Dawkins Gets Angry
In researching the popular Richard Dawkins crusade against (primarily) the Bible, I ran across this amazing video in which Dawkins displays a rather mean-spirited attack against some poor college girl for asking the question: “What if you’re wrong?”
Why didn’t he answer the question? I’ve asked myself if I’m wrong. Someone can ask me the same. Is it forbidden?
He displays the dogmatism of the Dark Ages: dare not ask if I might be wrong! Geesh. The Vatican dealt with Galileo this way.
The crowd’s reaction was scary: they loved his hatred! It was reminiscent of Adolf’s crowd-pleasing outbursts at Nuremberg. He degrades the girl (was she a Christian as he claimed?), and then he rails angrily against the “the joo-joo monster” and “flying spaghetti monster”, but it wasn’t scientific reasoning. It was an incoherent outburst against imaginary beasts. Hitler employed this tactic against Jewish people: lashing out against monsters he labeled “Jews” which don’t exist in the real world.
Just FYI: it’s called the “Straw Man Argument” which is an crude logical fallacy, but it’s also mean-spirited. He pretends the silly “joo-joo monster” is in the Bible, which is unreasonable. It is the classic language of racism.
- The Shack Attack
- Drug Dealers and Legalists
For one thing, Dick Dawkins makes the mistake of assuming that every religious belief is equal in that they are all equally untrue. One has to wonder how he’s acquired such thorough knowledge. Now that he’s assumed this, he’s ready to point out how it doesn’t matter which religious view one believes in because, of course, they’re all untrue. Then he makes the assumption that one only believes what he or she believes because of the place one is born, which apparently makes him a follower of Maasai mythology because he was born in Nairobi.
Let’s turn the tables and assume Dawkins was a Christian and a naturalist asked him “what if you’re wrong?”:
What if I’m wrong? Anybody could be wrong. We could all be wrong about the theory of gravity, or the laws of thermodynamics. You just happen to be brought up in an age where you believe in the dependability of quantum physics. Why don’t you believe in astrology? It’s because you weren’t brought up in ancient Egypt. If you were born in Europe in the middle ages you’d believe in alchemy. If you were born in the Victorian age, you’d be studying phrenology. There’s no particular reason to believe in naturalism in which by the sheerest accident you happen to have been brought up and ask me “what if I’m wrong?” What if you’re wrong about a geocentric solar system?
People would have responded with, “you can’t just lump the theory of gravity and astrology together!”, or maybe “the facts of science aren’t just a matter of where or when you’re born!!” They would have a right to be outraged, because a worldview’s truth value is not simply a matter of what belief system you were born into, rather it depends on how close the belief corresponds to reality. Dick Dawkins first needs to show that all religious beliefs are false, and then he can rightly deduce that the consequences of those beliefs are insignificant.
Excellent points Jake. It’s nuts that he can’t even entertain the idea that he’s wrong. He’s not a truth seeker at all! He’s an agenda pusher!
Why exactly does he want to attack God and faith so much? I mean, I could guess at any number of reasons, but does anyone know if there is a particular reason he lashes out so violently?
He acts like that kid on the playground whose ego was threatened.
He’s often called the “Atheist Fundamentalist”, because he’s an angry atheist, and yes he is more into pushing an agenda than honest investigation. Look at the way he responds to the PBS guy who raises the issue of Dawkins turning people off more than educating anyone: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
Why would an atheist give a crap if someone is deluded or not? What’s the point, since there is no point?
Great issues raised, Jake!
Oh look at that! Brooksy comes out to play! Good to see you out here, Neil.