Of course, I have long been aware that Richard Dawkins inspires a great deal of vitriol to be launched in his general direction, but being generally inclined to surround myself with more sensible people, before last week I had never met a Dawkins hater in real life. My best friend Hannah is a liberal Christian who is more than tolerant of my rants about organised religion and my adulation of various atheist “rockstars” (read: scientists. Yes, I am a geek. Deal with it.) and she even owns a copy of the God Delusion. And no, before you ask, I didn’t buy it for her.
However, last week I met up with a friend who, when I proudly boasted that I had dined with Dawkins, on my recent trip to Atlanta, spat out something along the lines of “oh, don’t get me started on Dawkins”. It caught me unaware, and so I launched into my typical fangirl response of “oh, he’s such a nice guy in real life… blahblahblah…” when she said “so are a lot of Catholic priests. That doesn’t excuse them anything”. Now, dear readers, it may surprise you (as much as it surprised me) to learn that I didn’t have a witty or cutting comment to hand, and since I had been 35 minutes late for dinner, I figured it would be better not to say anything so I simply ate my food quietly.
In bed later on, more than a little bit tipsy, I mulled this encounter round and round in my mind. How can she not like Dawkins? No less, how can someone who I previously held in high esteem not only not like him, but actually think he is a vile person? And how did we finish all that wine???
I assumed that she is not a petty enough person to launch into an attack for silly reasons such as his penchant for hawaiian shirts, so there must be legitimate ground for hatred. Or must there? Let’s consider.
The vast majority of those who consider Dawkins to be “arrogant” “militant” (or any of the other disparaging words that are thrown towards these “New” atheists) are those who have a) never read his books and b) never seen him speak live. Their perceptions are distorted by the media (coughdailymailandtelegraphcough) who present people such as Dawkins, Hitchens et al in a hugely unfavourable light.
Even in England, atheism is still seen as a bit distasteful. Despite a majority of the population not believing in a god, actually standing up to religion is a no no. The minute you question organised religion you are cast as an arrogant atheist. And this is why atheists shouldn’t just shut up. When the pope says something grossly offensive or misleading, people tend to ignore it, accept it, accept that the pope is an idiot or otherwise absorb it. However, when Dawkins says something half as offensive, he is seen as an affront to British values, morality, the safety of our children etc etc.
The whole situation is basically a gross double standard. I would like to think that my friend has a better reason for hating him…
… but I just can’t think of one.
8 Comments
May 9, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Most of the objections I hear against him are based on the idea that he ‘preaches’ atheism, trying to convert us to his belief system just like any church does. Having not read his books (yet) I’m not yet sure whether or not it’s true to say that, but it poses a difficult question for atheists generally.
If so much of what we dislike about religion is its conversion aspect how can we justify trying to make other people “see the light” and live without religion? And if that’s not something we want to do, then what is the point in books like The God Delusion and events like Camp Quest?
May 26, 2009 at 5:03 pm
People should always be aware of ‘cults’ and group think. No doubt there are people who act as if atheism were a religion; preaching, are intolerant of religious people (rather than religion) and those who feel that as ‘atheist’ we should group together to fight religion (us-against-them).
These people help the theist argument that ‘atheism’ is just another religion by behaving like a collection of people who share a common belief that has a (loose) faith framework.
I don’t need to waffle about how the atheist position, upsets all theists so attracts a greater level of concern.
( I’ve been reading other stuff recently so my memory is fuzzy but,) Richard Dawkins doesn’t preach atheism, rather simply highlights the flaws in religion and offer an alternative explaination. Although blunt, I’ve yet to hear anything from Dawkins to warrent the ‘MILITANT ATHEIST’ term that theist love to use. Yes he is sure of his position, talks about it positively and doesn’t kowtow to others of opposing view points.
Camp Quest, rather than “teach that religious belief and doctrines can prevent ethical and moral behaviour” (an anti-religion message) seeks to provide children with the tools and understanding to help them decide for themselves what is “true” (critical thinking).
Rather than the theist hype that Camp Quest is anti-religion, I see it more as a science/philosophy camp to get kids thinking and asking questions rather than simply accept things on face value.
An example, I have discussed things with other intelligent atheist people and arrived at the topic of the monarcy when they suddenly revert to weak theist/faith type arguments to keep one family in a privileged position (usually along the lines of tourism, history, xenophobia).
Hopefully Camp Quest would help children to ask themselves “Why do I believe this?” – I often think about a christian kid coming to CQUK and leaving more sure of his religion!
Camp Quest – http://www.camp-quest.org.uk
June 29, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Well done on CQ, Samantha!!
Richard Dawkins is one of the most intelligent and sane people I have ever met. But he speaks out – and of course many people would prefer he didn’t rock the boat.
So when Christians attack him, with their ridiculous insults and “non-evidence-based” assertions (not to mention threats of Hell), he feels obliged to reply – sometimes.
There is a genuine threat to Scientific literacy around the world – because of Religion. To those of us who treasure the Scientific method- this is a global tragedy. So anyone who stands up for rigour and evidence and reason is to be valued and supported. Remember – it has been suggested that if it weren’t for European Christianity in the Dark Ages, we might have had a cure for cancer and a man on the moon by the 8th Century AD!!
No believer feels secure when their belief is challenged – because deep down they all know they can’t back it up with rational arguments. All they can do is fall back on the “I know it’s true – I feel it’s true” position.
And people who are insecure lash out when they’re backed into a corner. So I think Religious Believers are lashing out – like rats in a corner. Victory to Reason – Yeay!!
June 30, 2009 at 6:39 pm
I disagree with Richard complicitly.
The banding of people together under the guise of atheism isn’t nearly sufficient to transform it into a religion.
Things such as the canonization of science do.
And, as for Richard Dawkins being one of the most intelligent and sane people Mr Mather has ever met, I suppose I just have this to say:
I know the difference between astrology and racism. Do you?
July 1, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Canonization of science? Or just the only dependable method we have for finding objective truth? It’s tried, it’s tested. It works. Religions, superstitions, – they all depend on unverifiable assertions swallowed by gullible people. And by people who think that because something was said hundreds of years ago – or by men with long beards – that makes it more true.
As for your strange question about astrology and racism… I will answer it with a question. Do you know the difference between Astrology and Astronomy?
One misleads, wastes time, causes heartache, earns cash from gullible people, and produces totally different results depending on who practises it. Do you know which?
Interestingly, if you add G’s at the beginning, it still kinda makes sense too.
July 5, 2009 at 12:53 am
Mr Mather,
The question I would ask of you is this:
Do you honestly believe that science has never been “swallowed by gullible people”?
The interesting thing about a question like this, in terms of epistemic virtue, is that the factuality of a particular scientific claim actually matters little in terms of determining whether or not someone who accepted it were simply gullible.
For example, if someone were to believe that you can catch AIDs from a toilet seat because a scientific study says so, would that person not be gullible?
Now, imagine that such a scientific study actually existed. You and I both know this to not be true. But imagine that some extremely poorly-conducted study purported to provide evidence for such a claim.
Would you consider someone who accepted such a claim to be gullible? I suspect some would.
There is, naturally, numerous other ways that someone could evaluate such a claim for its factuality or lack thereof. One could evaluate it against other studies. One could even attempt to replicate the study itself in order to confirm or discard its findings.
The question I would really like to ask you is: have you have ever, or have you always, done either one of these things? Or could you yourself be duped into believing something counter-factually simply because someone calling themselves a scientist told you it was so?
Now, that being said, yes I do know the difference between astronomy and astrology. I prefer the former to the latter hands down.
Although, I do find astrology to be good entertainment. And, no, I don’t feel discriminated against simply because I was born in June.
I just thought I’d ask that particular question because Richard Dawkins doesn’t seem to know the difference between astrology and racism at all.
August 2, 2009 at 3:54 pm
A counter-question for Mr Ross. Is it possible to deny the truth of racism without also denying the truth of astrology? I can’t think of any standard of evidence that would label racism as pseudoscience without also labelling astrology as pseudoscience. Seen through the lens of philosophy of science, they’re equally daft.
Pragmatically, astrology is generally less scary than racism. But it does occasionally cause harm to individuals and groups. It’s only when everyone knows astrology isn’t true that it becomes a safe form of “good entertainment” – otherwise it’s just another form of dangerous nonsense.
Sadly, many people take this sort of superstition rather seriously. I work with some of them, and I’m counting down the days until they get scammed out of their savings by some bogus psychic or spiritualist.
August 19, 2009 at 9:12 pm
I’ve not met RD, and am happy to hear that he’s personable in person (so to speak). It was precisely reading his books that turned me off his pan-media persona.
I was reading his books to broaden my range of input on creationism/evolution (having been brought up the former and now accepting the latter), but found their style too slanted and anti-religious to be helpful in taking on board the hard information I was after (“Just the fact ma’am, just the facts”).
I guess the stylistic problems I had with his writing would be next to invisible to readers coming from the a stand point closer to his own.
See also Prothero’s “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters” for a more extreme example of self-undermining work which appears to be fine to skeptic and evolutionist reviewers, whilst coming across as pointlessly offensive in many places to me.