Tuesday, June 10, 2014

The prissy rage of Richard Dawkins

Courtesy of Shadow to Light's latest post, we have Richard Dawkins tweeting:
How dare you force your dopey unsubstantiated superstitions on innocent children too young to resist? How DARE you?
Dopey unsubstantiated superstitions? According to who - some ex-scientist Cult of Gnu bishop? Who gives a shit what he thinks?

But it's that faux rage, that 'how DARE you' he has going on, that really takes the cake. Goodness gracious, how DARE anyone raise their children with beliefs or morals that the great Richard Dawkins disapproves of!

Here's a better one: how dare this nasty little man, and people like him, lecture others about their decisions to raise their children with religious beliefs. How dare he fume in public with rage that others disagree with him about what's best for their children. And if ever the Cult of Gnu truly does attempt to interfere with parents raising their children, I hope the backlash is immediate and severe.

Let me be clear: if someone with Dawkins' mindset decides to make a religious upbringing grounds for penalizing parents or even taking their children away, I hope the backlash is that the people involved are immediately thrown in jail, and their own children - if they have any - are thereafter raised in a strictly religious household. I don't even particularly care which religion. Let it be Islamic if it comes to it.


Water into Whine said...

Not much disagreement with the final paragraph.

Acatus Bensley said...

Wow Crude. You are incredible. The flawless analysis, and all that. You deserve like a TV show or something, but you're probably a hermit.

By the way I never understood how a Gnu atheist could claim that ultimately life, matter, and existence were pointless while simultaneously feeling the most passionate about even the most insignificant issues such as mentions of God in the public realm. If you truly believe in nothing then behave like you believe in nothing. Why claim that it's the religious who are afraid of death when you're the one so adamant about avoiding it with technology? Why claim that instilling a child with a particular belief is malicious, when according to you life concludes not with a grand finale but inevitable oblivion? If there is no God or afterlife then what's preventing you from ending your life now rather then later? What's the difference when you factor in the grand scheme of it all? If you truly believe in nothing then post poning death seems like a very weak thing to do.reason do you gain personally from your disbelief? Scientific advancement only carries a temporary tangible benefit because according to you it ends nowhere.

Of course I've witnessed Gnu atheist claim that eventually humanity will become very powerful and basically the Gods of the universe. What that tells me is that essentially atheism is the paradoxical belief that a self sustaining, all knowing, and very powerful being doesn't exist; but through science and technological advancement we'll gain his attributes and become just like him. How is that any better than alternative which you for some reason find so ridiculous? God doesn't exist, but feeble minded humans have the potential to become him? Sounds like a plot device for a Marvel movie.

Crude said...

Well, I'm glad you enjoy the posts, Acatus. That's high praise, so thank you. Not much analysis here anyway, just irritation at the world's premiere blowhard.

How is that any better than alternative which you for some reason find so ridiculous? God doesn't exist, but feeble minded humans have the potential to become him? Sounds like a plot device for a Marvel movie.

If people believe it's possible to become God/a god, and they likewise believe in a multitude of universe with an infinite past, it seems to me that some kind of odd polytheism must be assumed to be true. I recall Frank Tipler flat out called that future-created-omnipotent-being God when talking about the Omega Point.

I imagine the reply is 'Why rush?' regarding the atheists and death. Oddly enough I don't often hear many saying 'I'm afraid', which seems like the obvious answer (and one you could dump all kinds of evolutionary psychology behind to begin with) but it doesn't come out easily.

Jakeithus said...

Despite the fact it may be true, you will never hear atheists as a group claim "I'm afraid" as the motivation behind their attempts at avoiding death. It would remove one of the most serious criticisms they have of religious belief, being that they have only come about due to an irrational fear of death.

If they were to admit that they too are afraid of death, they would have to admit that it is a rational fear (because no one is more rational than atheists of course). If it is a rational fear, and it can be shown that religious beliefs are effective (or more effective than naturalism) when it comes to helping individuals overcome this fear, then it would be wrong for them to criticize people for doing what is beneficial for them. If false beliefs can lead to greater happiness than true beliefs, than under a utilitarian moral system, trying to correct these false beliefs is an immoral act.

This wouldn't be a problem if atheism could be shown to be healthier or lead to more happiness than religion, but for all their bravado, I think most atheists would be too afraid to put this to the test. Because of this, they stick to the line that rational people (aka atheists) are not afraid of death, despite my own experience showing the reverse to be true.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Proving once again that Dawkins is the Church Lady of secularism. "Could it beeeee... RELIGION???" As a reader on my blog noted, Dawkins himself admits that morality is a collective social fiction, so his disdain for religion is both inconsistent and provincial. Even if we grant that all morality, religious or otherwise, is a social construct, the utilitarian in Dawkins would have to submit to the higher wisdom of the masses: religion makes people happy, healthy, and wise. The alternative is that we all end up more or less like Dawkins, and who would promote THAT on a large scale?

Crude said...


I recall Dawkins reversed on that and threw his hat behind Harris' morality view. On the other hand, Dawkins sort of turns whatever way the atheist winds are blowing at the time.


That seems accurate. I actually wrote about something on these lines before - superficially someone who thinks materialist atheism is most likely true should have theism (or just about any religion they wish) open to them as an option. Insofar as religion has been compared to irreligious lifestyles, at least one atheist thinks it's beneficial on multiple fronts.

Funny, isn't it, how most self-described atheists (and basically all New Atheists) you see coincidentally despise Christianity. It's almost as if their atheism isn't so much natural as directed against the one thing that bugs them most.

Acatus Bensley said...

I don't think a group parading itself as the warriors of reason have the right to be afraid of the dark. They've spent so much time trying to make people believe that they don't fear the unknown so they've sacrificed that luxury.

Take a minute to examine the circular logic of it all. We care about scientific advancement, ultimately life has no purpose, we're not afraid of the dark, but we're eager to circumvent death at all cost. It you don't fear the unknown then embrace it, if life has no ultimate purpose, then why is scientific advancement significant, and on top of it all trying to pretend that you're interest in science is rooted in a genuine curiosity rather than a fear of death. That last one really offends me. Like you said they'll never admit it, but the least they can do is stop being so pretentious. At least don't pretend to be motivated by a thirst for knowledge all the while swearing up and down that nothing truly has a purpose. Cowardice is your motivator; not bravery. Stop searching for an artificial afterlife to comfort you and embrace the darkness.

Speaking of serous criticisms of religious belief, the average atheist probably just saw a rule they didn't want to follow in the bible and stopped believing for that reason alone. You can't have a serious criticism of religious beliefs if you're reasons for disbelieving are worse than they were for believing. Sorry if I'm being repetitive.

Crude said...

Stop being pretentious? That's pretty much 99% of the appeal of being a New Atheist. Next you'll ask them to admit when they don't know shit about a scientific topic. ;)

Goldenrush Apple said...

I find this amusing. Obviously he thinks raising a child in a conservative/orthodox religion is equal, nay, the same as brainwashing.

Though very mean and un-Christian like of me, I'd like for him to be kicked in the groan and when he objects in pain saying that any personal/physical harm is wrong, the attacker should just respond "That's a human construct; that type of offense should be changed as long as enough people believe it is not an offense. If that day ever comes, you'll be wearing a cup during your waking hours."

Victor Reppert said...

Gnus are people who have changed their brand of fundamentalism.