Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man, highly educated in his field, internationally recognized by more universities and fellowships than you can shake a stick at.
But he's also a complete jerk.
Now, I've never met Dawkins, so I'll admit that my opinion of him is based on secondary sources - interviews, documentaries, books, etc... - as opposed to an actual one-on-one interaction with the man, but I think it's pretty safe to say he's not a very nice man, especially if the way he treats Christians is any indication of his true character.
"Faith is a deliberate process of non-thinking and there is a profound contradiction between science and religious belief."- Dawkins, in The God Delusion as well as other places.
"Faith is not allowed to justify itself by argument."- Dawkins, in "Lecture from the Nullifidian"
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no other good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."- Dawkins, from Out of Eden
"The universe is nothing but a collection of atoms in motion, human beings are simply machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object's sole reason for living."- Dawkins, "Growing Up in the Universe" lecture series
In his "Viruses of the Mind" essay, Dawkins compares theistic belief (specifically Christianity) to a computer virus which must be eradicated in order to further the advancement of the human race, because as it stands now, we're shackled by a primitive belief in a God on equal footing with the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
Now, here's the point I'd like to make about Dawkins himself: by reducing faith to an absurdist position that cannot be defended by argument, Dawkins sets himself up as the clear victor in any discussion of theism versus atheism. In fact, the majority of Dawkins' prowess as a debater is based solely on the fact that he quite famously refuses to debate Creationists. Despite any other flaws he may have, Dawkins is no idiot. He sets up ground rules that are designed to automatically put him above any reproach from anyone who disagrees with him.
First, he dismisses any logical credibility of faith, completely dismissing the beliefs of Plato, Descartes, Kierkegaard, and countless other philosophers throughout history who assert (rightly) that logic itself is called into question in a non-theistic worldview. Dawkins himself even states that there is no rhyme or reason in this universe, removing his own foundation from under him.
Second, in his insistence that all life is merely the self-replicating and purposeless dance of DNA, if we follow that to its logical conclusion (which, again, Dawkins has already pointed to), then good and evil are completely arbitrary terms that have no basis in anything but the "blind pitiless indifference" of the universe - meaning that good and evil are merely the products of chance, devoid of any meaning. To insist, then, that a belief in God is evil is to deny my DNA the right to its own dance, and is quite a bit like insisting that any time a die lands with the 6 facing up, we should do everything within our power to make sure that the 6 never comes up again. And that's to say nothing of the DNA dance of Hitler.
Third (and this is where things get REALLY sticky), Dawkins completely oversteps the boundaries of any logic on either side of the discussion by insisting on the non-existence of God. Just because Dawkins' faith is that there is no God, that doesn't mean that it isn't still faith. Atheistic philosopher Kai Nielsen even says the following: "All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists." Dawkins ignores this point and takes a leap of faith into the realm of aggressive atheism which he adamantly insists is the only correct view for humanity.
Dawkins in fact is that which he claims to hate the most: a closed-minded intellectual bigot, insisting loudly that everyone recognize that he's right while refusing to entertain the notion that he even COULD be wrong.
And that's why I think I've decided to stop listening at the exact moment people begin to quote Dawkins.
If I were having a discussion with an atheist about the origins of life and only used the Bible as my proof text for Creation, I would - rightly - be laughed out of the room. If all I'm doing is quoting the same book over and over because I already believe what it says and it says what I already believe and I won't ever consider positions to the contrary, then I'm a closed-minded buffoon, a dark spot of ignorance on the countenance of Christianity, an easy target of ridicule from atheists eager to paint Christianity as a religion of ignorance.
But when an atheist dogmatically quotes Dawkins and goes out of the way to avoid conceding the POSSIBILITY that Dawkins might be wrong... that's enlightenment? That's intelligence? That's reasonable?
For all his scientific sound and fury, Dawkins still signifies nothing. Nowhere in his vehement hatred of the God he doesn't believe in has he laid out significant evidence for the non-existence of God. Understanding HOW a DNA strand is made doesn't have a thing in the world to do with WHY it was made.
Blessed are the meek... But does meekness mean I have to roll over and take it when the arguments presented against my faith are inherently absurd?
I don't know where the balance is. I don't know how to be humble in the face of the fact that I'm right. God is real. How do I say that with humility? When it comes to Dawkins, do I even have to worry about that? Is there a difference between arrogance and boldness?
How are we supposed to present the Truth when the world is so eager to believe a lie?
The next few posts are going to be about some of the God questions people have asked me. I know there's a lot of material out there from people way, way, WAY smarter than me, but it's gonna do me some good to write it all out and see the holes in my own thinking. And hopefully you'll join in on the conversation and let me know where I'm completely wrong. I know I've already got a few folks champing at the bit to support Dawkins, but that's to be expected. He's infallible, after all.
I don't know all the answers, but I do know the Truth, and I think that counts for a lot. I love you. Even if you quote Dawkins.
No comments:
Post a Comment