The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an example of moral universalism in practice. So is this universal morality of which Richard Dawkins speaks really only a product of our genes and evolution, or is it, as St Paul claims, the law written on the heart of every human being and to which our conscience bears witness (Romans 2:14-16)? Is it not a sign of God's blueprint on our souls (Genesis 1: 26-27)?

It occurs to me that if there is a form of universal morality, there must also be a form of universal evil. Here I would like to draw attention to the work of Philip Zimbardo, author of "The Lucifer Effect – understanding how good men turn evil". The book - which could just as easily be called The Lice Effect or The Virus Effect! - has much to teach us about structural evil, complicity, cowardice, etc. It also brings out very clearly how evil is allowed to proceed by taking several modern examples (the Stanford Prison Experiment, Nazi Germany, Rwanda, Bagdad) and using them to illustrate the common links in the development of evil: dehumanization, disassociation, peer pressure, etc. In fact, reading it makes me wonder about the direction of the present anti-Christian climate amongst some militant secularists and atheists. What seeds are being planted ? Where will they take us?

Because if this book makes one thing clear, it is that no one is exempt from becoming evil. The potential for evil cuts across every sector of society, as does the potential for good. Philip Zimbardo shows clearly that every one of us can be swallowed up in the progression of evil if we are not vigilant and careful. As a Catholic, I consider his book to be an excellent exploration of the concept of Original Sin, which is not about burdening new born babies with the guilt of sins they have not committed – as Richard Dawkins claims - but about the fact that as human beings we are all, with no exception, born vulnerable, and therefore wounded and prone to falling into evil. I am sure we all recognize the struggle of which St. Paul speaks when we do the evil we do not want to do and do not do the good we wish to do (Romans 7:14-20). It is a simple fact of life.

Richard Dawkins rightly points out that the abuse of religion is gravely wrong. I also abhor the fact that people are sometimes threatened, pressurized, and imbued with fear in the name of God, and I recoil from the incidents and acts of abuse which he describes, and the attitudes depicted in some letters and articles quoted in his book. I agree wholeheartedly that education and good formation have a vital role to play. There is great need for the development of reason and conscience. And indeed there is no contradiction here with the New Testament in which we are told to discern and test the spirits (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1).

It is also true to say that the minds of children and the uneducated are vulnerable. It is surely no accident that when people wish to introduce new ideas or doctrines, they often focus on two main courses of action: the suppression of teaching and religious institutions and the brain-washing of children and the uneducated. This has been a common thread wherever and whenever oppression is inflicted. We need look no further than the horrors of the Reign of Terror (French Revolution) or Communism and Nazism in our own time to verify this, something which Richard Dawkins seems reluctant to do too closely.

It should be noted that contrary to the citation from Martin Luther, "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith", which Richard Dawkins quotes, the use of reason and conscience is not contrary to religion. To my knowledge, that is not and has never been Catholic teaching. The renowned philosopher, Thomas Aquinas – much maligned by Richard Dawkins - saw no opposition between the order of nature and the order of grace, or between reason and revelation. For him, there is a radical continuity between and among them because each comes from the creative hand of God, and each has the same final destiny. Indeed so central is the role of both reason and faith, that Pope John Paul II devoted the encyclical, "Fides et Ratio" (Faith and Reason) to the subject. The pope argued (and I agree) that faith without reason leads to superstition (the complaint of atheists) and that reason without faith leads to nihilism and relativism (the malady of our time).

For me, it is simple. I believe we have been gifted by God with the gifts of reason, conscience, morality, and science, and if we have received theses gifts, it is so that we can use them and in doing so learn more about our world, ourselves and our Creator. In fact, we have a responsibility to use theses gifts and to use them in a responsible way. They must be put at the service of love.

Life and Love

I particularly enjoy Richard Dawkins when he speaks of the glories of life, almost like a Song of Praise! When he speaks of the laws of physics, the unknown origins of life, the almost certain uniqueness of our planet, and the extravagance of the universe, his joy and wonder are palpable. In reading his pros, I am reminded of the many the psalms and passages in the Bible which speak of the glory of God and the glory of creation. I love the passages of the book in which he speaks of the chunks of complex matter on our planet, of the uniqueness and preciousness of each life, and of "our moment in the sun". Richard Dawkins rightly points out the fact that we have only one life should make it all the more precious. He goes on to say that if we waste a second of it, or complain that it is dull or barren, this could this not be seen as a callous insult to those unborn trillions who will never be offered life in the first place. I agree, and would also add that it is a callous insult to our Creator, and an abdication of our responsibility as co-creators and stewards of our planet (Genesis 1 and 2); an abdication which carries consequences for each one of us, whether we are religious people or not.

That being said, I wonder why Richard Dawkins fails completely to understand that what he is saying lies at the very heart of the pro-life argument and Catholic teaching which recognizes the precious dignity of every human life, and the sacredness of all life on our planet. He makes a ridiculous remark regarding the potential for life argument, which incidentally would be better stated as the life with potential argument. The argument - as he well knows – generally refers to the the life which has been conceived, that is in existence as a result of conception! If it was not in existence, there would be no argument. Recognizing scientific facts and upholding human dignity, the Catholic Church defends human life and fully encourages the development of Naprotechnology, Infertility Care and Natural Family Planning, Adult Stem Cell Research (as mentioned earlier), Palliative Care and Hospices for the Dying, none of which are ethically problematic, and all of which are scientifically grounded and respect the natural processes of life from the womb to the tomb.

To put it another way, are we really comfortable with the alternatives being offered in which life is carelessly created and deliberately exterminated in the womb by the millions each day, where sick and elderly people are becoming more and more expendable, and where cloning and creating animal human hybrids are seen as the way to a brave new world... Richard Dawkins refers to the atheist philosopher, Peter Singer, as an eloquent advocate of the post-speciesist position in which human treatment is meted out to all species that have the brain power to appreciate it. While Peter Singer deserves our respect for the way in which he has highlighted and worked to alleviate the suffering and abuse of animals (an example Christians could note), his approach to human beings is, in my view, disturbing - to say the least. He argues for abortion, infanticide and euthanasia for the severely handicapped and mentally impaired on the basis of the distinction he makes between normal human beings and those who are, according to his criteria, obviously not normal human beings… In effect, he puts the lives of the weakest into the hands of the more articulate and the stronger according to their perceived needs. Is this not the very foundation on which dangerous ideologies such as Nazism, slavery and apartheid were established?

Is there no higher vision of our humanity? I would suggest we take a look at the integrated vision of the human person – body, soul and spirit - as laid out by Pope John Paul II in his Theology of the Body: He maintained (and here again I agree) that the physical human body has a specific meaning and is capable of revealing answers regarding fundamental questions about us and our lives. It should be recommended reading, especially considering that one logical conclusion of Peter Singer's argument is the justification of bestiality - which he has justified publically.

Richard Dawkins does not believe that religion should be eliminated as such, just pushed into a corner and silenced... He recognizes the Bible as a piece of valuable literature. He also recognizes the contribution of monastic life, and the ceremonial and liturgical trappings of religion. But can we have it both ways? Is it not hypocritical to discard something as dangerous and worthless while keeping the outward trappings? And is the Bible really the only thing which Christianity has to offer? Is this really all Richard Dawkins can find? While I know and fully acknowledge that there have been some shameful and savage moments in Christianity, we should not confuse the message with the messengers. Is it not a fact that the whole of Western Culture rests on its foundation? Does such a glaring omission not amount to pulling the carpet out from under our own feet? Is it an honest appraisal of the facts?

Any educated look at history will reveal that science as we know it would not have arisen without Christian presuppositions, i.e. God's creations operate according to laws that can be discovered by man. This is in stark contrast to other ancient cultures which believed nature was unpredictable and the gods were capricious. An honest appraisal will also show us that charity, morality, economics, international law, the arts, the idea that all men are created equal, and many other things we take for granted have their foundations in Catholic thought. Anyone interested in learning more about this side of the coin would do well to check out a book called "How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization" by Professor Thomas Wood. Believe me, it will open your eyes!

Physics can teach us about Christ!

While reading the God Delusion, I also read a copy of "Introduction to Christianity" by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) in which he gives an excellent, modern interpretation of the foundations of Christianity and addresses many of the modern objections to faith and to the Catholic Church. It was actually amusing at times because Pope Benedict was writing answers to questions being posed by Richard Dawkins. It would be wonderful if the two of them ever actually met! Amongst other things, Pope Benedict speaks about the wonders of creation and about common misunderstandings with regard to Christianity. And indeed, I am sure Richard Dawkins would be surprised to learn that Pope Benedict actually agrees with him when he speaks about the a certain interpretation of the Cross, even among many Christians! One of the points the Pope underlines is how too much emphasis has been placed on the aspect of atonement to the detriment of Love: a love which comes into our world, lives amongst us and freely pours itself out that we might have Life and have it to the full; Love which breaks through and is stronger than death, suffering and evil (Philippians 2: 5-11). Furthermore, the Pope suggests that modern physics can teach us more about Christ and can give us the words and symbols we need to speak to today's world. Check him out!

Indeed, in light of today's science, I find it difficult to understand how modern men and women can believe in Quantum Physics, in atoms and neutrons and yet cannot believe in a Risen Savior walking through walls or in but not the "Big Bang" of life, truth, goodness and love exploding through the chaos of hate, lies, death and evil. Or how they can believe in "parcels of waves" and not believe in the Trinity as the relationship of Love; in the possibility of multiple universes and alien beings and not in the concept of God, heaven and angels. In the concept of a superhuman, but not in Christ as the prototype of every human... In evolution, but not in creation in the process of giving birth and being brought to completion... In the "God particle", but not in God! It begs the question, do modern men and women not understand – or do they simply not want to understand?

Richard Dawkins speaks about science as removing the burka, but science can only take us so far. Let us not forget that science has also led us to the atomic bomb, chemical warfare, vivisection and animal experimentation, environmental destruction, mass abortion and eugenics... It is evident from these examples that while science can teach us many wonderful things, it cannot teach us the ethical use of things or the ultimate purpose of our lives. That is not its purpose. It is my experience that religion can do this, but not just any religion! As I talk to people of other beliefs and none, I delve into my Catholic faith only to find myself amazed at its depths. I often think, "My God, if people only knew! If they really understood what we believe! It’s a treasure waiting to be opened!" The question is – as Richard Dawkins rightly asks - when speaking about death, do we, Catholics, REALLY believe? It is a good question. But I say, do not rely on me or Richard Dawkins or presume to know or understand what the Catholic Church teaches and believes. Remove your burka! Probe its depths with an open heart.