Richard Dawkins – the Evangelical Atheist

I got in a major email argument with my daughter the other day. She loves Richard Dawkins. There is no one I like less.

photo of Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins

Dawkins made his name with the publication of his best selling book, The Selfish Gene. He then moved on and wrote The God Delusion, another bestseller. His latest offering, The Magic of Reality, is likely to go off the charts in terms of sales – especially ebook sales, since it is the best example yet of a richly animated, interactive ebook. If for no other reason than that, it is worth taking a look at, because it is the future of publishing.

So far, so good. I really don’t have a problem with the evils of religion being exposed or the wonders of science being articulately expressed. What I do have a problem with is Dawkins’ evangelical arrogance. In order to illustrate what I mean, here’s a quote from The Magic of Reality:

Indeed, to claim a supernatural explanation of something is not to explain it at all and, even worse, to rule out any possibility of its ever being explained. Why do I say that? Because anything ‘supernatural’ must by definition be beyond the reach of a natural explanation. It must be beyond the reach of science and the well-established, tried and tested scientific method that has been responsible for the huge advances in knowledge we have enjoyed over the last 400 years or so.To say that something happened supernaturally is not just to say ‘We don’t understand it’ but to say ‘We will never understand it, so don’t even try’.

That sounds reasonable on the surface, doesn’t it? Dig a little deeper, though, and it becomes apparent that Dawkins’ is expressing his opinion only, not fact. Take “anything ‘supernatural’ must by definition be beyond the reach of a natural explanation”, for example. Must it? I’ve been trying to find a natural explanation for my weird experience with Sai Baba for most of my life because I don’t want to ascribe supernatural powers to him. Until I find a natural explanation for his apparent ability to put me into a trance state with a touch of his finger, it remains in the ‘supernatural’ basket. If Dawkins had qualified his statement, I wouldn’t have a problem, but he demands that we all agree with his definition of supernatural. For the record, one dictionary definition of ‘supernatural’ reads like this: “a departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.” Note the word “appear” – it doesn’t rule out the possibility of a natural cause, as Dawkins’does.

I’m with Richard Dawkins here, where he writes:

Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion. Both have implacable faith that they are right and the other is evil. Each believes that when he dies he is going to heaven. Each believes that if he could kill the other, his path to paradise in the next world would be even swifter. The delusional ‘next world’ is welcome to both of them. This world would be a much better place without either of them.

I don’t know where that quote comes from. I pinched it from Goodread’s Dawkins’ quotes. Anyway, I agree with the sentiments, but he blows it for me again in a couple of ways. For one thing, Dawkins espounds the virtue of science, but overlooks the twisted side of applied science and technology, which is responsible for at least as many evils as religion and has provided zealots on both sides of the fence with their weapons. More importantly in the context of the above quote, he says “the delusional ‘next world’ is welcome to them both.” Is it categorically a fact that the ‘next world’ is delusional?

I made the argument that the belief that there is no afterlife is as ‘delusional’ as the belief that there is in my post, Why Does Science Have a Problem with Near Death Experiences? I won’t repeat myself here, other than to quote from my final paragraph:

Why do so many scientists, who are supposed to be objective, step outside of any kind of scientific objectivity in defence of their opinion that life ceases at death? All I can think is that they need to believe just as strongly as a fundamentalist Christian, Muslim or Jew needs to believe. That’s not science; it’s superstition and just like the Inquisitors, they are prepared to do anything to defend their faith.

In essence, I see red when I hear the name “Richard Dawkins” because to me, he is the worst kind of hypocrite. While eloquently espousing the virtues of “reason and discussion”, he closes the door to reason and discussion when they don’t adhere to his personal belief system.

Now that I’ve got that off my chest, I can see that I may have closed my mind to the positive aspects of Richard Dawkins’ message and the reasons why so many intelligent, decent, open minded people like my daughter like him. I welcome rebuttals. That’s what the comment section is for.

About Rob

Born in Southern California, Rob Schneider migrated to Australia in 1985. He is currently living in Sihanoukville, Cambodia, where he works as a freelance content writer.
Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Richard Dawkins – the Evangelical Atheist

  1. James Walker says:

    Would you be interested in seeing how my Model of the Mind applies to this?

  2. James Walker says:

    If we grant your claim that Dawkins is arrogant, this puts him at Pride on the Model of the Mind. If you look at the MoM Wrong Mind diagram, you will see that Pride is outside the circle. That is because it seals the ego, it denies there is anything untoward to look at. This fits with your observation that Dawkins does not apply his strictures on others to himself. Pride always has double standards.
    You say that Dawkins is evangelical. This includes self righteousness, which is form of denial in which you cover over the fact that deep down you don’t really believe what you are preaching. (Guilt on the MoM.) But you deny that you cannot convince yourself, and try to convince others. In Freudian terms this is reaction formation.
    Next, your reaction to Dawkins suggests that his arrogance upsets you. If you are upset by anyone then the question to ask is “Would I accuse myself of doing this?” And the honest answer will be Yes. This is projection. What we don’t want to look at in ourselves we project out onto others. We then rationalise our unconscious conflict by convincing ourselves that the problem is an external conflict – eg the conflict betweeen science and religion, or between the natural and the supernatural.
    I could go on, but that is probably enough for starters!

    • Rob says:

      Thanks James. May I paste one or two of your diagrams in a post? It’s a shame to relegate it to the comments section. I was particularly impressed with your final paragraph. I almost edited out “There’s no one I like less” and “I see red” because such statements are less than objective and don’t usually yield positive results. I decided to leave them, though, because I’m trying to be as honest here as possible.

      I often get upset by the way Cambodians drive. They run red lights while talking on their mobile phones, make left turns from the right lane without even looking and do innumerable other things that upset me. I’ve had to learn to not let myself get or stay angry, though, because I need to be as clear-headed as possible on the roads here, since I’ve often got my whole family perched on the motorbike with me. I don’t think that kind of anger is projection.

      My fellow expats often do appalling things. On two occasions when I’ve been in a position to do something, I’ve allowed myself to react angrily and my reactions helped yield what I can only see as positive results – getting them to take responsibility for their actions. Am I projecting when I get angry at a barang who beats his pregnant girlfriend and then literally adds insult to injury by bringing a taxi girl to their home? Yes and no, I suppose. I recently saw a documentary about a man and woman who were held hostage in the Philippines. Shortly before he was killed, the man said to his wife: “I’ve seen anger, hatred and greed. I’ve seen coldness I never believed possible.” Then came the punchline – “I’ve seen them in myself.” I subscribe to the theory that we’re all capable of anything – good or evil – under the right circumstances. Hence forgiveness is the only real salvation.

      This is not to say you’re not on to something valuable here. “Would I accuse myself of doing this?” – that’s exactly what I was doing! – arrogantly denouncing Dawkins’ presumed arrogance. Chloe pointed out to me that he feels compelled to state his case strongly because he is a public figure who is frequently in the firing line. I’ve never met the man. She has seen him in person and found him to be witty, inspiring and highly intelligent.

      Anyway, thanks again for your comment. Once again, may I paste a couple of your diagrams in a post? Of course I’ll attribute them to you and include a link to your site, etc. I’ll make it a point not to interpret them. The idea is to introduce you and the concepts to readers.

  3. G says:

    I came across this blog because I’ve been referring to Dawkins as an Evangelical Atheist for some time now and I wanted to see if anyone else had the same opinion. I must say that I share your views on him 100% and I agree with a lot of what you said in relation to the afterlife debate etc. It is good to see that there are people who are not blinded by bias and ego one way or the other.

  4. Pingback: Leo Tolstoy on Love - Expat Journal

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>