(LifeSiteNews) — In an interview on July 11, noted God-hater Richard Dawkins said, “When you think of the competition … when you think of Islam … I think we need Christianity as a sort of buttress against something worse.”
Speaking to David Pakman, the author of The God Delusion went on to quote noted Catholic intellectual Hilaire Belloc: “Always keep a-hold of Nurse / For fear of finding something worse.”
The “something worse” that Dawkins has in mind refers to the severity of Islam and the extreme ideology of the “transgender” cult, which Dawkins calls a “memetic epidemic.”
Going viral
Speaking of the explosive growth of the transgender mind virus, itself popularized by images of radioactive transmission and mutation, Dawkins said, “I fear that what we are seeing now is a fashion, a craze, a memetic epidemic, which is spreading like measles.”
Responding to the nonsensical claim of Neil DeGrasse Tyson – that “gender is a spectrum” – Dawkins rejects the neologism to assert this is a sort of “perversion of clarity of speech for political ends.” As a biologist he says, “Sex is a binary … it is the one thing in biology which is not a continuum.”
Dawkins, who coined the term “meme” and has since become something of one himself, addresses the camera before a bookshelf – which has a whole section titled “memes.”
Memes of exchange
Memes in the Dawkins sense are to him like genes – a medium of the transmission of coded information. In the popular sense, memes are images and text shared on the internet, which often go “viral,” spreading their influence – or infection – exponentially.
Dawkins’ description of the mind virus of transgender ideology as a memetic epidemic agrees with a definition of its reproduction that is shared between pro-trans activists and critics of this satanic cult.
‘We are the virus’
Sociologist Lisa Marchiano used the term in a 2017 paper to describe the “psychic epidemic” that was
manifesting as children and young people coming to believe that they are the opposite sex, and in some cases taking drastic measures to change their bodies.
Of particular concern to the author is the number of teens and tweens suddenly coming out as transgender without a prior history of discomfort with their sex.
Noting the relation between online and offline exposure to the memes of trans ideology, itself presented as a new transhuman religion, she described its means of reproduction in the minds of the young:
Reports online indicate that a young person’s coming out as transgender is often preceded by increased social media use and/or having one or more peers also come out as transgender.
These factors suggest that social contagion may be contributing to the significant rise in the number of young people seeking treatment for gender dysphoria.
Marchiano’s terminology was cited in a presentation given by “Ruth” Pearce, an influential “transgender” activist and advisor to the U.K. National Health Service.
As I wrote on Substack in May 2023:
Dr “Ruth” Pearce is a Lecturer in Community Development at Glasgow University in Scotland.
He is a professional transgender cultist, and all his work is concerned with the promotion of this psychosexual culture.
His stated mission, as outlined in his own video presentation of 2022, is to reproduce his psychosexual Satanism by social contagion. This is a process which includes the digital transmission of the signal of mutation via social media, as well as the subversion of healthcare and other public settings.
Pearce himself reveals the activist strategy of denouncing “social contagion” as a “transphobic” slur, whilst laughingly admitting that this is the means by which his sick cult “socially reproduces.”
In short, the transgender cult is an evil meme which has gone viral. Pearce makes this admission in a presentation titled “We Are the Virus: Reproduction via Social Contagion.”
“I’ve been thinking a lot about social contagion because it’s the language of the anti-trans movement,” he said. “But … the exact thing they’re describing is the exact means by which we reproduce ourselves.”
Dawkins has recognized that the transmission of mutational memes, whose aim is the total and irreversible corruption of humanity, cannot be effectively gainsaid without Christianity.
Yet according to any serious treatment of the subject, the breakdown of his simplistic atheism was inevitable.
God and the deluded
The intellectual limitations of Dawkins’ extreme hostility to the “delusion” of God have led him to this paradox. His arguments – those of a broader and popular movement against religion known as “The New Atheism” – themselves relied on a greater delusion than that which he claimed was the basis of religious belief.
Despite his infamy as a leading “New Atheist,” along with the late Christopher Hitchens and Jewish commentator Sam Harris, his contribution to the field has been deemed unworthy of inclusion in serious treatments of the nature of modern apostasy.
In his excellent Seven Types of Atheism, former Professor of European Thought John Gray excluded these three commentators from his critique of post-Enlightenment Liberalism. He argued that their position was untenable, as their position of presumed intellectual superiority relied on a series of myths which were themselves inferior to those they claimed were enshrined in the worship of God.
Gray gave a 2018 interview to Vox which summarized his decision to exclude this intellectually shallow fad – itself a sort of memetic epidemic for a time – from his own treatment of the subject of atheism.
In many cases, the New Atheists are animated by 19th-century myths of various kinds: myths of human advancement, myths of what science can and cannot do, and all kinds of other myths. So yeah, I’m compelled to attack anyone who is debunking others for their reliance on myths when the debunkers themselves can’t see how their own thinking is shaped by myths.
Something as ancient, as profound, as inexhaustibly rich as religion or religions can’t really be written off as an intellectual error by clever people. Most of these clever people are not that clever when compared with really clever people like Wittgenstein or Saint Augustine or Pascal — all philosophers of the past who seriously engaged the religious perspective.
These New Atheists are mostly ignorant of religion, and only really concerned with a particular kind of monotheism, which is a narrow segment of the broader religious world.
Gray showed the absurdity of the replacement of the worship of God with that of Man. What is more, his argument prefigures the very predicament in human affairs which has prompted Dawkins to recognize a wider dimension to the significance of Christianity.
There’s this silly idea that we have no need for religion anymore because we have science, but this is an incredibly foolish notion, since religion addresses different needs than science, needs that science can’t address.
The “needs that science can’t address” are also needs which cannot be served by the market system. These “needs” are for meaning, moral virtue, and the comprehension of good and evil.
What is implicit in Dawkins’ qualified defense of Christianity is that it provides the foundation for reality-based thinking about women and men, and has furnished us with a moral framework based on the value of human life in the image of God.
Says Gray:
I’m most interested in the atheists who’ve seriously asked what it’s like to live in a godless world.
Not to construct some alternative God, like reimagining humanity as some collective agent that manifests itself through history or science or some other redemptive force.
His remarks again presage Dawkins’ recent revision, as the staunch critic of faith realizes what the godless world he has long advocated may actually look like. It is one in which the word “woman” is controversial, and therefore excluded from maternity care.
It is one in which governing elites, being hostile to one God but not others, will permit and even encourage the transplanting of anti-Christian religions into the lands of Christendom.
Gray’s critique reveals that the idea of human moral progress is itself a myth, and is careful to highlight the danger of the belief that science can provide moral guidance. In a time when manifest evil is celebrated as progressive, and when propaganda compels people to “follow the science” to predictable harm and even death, Gray’s words continue to have resonance.
It is a shame that the deluded atheists and followers of science do not more often read his devastating appraisal of the dangers of making a religion of Man.
With the admission of the power of Christianity as a force for good in the world, perhaps Dawkins’ own followers will awaken to the dangers of a godless world they mistook for a manmade paradise.