Dawkins Meet Clovis

 

At the atheist rally in Washington on Saturday, which drew a pathetic 20,000 worshipers of the Great Vacuum, Professor Richard Dawkins delivered himself of this tolerant and loving sentiment:

Dawkins didn’t appear until five hours into the event, but few seemed discouraged by the near-constant rain or drizzle. They whistled and cheered for his familiar lines such as:

I don’t despise religious people. I despise what they stand for …

Evolution is not just true, it’s beautiful …

Then Dawkins got to the part where he calls on the crowd not only to challenge religious people but to “ridicule and show contempt” for their doctrines and sacraments, including the Eucharist, which Catholics believe becomes the body of Christ during Mass.

Dawkins obviously needs our prayers for the state of his soul and our horse laughs for him being such a bigoted dweeb.  However, part of me wishes that he could encounter a Catholic convert like Clovis.  Clovis was a chieftain of the Franks in the late fifth and early sixth centuries.  He laid the framework for Frankish domination of Gaul and is the Father of France.  A pagan, he was converted to the Faith primarily through the prayers and loving example of his Catholic wife Clotilde.  In the battle of Tolbiac where the Alemanni were defeating his Franks, he cried out to the God of Clotilde that he would convert if victory was granted to him.  He won and began instruction in the Faith under Saint Remigius Bishop of Reims.  The Saint told Clovis when he was baptized on Christmas Day 496:  Bow thy head, O Sicambrian, adore what thou hast burned and burn what thou hast adored!

While instructing Clovis in the Faith, Saint Remigius read the passion of Our Lord to Clovis.  Clovis was deeply moved and finally got up, hefted his battle-axe, his franciscus, and shouted, O, if only my brave Franks and I had been there we would have avenged the insults to our God!

A word of caution then to Professor Dawkins if he ever decides to mock the Eucharist in front of a believing Catholic:    You will probably be received with prayers and kindness, but you never know when you might be in the presence of a Clovis who would take such insults to God very seriously indeed!

38 Responses to Dawkins Meet Clovis

  • Foxfier says:

    O, if only I my brave Franks and I had been there we would have avenged the insults to our God!

    I LIKE his passion!

    Maybe not so very socially productive these days, but hey, his heart is in the right place. ;^)

  • Thos. Collins says:

    Well, I agree with him that evolution is true and beautiful — like all of Creation. Dawkins and his kind think that science can bury religion. Not so. IMHO the more science discovers the more it bolsters the “argument from beauty”.

    Imagine if Dawkins, with his passion and intellect, ever were to have a road to Damascus moment. One can always hope.

  • G-Veg says:

    20,000 misguided souls, standing in the rain to hear a call to arms is no small matter.

    Atheism has taken on a new militancy. As a Philadelphian, I can’t help but draw a parallel to Know Nothings of the 1850s. Therein lies a warning and a blueprint for sending them packing: pray but act. We built schools to protect our children and protected our church with cudgels.

    Catholic men have a critical role in protecting the Church. Almighty God gave us these arms to stand against the forces of Satan. We pray and we protect.

    To all Brother Knights, surely it is time to stand up, to do more than attend an occasional fish fry? Surely now is the time to ask men to join us, to write those letters to representatives, to attend those rallies, to confront the protestors in front of our churches, to defend our priests and bishops? If not now, when? If not us, who?

    To Catholic men who have not yet joined the Knights of Columbus, I emplore you to do so for only in numbers, standing as one can we confront the evils lined up for battle.

    VivatJesus!

  • “20,000 misguided souls, standing in the rain to hear a call to arms is no small matter.”

    It certainly is for a rally in Washington G-Veg, especially one that got the amount of free media that this one got from the Mainstream Media. As for the K of Cs, as a knight for over two decades, I completely agree with you.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    The atheist at some level accepts his existence from the Hand of God, our Creator and endower of unalienable rights. To deny God, is to deny one’s own existence and unalienable rights. Dawkins cannot explain his existence without recourse to God and to God’s creation through evolution. G.K. Chesterton said: “If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” In denying our founding principles of unalienable, endowed civil rights, Dawkins would deny all men their freedom and for this reason ought not be given a public forum. The atheist commits perjury in a court of law. Dawkins is Britain’s revenge on America for winning the American Revolution. Trying to erase our unalienable rights eradicates Dawkins’ unalienable right to free speech and freedom.

  • G-Veg says:

    This year, Columbus Day falls on October 8th. It would be an extraordinary thing for the Knights of Columbus to hold a mass rally in D.C. to uphold Freedom of Religion and to highlight the Catholic contributions to our nation and Western cultured.

    Last year, I raised the idea of a Columbus Day celebration to the K of C Pennsylvania State Officers. They were less than interested. Frankly, they were downright rude. I was told that we “can’t” do such an event because Brother Knights don’t show up for events. I got the sense that there was more than a little of irritation at the gall of a mere Brother suggesting a state-wide event. I point this out solely because there is more than a little bit of the duffer in our K of C leadership and we can’t count on them to have the imagination or intestinal fortitude to make anything significant happen.

    I believe that my Brother Knights are capable of great things and that we sell ourselves short with such a “can’t do” attitude. So I ask you, can we make October 8, 2012 a date worth remembering?

    David Spaulding
    dspauldi@temple.edu

  • WK Aiken says:

    “The atheist at some level accepts his existence from the Hand of God, our Creator and endower of unalienable rights.”

    Would that it were always so. Unfortuantely, there are some “acquaintences” (I would not deign to infer friendship) of mine are not so infused with this innate wisdom.

    They are convinced that we, as living beings, are simple accidents of astro-chemistry. From the primordial ooze, self-replicating bits of protein, sugar and water survived extinctions and permutations to the point where a certain hardiness was imbued that defied most of the dangers of being more than inert.

    Epochs of “natural” forces then allowed a narrow branch of these self-sustaining, locomotive carbo-hydroids the abilities to act in ways that do not comport solely to the effects of their environments upon them, but rather independently and under the impeti of their own cognitions. In the view of this glorious accident, nothing exists conceptually but what is invented by the chemical processes of the perceptive and reactive aspects of that which is called “living.” There is no ulitmate objective, no overarching existential thread or metanormal propellant.

    Thus, as all things are indeed created equal – as in equally irrelevant and purposeless – to the strongest go the spoils. They are Fascists, and they do not pretend to be otherwise. The name causes some irrtation, but it is only a temporary hurdle. That epithet will be remade sometime soon.

    I can’t think of how to change any of that except to live my life as an example. There is a hardness of heart (and skull) that doesn’t allow those who have become convinced of all this to accept any other course of thought.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    WK Aiken: “…nothing exists conceptually but what is invented by the chemical processes of the perceptive and reactive aspects of that which is called “living.” What is “living”? Can the atheist create or restore life?” “Thus, as all things are indeed created equal – as in equally irrelevant and purposeless – to the strongest go the spoils.” All MEN are created equal.” Only material can evolve. The immortal human soul, the metaphysical, the intangible does not evolve, but is of necessity created. Free will does not evolve. From what primordial soup does intellect evolve? (If I stick my head in the sand will I grow a higher IQ? How does reason and from what does reason evolve? Sovereignty, personhood, intuition evolves from what kind of matter? Abstract thought is invented through the brain but not by the brain. And finally, immortality . The cowardly atheist refuses to accept immortality because that means that there is a God to WHOM he will have to answer. When the atheist preaches his doom and hopelessness he must be asked to prove that there is no immortality, no God, no judgment and further, to prove that there is no reason. Do not let the atheist tell you that all men are created equal into his egomaniacal rubbish. Oh, and do not stand next to an atheist during a lightning storm. One never can tell when God will call the atheist home.

  • @ Mary De Voe – you saked, “Can the atheist create or restore life?” I believe that man will one day formulate living matter out of inanimate matter in the laboratory. I feel as though that is inevitable. For man to make his defiance of God Almighty complete, he must partake of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Life just as he partook of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Perhaps I am wrong. But while God has limited man’s intelligence, He has placed no limit on man’s stupidity or man’s arrogance.

  • Richard Mackin, Jr. says:

    At His first coming and Life on earth Jesus was very humble and meek. Like a lamb He meekly went to His death on the cross. Definitely not the behavior of a King with power and authority able to crush his enemies with one command. Jesus Christ IS not going to turn the other cheek at His Second Coming. Everyday souls are judged individually of which those who continue to be unrepentant and reject Him feel the” backside of His Hand”. Natural and man-made disasters and inferior and misdirected leadership and decisions are God’s means to remind mankind of the seriousness and even severity of His Judgements.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    Bear with me: The definition of religion. And you will not get this in our politically corrected dictionaries, the definition of religion is man’s response to the gift of Faith from God. Atheism, and this is a nuance the Supreme Court missed is that atheism is NOT, I repeat, NOT a religion in response to the gift of Faith from God. Atheism is a BELIEF by man in there being no Supreme Sovereign Being, no Prime Mover, no First Principle, no Divine Providence, no Person Whom man calls God. Our Creator’s gift of man’s immutable, rational, immortal soul, unalienable rights, immutable sovereign personhood, free will are all relative to what the man chooses to believe. To the atheist freedom is not a foundational principle.
    America is founded on principles that require a belief, at least in the other person’s unalienable rights, in the other person’s rational, immortal soul and immutable personhood. In the atheistic USSR, a Christian cannot be a citizen. A Christian is an alien by his own choice to pursue his belief in God. In America, an atheist cannot be a citizen. An atheist chooses to repudiate his belief in God and man’s unalienable rights, our founding principles. In America, an atheist is an alien by his own free will choice to believe other than in man’s God -given freedom.
    Inscribed in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are a fundamental religion, that God exists and our dependence upon God is primary. The atheist is militant because he knows that he must tyrannize to subdue the belief in God to overcome his alienation. This is only possible if the atheist can change our founding principles and this would be through a constitutional change ratified by two-thirds of the states. A constitutional change ratified by two-thirds of the states would change America into an atheistic nation. The politically correct nonsense that is going on now is rubbish.
    Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights. Abortion too, must be ratified by two-thirds of the states to deprive a newly begotten individual substance of a rational nature of his founding principles. Abortion deprives a newly begotten sovereign person of JUSTICE.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    Paul: Life and BEING, human existence, (the definiton of man is a being composed of body and immortal, rational soul) created by man cannot be of a human nature because this is Frankenstein without an immortal soul. Man cannot create an immortal soul not matter how long he works in his laboratory. Remember Farnkenstein.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    Paul: MY fault. The question ought to have read: ““Can the atheist create or restore human life?” God breathed his own life into man. If man breathes his own life into man, that is good, but it is not God’s life. God’s life. The hunger for God’s life in man’s soul is proof positive that man is a being of human life and God’s life.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    Hello again Paul: “Perhaps I am wrong. But while God has limited man’s intelligence, He has placed no limit on man’s stupidity or man’s arrogance.” Concupiscence has limited man’s intelligence. Original sin darkened the mind of man. Original innocence, virginity, beholding the face of God is intelligence unlimited. and by the way, it is the duty of the state to provide for and protect original innocence and virginity and man’s right to behold the face of God.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    WK Aiken: My statement:”The atheist at some level accepts his existence from the Hand of God, our Creator and endower of unalienable rights.” If the atheist did not accept his existence at some level from the Hand of God, the atheist would annihilate himself. And since the atheist is in Washington D.C. the atheist is a liar.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    “Then Dawkins got to the part where he calls on the crowd not only to challenge religious people but to “ridicule and show contempt” for their doctrines and sacraments, including the Eucharist, which Catholics believe becomes the body of Christ during Mass.” Dawkins is a consummate LIAR ( see my earlier post) and perjurer in a court of law and swindler of the very people he tries to lead by denying their very human essence, the human soul.

  • @ Mary De Voe: Thank you – I agree.

    My only point is this: if man creates life – even “intelligent” life – in the lab, whether silicon based or carbon based, it will indeed be possessed of a soul – the soul of the demonic.

    My father (a devout Pentecostal) had thought that perhaps the beast from the sea in the first part of Revelation 13 (i.e., the antichrist) would be man’s own creation possessed by Satan himself (the beast from the land in the second part of Revelation 13 being the false prophet – but there are other equally valid interpretations to this chapter way beyond this blog post).

    I am no theologian, nor do I claim that these are the proverbial “Last Days” (though in a certain way, I hope so). But anything man makes in the lab mimicking life (even intelligent life) will not be infused with the soul or spirit by God (as you correctly pointed out), but infused it will be by Satan himself. Make sense, or am I all washed up?

  • Mary De Voe says:

    @Paul W. Primavera. I hope you are not washed up, I was so enjoying our exchange. Before I comment, there are some definitions I want to share to uncomplicate this. The devil is a pure spirit, a species of Angel and has no soul because the devil has no body. Man has an immortal, rational soul infused by God when two become one, when the man comes into existence. Animals have mortal souls, they are not rational. The animal’s soul dies with it when it dies. Because of the Hypostatic Union, the union of Jesus Christ’s human and Divine natures, Jesus Christ has a rational soul. God is pure spirit. Now, the comment: “Intelligent” life created in a laboratory. You assume that it is possible to (God creates, man invents or discovers) create “intelligent” life. The person is immutable. A person is a person always. “Intelligent” life of necessity is a person. Can man create, invent or discover a person that God has not created first? Any life that man can discover in a laboratory will be animal life with a mortal soul. Animals have no conscience and therefore, even the devils don’t want their mortal souls. This is not to say that animals may not be possessed of demons, only that the possession is not contingent upon being discovered in a laboratory. These thoughts have led me to understand that the chimeras, half man and half human, being brought into existence have animal souls, can never be a person or have a person’s soul with intelligence. Chimeras are an abuse of the human body and violate the laws of nature and nature’s God.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    Sorry, Paul, I mistakenly wrote: “chimeras, half man and half human,” must read: “chimeras, half man and half animal,” being brought into existence have animal souls, can never be a person or have a person’s soul with intelligence.

  • Yes, Mary, your explanation is logical. I will change my terms. Man may produce out of inanimate matter – either silicon based or carbon based – cognitive animate matter. This matter may possess mortal, non-rational souls, and may even be possessed demonically. But it cannot truly be sentient or possessed of an eternal, rational soul as man is. It may mimick cognitive reasoning as a computer can operate in accordance with the parameters of its software program. It may mimick living systems in being animate, but it is not created, I.e., made from nothing and Godd-infused with life.

  • Foxfier says:

    Mary-
    while it’s not a binding teaching, when the case of human/animal chimeras came up in the UK the Church authorities said they’ve got a right to life, and at the absolute least those made with mostly human DNA should be assumed to be human embryos and treated accordingly. (They shouldn’t be made, of course– that’s worse than mutilation, along the lines of deliberately inducing massive mutation in an innocent baby!– but once they’re alive, that life should be respected.)

  • Foxfier says:

    On an aside– I see no reason why God couldn’t give a soul to any sentient life, no matter what humans did wrong in the creation of that life.
    A child born of rape has a soul, although their creation was a violation of natural order rights; an kid conceived by artificial insemination has a soul, although their creation was not natural; an IVF kid has a soul, though their conception was even more unnatural; a kid with Down’s has a soul, although their DNA is altered by chance; why would a child that has both the altered DNA and the sinned against history of a child of rape not have a soul? Of course, I’m very fond of Augustine’s logic with the dog-headed men, and like to play it safe, so assume anything that acts rationally thus has a soul. ^.^

    Strictly speaking, I don’t think humans can create life.
    Did you ever hear the old joke about a bunch of scientists going to God and telling Him “We don’t need You anymore, we can make life in the lab.”
    God says “Show me and if you can, I will go.”
    The scientists strut in, grab a handful of dirt– and God says “Hold on. Get your own dirt.” All we can do is take the playset and do stuff it isn’t supposed to do, not actually create a new playset.

    Dang it, where were you guys when I did those posts several months back? The reasoning you’re putting out is the kind of stuff I was hoping for, rather than some random guy constantly shifting the subject to his personal religious philosophy, and a lot of argument by assertion that it can’t happen. -.-

    **EDIT** changed a phrase slightly.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    Foxfire: “I see no reason why God couldn’t give a soul to any sentient life, no matter what humans did wrong in the creation of that life.” The rational human soul IS sentient human life. The sentience comes with and from the soul, God’s life in man. With the human being, his being, his very existence, his human life is an act of his rational, immortal soul. Where there is no soul, there is no human life or growth. There would be no abortion, if there were no human soul growing into a larger human body in the womb. Abortion denies the newly begotten human person Justice. And speaking of chimeras,
    “(They shouldn’t be made, of course– that’s worse than mutilation, along the lines of deliberately inducing massive mutation in an innocent baby!– but once they’re alive, that life should be respected.)” This is transhumanism and it violates all civilization because it denies the human person the rational souls’ free will to give informed consent to the horrific mutations being exercised upon it. It is not legal nor can it be moral to violate the human being even with his informed consent.
    “The scientists strut in, grab a handful of dirt– and God says “Hold on. Get your own dirt.” All we can do is take the playset and do stuff it isn’t supposed to do, not actually create a new playset.”
    I hope that your post will answer Paul W. Primavera’s search for knowledge. I found it very informative, especially the part about the Catholic Church’s teaching about the ethics of life.
    “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” God has joined the human body with the human rational, immortal soul at procreation.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    In the Old Testament, a man having intercourse with an animal, it is called beastiality, Mosaic law proscribed that BOTH were to be put to death. There would be no chimeras, half-human, half-animals in Israel. It is frightening what God will do to us for what we are doing to His image in man.

  • Foxfier says:

    This is transhumanism and it violates all civilization because it denies the human person the rational souls’ free will to give informed consent to the horrific mutations being exercised upon it. It is not legal nor can it be moral to violate the human being even with his informed consent.

    Of course– doesn’t really touch on if the person thus made will have a soul (we probably can’t tell, anyways) or if we should assume they do. (obviously, I think we should… but I am also assuming that chimeras thus created will be able to behave like rational beings)

    I found it very informative, especially the part about the Catholic Church’s teaching about the ethics of life.

    Thank you for reading it!

    I had a half-formed post about Neanderthals to follow it up– we don’t know if they were people, too, or not; we just know modern science classifies them as a different group, and that they seem to have been perfectly able to breed effectively with modern humans– but it’s fun to think about, theoretically.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    Foxfire: “Of course– doesn’t really touch on if the person thus made will have a soul (we probably can’t tell, anyways) or if we should assume they do. The human person is immutable. A person is a person is a person, forever. A human being is a person composed of body and rational, immortal soul. “…while it’s not a binding teaching, when the case of human/animal chimeras came up in the UK the Church authorities said they’ve got a right to life, and at the absolute least those made with mostly human DNA should be assumed to be human embryos and treated accordingly.” I agree. “(obviously, I think we should… but I am also assuming that chimeras thus created will be able to behave like rational beings)” All sin is irrational. Then, you are saying that the chimera has a conscience. A conscience means the chimera has a rational soul and a will to choose to do good or evil.

  • Foxfier says:

    Figuring out if they’re doing it or not is the hard part– I’ve got folks who think their dogs are moral beings, when it seems pretty clear to me that they just know when something will get them yelled at.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    Paul W. Primavera: “made from nothing and God-infused with life.” Created-made from nothing and God infused with God’s life” God made all things and keeps them in existence. God sent His only Son, Jesus to make us human. I am a child of God.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    Foxfire: To know, to love and to serve God. Baltimore Catechism. Why am I created? It would appear that your friend’s dog is “moral” because his owners are moral. Now, you’ve got a friend who believes that 156 fish jumped into St. Peter’s net that day because these fish wanted to be eaten by Our Lord.

  • Ivan says:

    Dawkins shares with two other popularisers from the 80s, the others being SJ Gould and Steven Weinberg the distinction of being world-class storytellers with the unfortunate gift of spinning tales out of nothing at all. Take Dawkin’s book “The Blind Watchmaker” in which he makes great play of Rev Paley’s observation that if one were to come across a watch in the fields it is indicative that a Mind is behind it. Dawkins will have none of it. According to him, we cannot infer any such thing, the watch may well have been the product of a series of accidents. Now is there a person alive, who would seriously imagine upon coming across a Rolex watch in the park, that it could well have been the product of a series of fortuitious accidents rather than an artifact created by craftsmen? But it seems that there are enough people around to accept Dawkin’s version of events. Once they swallow that camel, there is no need to stint at gnats. And Dawkins piles it in, with his silly computer biomorphs circa 1984. It is now 2012 with computer and graphics cards far more powerful than in the 80s but have any of these biomorphs taken flight? Transformed into butterflies perhaps?

    Way back in the 70s Marvin Minsky claimed that only the limitations of hardware and software was preventing the MIT guys from creating a computer equal in capability to the human brain. In the 70s a byte of memory cost $1, a computer equipped with 1 MB RAM would set one back $1,000,000 in 1975 dollars. The highest speed achieved were in the the order of MHz. The largest programs could not have have exceeded 50,000 lines of code. Today a computer costing around $1,000 has 4GB RAM, 1 Terabyte of hard disk space, runs on 4 processors at 2.3 to 3GHz with the Windows 7 software kicking in at 50 to 60 million lines of code. Well, what are you waiting for Dr Minsky? Where are the artificial brains?

    This age suffers from too much credulousness at the pronouncements of scientists. In this they are abetted by the worshipful stance of the press which has long since given up any pretense of objective reporting and functions instead as groupies and propaganda artists.

  • The attempt to substitute science for religion or philosophy is a pernicious superstition of our times Ivan. Prior generations usually had a healthier attitude, understanding that science was useful in its sphere but not the be all and end all. I have always treasured this quote from Churchill: “But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.” Science will not save us, since that is not the purpose of science, just as science can never answer the truly major questions of our existence: Why am I here? What is right and what is wrong? What is the meaning of life? How should I live? etc.

  • Ivan says:

    I agree Donald, but I believe there is something more sinister going on. The old line atheist had to explain Design, the religious man the existence of Evil. Of the two I would argue that it is the religious person that has the more difficult task, since pain and suffering has a more immediate and unbearable impact on our lives with the difficulty that an omnipotent God has allowed things to come to such a pass. For many years now the atheists have already had the upper hand in the public arena. The new atheists are inured to tragic existential questions, one does not hear that note in their latest outpourings, what they want is the destruction of of the position of Christianity in the US. They claim to be against all religions but it is Christianity with its moral demands that sticks in their gullets. The American Protestants instinctively understood this hence the seriousness of their reaction, Catholics because they were afraid of being made to look ridiculous were somewhat more ambiguous.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    Ivan: “Dawkins shares with two other popularisers from the 80s, the others being SJ Gould and Steven Weinberg the distinction of being world-class storytellers with the unfortunate gift of spinning tales out of nothing at all.”
    It is all over but the shouting for the atheist. “WE hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” CREATED, not born. The state gives us citizenship and a tax bill. God gives us Himself.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .