You probably have heard the quip attributed to the famous Christian writer G. K. Chesterton concerning atheists, “He who does not believe in God will believe in anything.”[1] The unfortunate truth resonating in this wisdom finds yet another exponent in the Oxford-sanctioned senselessness of atheist Richard Dawkins. What is the atheist’s great burden of our generation? Humanism? No. Human rights? No. Actually, it is Gorillas’ Rights. Don’t believe it? Watch the video here.

After a 40-second intro displaying mountain gorillas in a bamboo soirée with background music seemingly stolen from a bad early-90’s cop-drama love scene, the mini-production unceremoniously switches to Dawkins sitting with a distant stare ready to explain the horrors of “speciesism.” This moral emergency, Dawkins tells, is the modern equivalent of racism or sexism; but since “Humans beings are not just like great apes, they are great apes,” the atheist figures that our rules forbidding discrimination against other humans should logically extend to other species, in this case gorillas.

Let us embark on a journey following the atheist’s logic. If, after all, we are great apes, then the brotherhood of man in reality is the brotherhood of all primates. But why stop there? If the alleged evolutionary tree extends not just through apes, but other animals as well, then why not have a brotherhood of all animals? Sound too extreme? I actually saw one responder on Dawkins’ site admit that the logic of it all had driven him to vegetarianism—and he was proud of it.

Of course, the logical question arises as to where do we draw the line? Since the evolutionary tree supposedly extends all the way back to plants, algae, and protozoa, then we should not kill or eat those things either, right? Never kill a fly? Never chlorinate a pool? Never sanitize drinking water (that would kill trillions of living organisms—our living kin!)? Never stop streptococcus, salmonella or influenza (these are not infections, but family. Be a nice host, now—put out some cookies!)? Is this the great atheist commandment: never harm another living being, even if you starve or succumb to microbial infestation?

Dawkins is no dummy: He tackles the argument for cabbages’ rights, too. He deftly reasons, “We have kind of a continuum. There’s a sliding scale from gorillas and chimpanzees, being very close to us, and cabbages being a very long way away; and there’s no reason why we should erect a wall—we should erect a fence—at any particular place.” Forgive me if I missed something obvious, but did he not just refute his own position? If the charge is that there is no rationale for not including all species—beast, broccoli and bacteria alike—in this morality called “speciesism,” and Dawkins “answers” this by saying there is no reason why we should draw a line at any given place in the evolutionary tree, then hasn’t he conceded the argument?

Yes he has, and he realizes this. He just pulled the rug of reason out from under himself, banged his head on the floor of reality, and he leaves all of our heads spinning with the explanation that follows. His now reasonless rationale relies purely on emotions: “There are some animals that there is some reason to think can suffer—can think, can reason, can suffer emotion—which deserve, and must have, a greater moral consideration from us than other animals.” Note this well: Dawkins has admitted that the atheist’s case for morality is based purely on emotions. Moral rules must, therefore, extend to those animals which we deem capable of suffering emotionally.

For one thing, we have very little ability to tell where to draw this new line—for example, it may not be too hard to accept a gorilla emotionally suffering, but what about a cow, sheep, pig, or what about a cat? What about an alligator or snake? A Chinchilla? A kangaroo? Or a squirrel? Whale? Do these have emotions? Do they suffer emotionally, or just physically? As well, the idea of emotional suffering being the basis of morality itself has fundamental problems. Does this mean that if a majority of people are angry at a certain species, then it is acceptable to exterminate? Or if a member of a lower sentient species becomes angry and attacks a human, then can we defend ourselves? Or are we obligated to respect the attacker’s emotions? I’m not sure. I recall this news story where an elderly hiker was attacked by a mountain lion: his wife literally beat the big cat off with a log. Was she in the wrong for causing the animal suffering?

Dawkins’ plea for leveling the moral playing field to the emotional level of apes debases human rights, makes the sanctity of life a purely pragmatic issue, and more philosophically to the point, it is entirely arbitrary. Why, pray tell, should anyone—given that they believe in no Supreme Judge—respect anything about anyone else, let alone an ape. Who says? Dawkins? The ape? If I am an atheist, I have no ruler but me.

On the practical side, the “emotional” test fails just a miserably. In an atheist world, there is no compulsion to respect emotions, or anything else for that matter. A human is just a means to your ends, and an ape is food, clothing, merchandise, sport, or whatever you want it to be, regardless of how it “suffers” emotionally in the process. It may suit us to protect an ape, or it may not. Why should we care if the sheep bleats when being sheared, or when being slaughtered? Why care when the gorilla falls lifeless, and its baby is sold for a pet? One less gorilla, true; but one more happy consumer. The gorilla only suffers briefly, and the consumer probably entertains himself a short while, so the emotions balance out. The only reason we feel pity when a mother gorilla is shot, and her baby gorilla is stripped from her dead arms, is because we project those qualities into our own condition, and imagine what it would be like if the same thing happened to us; but this brings up an issue very uncomfortable to the atheist.

By “emotions,” I believe Dawkins means something like sympathy or empathy, which can best be formulated as a moral rule like this: “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you.” The atheist’s discomfort with this language comes from the fact that it is Christian morality pure and simple. In fact, these are the very words of Christ in Matthew 7:12. Dawkins believes in this system of morals, but dares not mention its source, as it would reveal him as one more thief of religious ideas. So, he assumes Christian morality in order to push his version of Darwinism.

Jesus concludes the passage, however, not by relying on emotions or by speaking of the interconnectedness of all species, but by saying, “for this is the Law and the Prophets.” The love of neighbor is the culmination of God’s law which was revealed and given to man. Our respect for one another and the empathy that we feel comes from being created in God’s image. We project that image wherever we can, naturally, because it is part of our moral conscience. For this reason, we do not empathize with carrots or cabbages, because we cannot even begin to project the image of God onto those species. Unlike Dawkins, whose atheism and Darwinism force him to draw arbitrary lines between living things, the Christian system of morality stems from being created in God’s image, and our innate ability to project that image onto others.

With this, the Christian system gives an objective basis for morality, where Dawkins is left with none. He admits, “It’s very hard to make a purely scientific case for conserving any particular species. . . . The only case I can make is an emotional case; and what’s wrong with that? We are emotional beings. I feel emotional about it.”

I have shown what is wrong with that. If Dawkins gets his wish to change the course of humanity with a 400-page screed against Christianity, and by making moral appeals for all of humanity on the basis of “I feel emotional about it,” then global turmoil and mass upheaval cannot be far off. When the next generation of leaders, governments, armies, fingers on nuclear buttons, would-be-criminals, and maybe even gorillas learns that the phrase “I feel emotional about it” can justify their actions, then terrorists will crawl this globe like ants on an anthill. Civilization will disappear, so will gorillas; fear will be the emotion of the day.

Dawkins’ explanation was meant to help support the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund. Fossey was a Jane Goodall type who left civilization to live among the mountain Gorillas in Zaire. She earned the trust of the apes, which accepted her into their group. When one of her favorite apes was shot by “poachers” (A side-note: when the animal in question is beloved by some activist group or government, then hunters are called “poachers.” When the animal becomes populous and/or troublesome, then hunters are called “hunters,” or even government marksmen. At that point, a “poacher” is someone who cooks cracked eggs in simmering water, as is should be) Fossey began her foundation to raise money for protecting gorillas. All of this can be found on Fossey’s website, were we learn that seven years after she began fighting poachers, Fossey was found murdered in her cabin in Zaire.

A tragedy like this is instructive. To the “speciesist” world, the killing of gorillas is a tragedy on par with murdering a human. But, as we have seen, when the foundations of Darwinist morality are exposed as non-existent, and the line erased between man and beast, then the tables turn: the killing of a human is just one more instance of natural animal cruelty. Someone “felt emotional about” Fossey’s obstruction of their efforts, and they gratified that emotion. Without stealing moral rules from the Christian worldview, the atheist has no moral complaint. I, for one, can be outraged by such a murder, and can demand justice, based on the law of God. Dawkins can say nothing but what he feels.

The atheist concludes,

“On strictly scientific grounds, there’s no reason why the earth shouldn’t simply blow itself up now. . . . You can’t prove scientifically that that’s wrong. Wrong and right are not things that you can prove scientifically.”

I am delighted that Dawkins admits the failure of atheism and science to provide any moral basis at all, or even prevent immorality on the grandest scale. But since he has automatically refused God and religion as sources of moral and ethical knowledge, he is forced to fall back on his emotions. We have seen the failure, relativism, and utter pointlessness of using emotions as a basis of morality. Dawkins should be ashamed of doing so; and I wonder if he feels very emotional about that.

In all of this, Dawkins never ceases to refute himself. For with the charge of wishful thinking, he critiques religious believers in his book The God Delusion: “Admittedly, people of a theological bent are often chronically incapable of distinguishing what is true from what they’d like to be true.”[2]

While this may be true of some believers, perhaps they just “feel emotional about it”; and now we know that not only people of a “theological bent” are prone to emotional wonderlands. Atheists like Richard Dawkins are decidedly camped out there, too.