Critically Assess Dawkins Claim That Since Life Is No More Than DNA Reproducing Itself There Can Be No Life After Death

Critically assess Dawkins claim that since life is no more than DNA reproducing itself there can be no life after death.
“People believe things they have been told to”. Dawkins claimed that it is unrealistic to suggest there is a life after death without any empirical evidence; people have created this false analogy that there is something more out there without much evidence. Seeing as there is no God and no one has seen him clearly suggested to Dawkins that there isn’t one and the religious ideas surrounding life after death are falsifiable. To him the afterlife was that of a “delusion of the next world”. Dawkins was a very intelligent man and to him belief in the afterlife was illogical and implausible. He claimed life was no more than DNA reproducing itself. Are his claims surrounding life after death not realistic when we take empirical evidence in to account?
In his famous bestselling book (River out of Eden) the famous scientist Richard Dawkins explained why he believed as he did that life is no more than DNA and why the thought of an afterlife is unrealistic. He spoke of the soul and held a strong opinion believing we are genes and there is not really any need for a soul. Similarly we are here to carry genes, digital information and so DNA. “Life is just bytes and bytes of digital information”. The River out of Eden could be called the River of DNA and genes. It is here where Dawkins suggests our genes/DNA have kept flowing through the river causing us to survive. He claims we inherit our genes from successful people i.e. our ancestors who survived long enough to pass on the gene/digital information. Many rivers have come to an end and those who were part of that river have become extinct. This is where his theory relates to survival of the fittest, where the strongest who have the strongest genes survive whilst the weaker become extinct and there river comes to an end. The river itself is a digital river. Genes themselves are pure digital information which can be encoded, recorded or decoded and without genes we would not exist. As to him every cell in our body contains the equivalent of forty six immense data types. Each cell has a different purpose; he suggested this is why muscle cells are different to liver cells. Dawkins suggested humans are “Robot vehicles blindly programmed to be selfish”. He felt no need to believe in any religion as he said ‘x’ may be comforting but just because it is comforting doesn’t necessarily make it true. He believed that there is something within humans that makes them feel the need for something, something to comfort them and act as a security blanket. Dawkins claimed those who believe in God and heaven believe this for their own security.
Dawkins point of view sits well with those that believe God is merely an idea that has been created by people that want to believe there is something more out there. To Dawkins, belief in God is fiction. Therefore people who are atheists will find his theory beneficial and therefore agree with it. His theory is logical as it relies on science and scientific research that has benefitted civilisation in the past therefore there has to be truth to what Dawkins has put forward. It seems logical to agree with what Dawkins has suggested as it has scientifically been proven that cells do differ, this relates to his work on liver and muscle cells. His work is based on science and science isn’t likely to be wrong. Some may find his theory slightly robotic as humans are more than just DNA. He says we are “bytes and bytes of DNA”, are we not more than just genetic makeup? Dawkins theory doesn’t explain why humans are emotional. To him emotions would be inefficient as they cloud our genetic processes and are in fact pointless. . “Robot vehicles blindly programmed to be selfish”, his theory is very negative and sees humans as being that care for themselves and less for others. This isn’t the case for all making his theory weaker. As humans are so unique and to say we are robots is a false statement and quiet ignorant in my opinion. His work is based on science and science can be proven to be wrong. In 1869 it was suggested that DNA wasn’t the key to hereditary or our genetic makeup. It was thought that protein was that which held information. Scientists thought that the amount of information that DNA has to carry was way too much so they came to this conclusion. This has been disproven as today we know that DNA is what carries our genetic makeup. Therefore this weakens the amount of faith one has in scientists proving theories as in the past they have been wrong and many believed wrong for years. Therefore can we really trust Richard Dawkins; scientist, who claims life, is no more than DNA reproducing itself? Many would argue against this point and claim that just as scientists have been wrong in the past, without their discoveries the world would be blind and know nothing with regards to DNA, genes, molecules, chemical processes, gravity ect. Scientists have given us truth and knowledge. One could argue they have given us more truth and knowledge about the world than what God has given us
Dawkins also held views regarding the problem of evil and found the problem of evil a very persuasive argument against deities/God. He said there is no obvious reason to presume that God will be good. He raises the question “why do you think any God, good or evil exists”? He claimed that God is shown as jealous in the Old Testament which are attributes of someone or something that is evil rather than good. Dawkins would suggest, why do natural and moral evils exist if God is all good?
Humans do have our own discretion and to Dawkins it seems that this is a negative rather than positive as evils occur in the world because of this. If we picture what the world would be like if Dawkins theory was right human would be robots only surviving, driven by the thought of not becoming extinct. His theory is unrealistic as humans do have freewill and they do as they wish. Therefore God is good as he has given us the ability to love and be happy. God has blessed us all and we are his children “God breathed life in to all”. Therefore God must be good. On the other hand natural evils occur causing devastation. God can cause sea levels to rise, causing people’s homes to flood. “If God is a good God, then why so much evil”? God has given humans freewill which can both be a negative as well as a positive. Human do bad deeds hurting other humans, moral evils. God could intervene and stop this but he doesn’t. If God is Omni- benevolent why does he allow moral evils to occur? God is also suggested to be jealous in the Bible, shying away from his goodness. Dawkins theory seems more realistic when we asses Gods goodness. Dawkins doesn’t believe in God therefore he will predominantly focus on negative attributes of God but in my opinion if God is so perfect why or how can anyone say or think any negative things of him. Meaning God is so good so in theory how can a God so good have anyone thinking or suggesting he is not good. This shy’s away from his omnipotence as well as goodness. God isn’t all bad. He has many good attributes to him. Dawkins focuses on the negative aspects of God trying to make his theory seem more realistic. Jesus dying on the cross for Christians and salvation. This shows Gods goodness. It was suggested that God causes natural evils such as floods but science has proven that many floods are caused by humans and exploitation of resources; therefore we could say floods are the result of human intervention. Other philosophers have views regarding the problem of evil. Iranaeus thought humans were created in the image of God and therefore God loves us all. We were created in his image but not his likeness. Thus, God allows evil and suffering in the world in order for us to develop our moral character. The world is a “vale of soul making”John Hick. Augustine’s thinking focused on religion and the Old Testament (Genesis). He said the moral evils within our world today are here because Adam and Eve and there moral evil. Where an apple was picked from the forbidden tree. This act has led to the destruction of nature and evil is a result of the one action/evil they did. Therefore Iraneus and Augustine’s thinking makes Dawkins theory on life after death seem less logical.
Dawkins view on the soul was very different to Plato’s idea of the soul. Dawkins said the actual idea of a ‘soul’ is a mythological concept invented by ancients to explain the mysteries of consciousness. Plato’s view of the soul was predominant throughout his theory and without belief in the soul Plato’s theory wouldn’t exist. Plato spoke of the soul quit highly and when he talked about the distinction between the body and soul he said the soul was the most important of the two as it is what lives on and goes to the other world when the physical body dies and decays. The soul shall return to the world of the forms, which is what you could say is a person’s life after death. Whilst, on the other hand Dawkins view on the soul differs. He goes on to talk about the idea of ‘soul one’ and ‘soul two’. Soul one was described as a non physical vital principle. It is the traditional view of a principle of life, a real separate thing that is spiritual and contains personality. He goes on to talk about soul two. His starting point for soul two started from the Oxford dictionary, soul two is described as that which is of intellectual, spiritual power and he said that this is the meaningful way in describing us. Dawkins was fonder of soul 2.
When Plato and Dawkins view on the soul are compared it seems apparent that Dawkins view will be seen as the more realistic view because Plato’s idea on the soul, to many is seen as very presumptuous. Many would disagree with Plato’s theory therefore making Dawkins theory stronger. As to believe in Plato’s theory you have to believe in the world of the forms and many agree that the world of the forms is an unrealistic belief. Dawkins view was created a long time after Plato’s view therefore people of our generation will be more likely to believe Dawkins view as he is from the same generation as us, so he relates to us more. Many see Richard Dawkins as influential and respect him therefore will agree with his work and so agree with his definition of the soul. In addition making his argument stronger and suggesting his theory is more likely to be true.
Dawkins view may not be true as there is evidence to suggest that there is a life after death. Near death experiences occur and are common amongst resuscitation patients and many suggest we are more than just physical beings. As some have suggested they see themselves (physical body) , hovering above their physical body. This suggests there is a life after death as patients have said they have seen a bright light and they believe this is heaven/purgatory. More than 60% of the population in the U.K believe there is something more after we die, therefore many believe in some kind of life after death. Over 60% the country cannot be wrong (universal belief). These points weaken Dawkins point of view. Dawkins has suggested we are just DNA and after we die there is nowhere our soul goes, he suggests it is the end for us. What would Dawkins say with regards to paranormal experiences, mediums and psychics? Many have claimed to speak to their loved ones after they have passed. The soul must go on and go somewhere if people are claiming to speak to their loved ones. There is also evidence for ghostly activity, suggesting a person’s spirit lives on after the physical death of the body. Kant would agree that there has to be an afterlife where morally good people are rewarded for being good. The summon bonum cannot be achieved on Earth therefore has to be achieved somewhere. There are many points that are in favour of a life after death. Therefore making Dawkins view that there is no life after death weaker.

Hick’s replica theory seeks to establish that life after death is logically possible regardless of whether humans have souls or not. Hick believed in a soul but not in the same way many do, he suggested the soul was the actual identity of the person (SOS). Hick said that it is possible for there to be a number of worlds, each in its own space which is observed by God. In simple terms the Replica theory is where there is a ‘replica’ of a deceased person in another space. An example of this is “a person disappears from (A) and reapers at (B)”. The person has the same mental and physical characteristics. Therefore Hick believed in life after death. The person who appears in (B) will forget everything that they knew previously in their past life. It is logically possible regardless of whether humans have souls that there is a life after death. Due to Gods omnipotence he could recreate us somewhere else. Therefore this is further evidence for a life after death weakening Dawkins theory.
There is also evidence to suggest there isn’t a life after death. Some agree belief in an afterlife is wishful thinking, as Dawkins suggested. It has been suggested that it is human psychology that has made human create this idea with no proof. Hume did also highlight a valid point suggesting due to the fragility of our mind can it not be destroyed at the time of death? Without the mind what will a person do if hypothetically the afterlife did exist? So it does seem highly likely the mind will be destroyed and so the afterlife is less likely to exist. Philosopher Anthony Flew suggested to talk of life after death is self contradictory i.e. it doesn’t make sense “can a man witness his own funeral”. Other philosophers such as Bertrand Russell agreed and said belief in the afterlife was wishful thinking. “All that constitutes a person is a series of experiences connected by memory and by certain similarities of the sort we call habit”. Therefore these views and points favour Dawkins and his view that there is no life after death.
In conclusion I would agree with Epicurus who would take a ‘who cares’ approach. As in my opinion people should do good to others and not worry about the fact that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for the good deed. They should just do good to others. People shouldn’t think about life after death. “Death is of no concern to us”. As people will change their behaviour if they know there is an afterlife and so they are not intrinsically good within. I do however agree that with knowing there is an afterlife people will less likely sin, (murder) therefore obviously there is a positive aspect to knowing. However why I disagree with knowing there is an afterlife is because I do not know whether humans are good for their own self and care not for God or if they care for God and so are good in themselves.
“We will have to wait and see.”

Would we not be happier and less peole would die if we followed as dawkins is suggestion