Responding to Dawkins' Drivel

I am what I would like to say an avid Guardian reader, well, when I am not busy using Polly Toynbee articles as toilet paper, but I came across a rather "interesting" article by none other than Richard Dawkins, about religion, at Christmas time. (Richard Dawkins, A Shameful Thought For the Day, 24 December 2010)Believe you me when I say I didn't even have to start reading, I had already assumed face-palm stance. I guess I should not be surprised that eventually some idiot would leave the old fart alone with a computer and something religious in nature to complain about around Christmas time, but I assumed that it would be some second-rate publication. Not that I want to spend an entire letter simply insulting Richard Dawkins, but reading his article was like having chilli rubbed into my eyes and then being forced to watch a thirty minute still of naked old people... all in glorious 3D HD.

I should probably start off by pointing out that getting Richard Dawkins to write on religion would be like getting Duane Gish, Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort to write a college biology textbook. I am still trying to deduce what led to someone giving this pile of festering carcass the green light, but if I had to hazard a guess, I would have to say that it was probably cocaine. Dawkins, true to form, begins with a highly emotive, hideously over-exaggerated barely asserted character assassination attempt. Dawkins writes:
"We've already had what little apology we are going to get (none in most cases) for the raped children, the Aids-sufferers in Africa, the centuries spent attacking Jews, science, women and "heretics", the indulgences and more modern (and tax-deductible) methods of fleecing the gullible to build the Vatican's vast fortune."

Oh really? I take it Dawkins is limiting raped children to those raped by priests, and not every child who has been a rape victim, otherwise that would be quite absurd. Yet, the Vatican has already apologised for this, and the current pope has lamented that they have not done more. As for the rest, I don’t particularly have any issue with, although I would like to see some evidence that directly ties the Vatican to the spread of AIDS in Africa, or that the Catholic Church have been responsible for suppressing science.

You see, I am on a history degree, and have spent the last semester studying European Medieval history, and Dawkins’ claims don’t really seem to jibe with the facts, given that nobody has ever been persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church for their scientific views. Galileo got into trouble mostly because he insulted the pope at the time, but also because of his sloppy methodology and extremely arrogant attitude. Furthermore, Galileo’s observations actually supported the Tychonic model, and not the Copernican heliocentric model. Gee, Richard, don’t let the facts get in the way of your hate-filled psychotic ranting, eh? I mean, then people would be able to see what a pseudo-intellectual know-nothing you really are.

I have to ask, how did Dawkins commit such an egregious factual error? It seems to me as if Richard Dawkins is implying that Christians, and in particular Catholics, the largest donators to charity in the world, are actually part of a millennia old secret cabal, hell bent on a Blofeld-esque maniacal scheme to plot the demise of the world's population in secret and generally stab everyone in the back at the most inconvenient moment, that is, if they can fit it into their busy schedule of betraying their country, sponsoring international terrorism and stealing candy from small children. Atheists are supposedly always the real deal, yet the 52 atheists responsible for the murders of 185,000,000 of their own citizens in peacetime, within the time scale of 100 years, are somehow exempt from this. Supposedly, they are not "real atheists" whatever that is supposed to mean, given that Dawkins et al. have tried to re-define atheism to mean a lack of belief in God or gods, as opposed to the actual definition, that is someone who does not believe in God or gods.

Since Dawkins is committed to such an absurd conspiracy theory, he is therefore required to jettison any facts that disprove his illusory delusions. I guess he is not that confident in his own position as he would have us believe, although I suppose that he would quip that he doesn't know and is "humble" enough to admit it, but it is interesting how Dawkins, despite rallying against ignorance, gives his own a free pass. It interests me greatly how Dawkins claims the biggest givers to charity are the cause of the world’s ills, yet he does absolutely nothing to try to help anyone. He just sits on his backside, in his comfy cream-puff quixotic and onanistic delusional fantasy world, where he instead slags off those actually taking their time to help their fellow humans. Oh, that's right, Dawkins does not care for evidence, reason or logic, he just wants to make an appeal to emotion, a trick that only works on the intellectually crippled. No wonder then, why so many atheists lap up Dawkins' bile as if it were their mother's milk.

Dawkins then goes on to demonstrate his total lack of expertise when it comes to religion. In fact, Dawkins demonstrates a total inability to think whatsoever. Instead of providing some kind of argument, he just makes more highly emotive barely asserted character assassination attempts. Dawkins complains about the same of Christ’s death, without realising that this serves as a buttress for Christian Theism. This would have been a huge turn-off for people in the 1^st century AD Greco-Roman world, so much so that the Romans, known for the love of blood and guts, avoided mentioning it, it was THAT shameful and gruesome. In fact, just about everything about Christianity was not only a turn-off but was also offensive to 1^st century AD Greco-Roman (and Jewish) cultural and religious beliefs and practices. So much so, that Christianity was brutally repressed for hundreds of years. That makes sense. Invent a religion that is offensive to everybody and will get you killed. Why the hell would anybody want to make it up, or join it for that matter? Unless it was actually true, but why would Dawkins consider that possibility? Oh right, because the evidence actually strongly favours that option, and we can’t have that, can we?

Dawkins goes on about Original Sin, as if it were a universal Christian belief. Sorry, but that doesn’t wash. Whilst Original Sin is a load of nonsense, it is not a required doctrine of Christianity. It has long been recognised that Genesis is a metaphoric description of how all humans disobey God. Even if you disprove the existence of Adam, it does not magically make the fact that no human is perfect, and that the majority of humans are morally reprehensible, self-centred, egocentric morons. I would be particularly interested in seeing Dawkins trying to deny the obvious fact that humans are in dire need of salvation. As a side note, I do find it interesting how Dawkins claims that Adam never existed, and yet provides no evidence for this assertion whatsoever. Smooth. Dawkins then asks, why did God not just forgive us. Interesting. By that logic, why does the judge just not forgive the criminals and let them go without them being punished. Nice save.

I suppose Dawkins would counter that God cold have just made us perfect, but this is a stupid argument for the simple fact that, if God has done so, then we would have just been mindless robots with no Free Will. Salvation cannot be earned without redemption, and a relationship with God does not mean anything if it is not made freely. It is truly amazing how Dawkins' academic credentials and evidentiary standards are simply tossed out of the window and flushed down the toilet when it comes to religion. This from the man whose job supposedly is to help the public to better understand science. Clearly the job would be better suited to someone else, namely somebody who has the self-control to keep their religious views to themselves, instead of going on about it at great length at any opportune moment, no matter how inappropriate it is, to anybody within earshot.

I would like to bring up the philosophical device known as Occam's Razor, which states that for any given set of circumstances, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Why does Dawkins say the things that he does? Well, the simplest explanation is, because he has the intellectual ability of a mentally retarded twelve-year-old boy. People may take offence at my estimation of Dawkins' ability to debate and discuss religion, but you cannot deny that it is philosophically correct. Dawkins would be more productive if he simply participated in a freestyle rap ensemble with Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, PZ Meyers, Eugenie Scott and an actor portraying Charles Darwin. Note that if Dawkins were to actually do this, not only would I pay money to see it, but also I would personally shake him by the hand.

I would like to close by pointing out how that it was ignorant morons like Dawkins which led me to reject atheism and embrace theism, specifically Christian theism. Dawkins presents himself as a man of science and reason, yet comes off as nothing more than a sententious, acrimonious, supercilious, pusillanimous, calumnious, censorious, vituperative, querulous, embittered, obsessive and bombastic moron, who spouts nothing but intolerance and bigotry laden arguments full of non-sequiturs, caricatures, straw men and vitriol. I am currently writing my own book refuting the lies and misinformation spread by Dawkins and his fellow backwards-thinking fundamentalist simians and hope to have it out in a year or two. Who knows, maybe people will read it, and actually learn something for once, instead of taking the words of just some guy whose expertise is in a totally unrelated field, on blind-faith. I won’t be holding my breath.