tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

Dan Brown – The Da Vinci Code, part 4 of 4 : Richard Dawkins' Delusions

Richard Dawkins’ Delusions

Professor Richard Dawkins has written:

“I don’t think it is too melodramatic to say that civilization is at war. It is a war against religious bigotry. In Britain recently our newspapers have shown crowds of fundamentalists (they happen to be Muslim rather than Christian, but in this context the distinction is of no importance) baying for the death of the distinguished novelist Salman Rushdie, displaying his effigy with its eyes put out and publicly burning his books. The truly appalling thing all such people have in common, whether they are incited to murder by ayatollahs or to less violent observances by television evangelists, is that they know, for certain, that their particular brand of revealed truth is absolute and needs no reasoned defense.”1

Richard Dawkins makes so many fallacious statements that one hardly knows where to start. Let us begin by pointing out that Richard Dawkins takes his aim against religious bigotry while failing to take the next logical step. The next step is to admit that bigotry can be based on religion, yes, but also on politics, resources/territory, racism, secularism of every sort, etc.

Richard Dawkins is famous for making shockingly simplified, generalized statements about those people (whoever he happens to be belittling). He combined this with his tactic of discourage the art of thinking: the distinction is of no importance…all such people have in common…[those people offer] no reasoned defense. Thus, his advice is: don’t bother considering distinctions, they are all the same, they are all ignorant and incapable of reasoned defenses. This coming from an atheist mind you, the very height of we are right and everyone else is wrong.

What if we were to generalize about atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, in the same way that he generalizes about theists? We may say: whenever atheists have gained power they became responsible for millions upon millions of deaths. They did not commit violence and oppression in the name of religion. And any distinction between them and Richard Dawkins is of no importance.

Furthermore, one can barely imagine what might have been meant by such a non-specific statement as the comparison of incited to murder on the one hand and less violent observances on the other.


Posted

in

by

Tags: