Dawkins Hypocritical On Christian Idealism And Hate
The Conversationalist — By danstrau on January 29, 2010 at 3:52 pmRichard Dawkins is being his usual, polemical self again, this time analyzing Pat Robertson’s comments that the Haitian earthquake resulted from a Haitian pact with the devil:
“Needless to say, milder-mannered faith-heads are falling over themselves to disown Pat Robertson, just as they disowned those other pastors, evangelists, missionaries and mullahs at the time of the earlier disasters. What hypocrisy. Loathsome as Robertson’s views undoubtedly are, he is the Christian who stands squarely in the Christian tradition.”
This a guy who claims to be extremely concerned about the ideological evils of religion, but, is actually more ideological than just about everyone. He loves to take a complex, multifaceted phenomenon like religion and reduce it to a single dimension. For him, Christianity is nothing but a dangerous sham, and Christians just a bunch of deluded dupes who revel in judgment and condemnation. And he thinks that by whipping out a couple carefully selected scriptural references, he can show there’s no disputing his point.
The reality is that Christianity – and all religions for that matter – have the potential both to harm and to help. Their scriptures, flaws and all, don’t fix the nature of these religions for all eternity. Religions are complex, evolving phenomena, not the monolithic hate-machines Dawkins thinks they are. Not every Christian is a Pat Robertson (sadly, some are), but that doesn’t make them not Christian. Dawkins shouldn’t condemn all Christians for what the ones who spew hate say.
Now, I’m not out to defend or attack either scientific atheism or religion; each has its merits and its faults, and they are what they are. The problem is that Dawkins doesn’t represent the open-minded, rational worldview he pretends to espouse, but instead displays the very uncritical, ideological mindset he decries as so dangerous. And it is dangerous. The sad thing is Dawkins isn’t doing anything to get rid of it.
–Aaron Bekemeyer
3 Comments
Elton,
I’d like to think I’m not “clearly…completely ignorant” of Dawkins positions. I’m not necessarily bashing atheism in general (to say nothing of my own beliefs), just the contradictions/inconsistencies in Dawkins’ own position. From your comment, I think we can actually agree that he isn’t the ideal atheist spokesperson and that there are flaws in the message he delivers.
I’ll admit that I’m not familiar with the entire Dawkins corpus, and perhaps my comment that he “loves to take a complex, multifaceted phenomenon like religion and reduce it to a single dimension” was a bit strong. He certainly isn’t stupid, and I should give credit where credit is due (i.e., re: his research and line of argumentation). He does make some good points.
However, as far as his media image goes, I wouldn’t totally ignore his agency in that arena. He writes what he publishes, he’s involved in marketing it, and he did choose to publish this particular article in the Washington Post. No doubt he cultivates a certain image and isn’t simply the victim of some kind of malicious media distortion.
Aaron
Aaron,
Yes, my only point was to give credit where credit is due.
I am by no means a Dawkins supporter, I am a large proponent of his philosophical ideals (a fair majority that is), but I believe his methods for translating them into the public eye are ineffective in many ways (and polarizing in others).
“Clearly and completely ignorant” was too rash of a statement. But I do believe to truly criticize Dawkins, much like any philosopher (and he is a philosopher over a scientist in many regards), one has to take into account his underlying ideas over his theories.
But I do agree that his use of publicity isn’t ideal. I don’t have enough knowledge of his public interactions to judge if they are hypocritical or not, but I will say that they are overly harsh towards organized religion.
So much so, that it brings both theists and atheists in bad light.
Elton
Clearly, you are completely ignorant of anything Dawkins stands for.
Dawkins is not the ideal atheist by any means. As a matter of fact, I believe that his methods for delivering the message of atheism is extremely counterproductive in many respects.
However, he is not a “guy who claims to be extremely concerned about the ideological evils of religion”. If you had taken the time to read any of his books, you would realize that his true opinions are not reflected in his media coverage (in the slightest).
Given, his mannerisms are extraordinarily unpleasant to the faithful, but they are justified by his reasoning (reasoning that I don’t personally agree with). He is a relatively conservative Atheist and he has ZERO patience with religion (once again, an opinion that I do not share).
However, he does not “[love] to take a complex, multifaceted phenomenon like religion and reduce it to a single dimension.” He analyzes it deeply, does a lot of research and thinking, and formulated a strong opinion with reasons to back it up. Even if you do not believe in what he says, please respect his willingness to do research on a topic (that he is not fond of) by doing some research of your own.
Elton