Why not “selfish atoms” rather than “selfish gene”?

Richard Dawkings is the perfect example of man of our times: he is critical, but not
self-critical. He is opposed to religion, but sees science absent of any critics. In the entire
history of mankind when any kind of social movement predominates there is some kind of
authoritarianism. So to leave science alone at the top of the world is as dangerous as was
leaving the Catholic Church was alone at the top of middle age or Nazism, on top of
Europe, 1945.
Therefore, the better life must be one in which there is a plurality of thoughts.
Moreover, there are scientists who believe in religion. The point in favor of Dawkings would
be to realize that he might be surrounded by a predominance of religion over science.
Maybe he does not wish the end, but in his book and documentary (ilusion Gods) is exactly
what it seems.
I myself am not favor to religion, but I recognize that while we make many discoveries,
there are always new mysteries. I do not know if a world without mysteries will be pleasant
to live. I hope so. But in my world, time does not exist, neither "I" (self or ego), gravity isn’t
a warping of space (empty) around bodies with a lot of mass. Will There be place for me in
a world that does not even accept to discuss these theories and says that Einstein was
100% right and I should not question it? Amen to Einstein, a new God?
Other issues that bother me about scientific dogmatism:
 1) Dawkings talk of selfish genes. Our bodies, thought, free will illusion (Dakings agree
with, but for other reasons) would be only wrappers protection of those who really rule,
n that is, the genes (dna). But if genes are molecules and molecules are composed of
atoms, which really is the boss? Atoms! But if they are made of quarks ... whom
orders, are not the quarks? And science would be willing to test another hypothesis:
that what we see as elementary particles could not just be ridges or waves of a
continuous ocean? Probably, the scientists of this generation (of Dawkings) die for his
theories, like the crusaders trying achievements to Jerusalem, the kingdom of heaven
on earth! We can not forget that because of biology, Dawkings can not assume selfish
atoms, even if your reason to indicate that. It is the esprit de corps (which includes
more funding for research) that leads him to believe in that biological theory.

2) The science, since Freud, has never proven the existence of an "I" (self or ego)
inside our heads. Just suppose, like religion, which presupposes the existence of God.
By the way, I asked my students (first year of high school) last week to drawing God:
they did, as a man, male, with beard (!) It is strange that Dawkings opposed to faith,
reject free will, yet he believe we are a unit or that there is in us a drive, an "I". Indeed,
it is not explicit about it. Is his "selfish gene" is a soldier is (part of a new Cruzade) as
an individual of a species or only one selfish entity? But is there a individual entities if
science itself says that every six years our cells are completely new?
3) how conscious beings, that reflect about universe and (rare times) about themselves
has emerged in the universe? Can the inorganic originate organic things and from the
unconscious beings to conscious ones? Maybe we should think of a pantheistic view:
what religions call God is the universe itself, and in my opinion, we need not pray to a
deity, because we're such a deity.

Antonio Jaques de Matos

Philosophy Teacher
Porto alegre city, August, 15, 2010