Richard Dawkins – the biologist, humanist, and author – is a well-known critic of religious faith. As he once put it, ‘Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.’
Traditional religion may have loosened its grip on society, certainly in the United Kingdom, but new quasi-religious ideologies are taking root in spaces that the churches have vacated. Earlier this month, Dawkins upset the transgender brigade by questioning their core beliefs. He Tweeted,
‘In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.’
It’s a very good question, though a better analogy might be transubstantiation. I’m perhaps best known for being a trans person and a scientist, but I am also a Christian. I disagree with Dawkins when he talks about faith being a mental illness. My mental health is strong and that is in part due to the purpose and perspective that comes from my faith. But I’m in the same boat as Dawkins regarding the bread and wine at the communion table: it is symbolic, certainly, but the literal body and blood of Christ, it is not.
Today, we can fortunately both make those claims without fear of sanction or cancellation by the traditional religious authorities. But question the ideology that men can become women by the power of thought alone and this new mob will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Two days later Dawkins clarified his comment, saying ‘I did not intend to disparage trans people.’
Dawkins didn’t disparage anyone, but he did upset the perpetually offended.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Don't miss out
Join the conversation with other Spectator readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.
UNLOCK ACCESSAlready a subscriber? Log in