That atheism is all about dissing religion as a whole.
the Left didn’t have a problem with his description of Pope Benedict XVI as a ‘leering old villain in the frock’ who ran ‘a profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution … amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.’
But today we see the Guardian going after the once Esteemed Dawkins:
Sure, he wrote some pop science books back in the day, but why do we keep having him on TV and in the newspapers? If it’s a biologist you’re after, or a science communicator, why not pick from the hundreds out there who don’t tweet five or six Islamophobic sentiments before getting off the toilet in the morning? If you need an atheist, there are many philosophers, scholars of religion, and public intellectuals available who don’t refuse to acknowledge the existence of theology.
You know although we often there the word “Islamophobic” thrown around but except by me I’ve never heard anyone describe any of the regular attackers of Christianity in general and Catholics in particular as “Christo-Phobic”, have you?
But back to the piece in general, while one might think the impulse would be to give Dawkins credit for consistency since like Pat Condell he dismisses all religions equally, the attack in the Guardian suggests that now all “right thinking” people (by which it is meant “people who think correctly”) should reject Dawkins meaning his days of cameos on Dr. Who
are likely over:
Damian Thompson also notes how not only is Dawkins in the present not toxic but his once highly praised books of the past are nw to be reclassified after these latest utterances:
Note how The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker — masterpieces of lucid thinking that advanced humanity’s understanding of evolution — have become mere ‘pop science’ now that their author is upsetting the wrong people.
Ah totalitarianism never changes, his old writings are suddenly VERBOTEN or at least nothing significant. Will we next see his image airbrushed out of posed photos?
Now lets stipulate that one does not have to be a fan of either radical Islam or radical feminism to think his arguments on religion are tripe & Dawkins is an ass.
If you don’t find @RichardDawkins creepy, you need to go away and learn how to think.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) July 29, 2014
Nevertheless we must give thanks to Mr. Dawkins for he has created a clarifying moment for society in demonstrating that any critique of Islam such as noting the comparative number of science Nobles of a single college vs the entire Islamic world is beyond the pale he demonstrates that for the vast majority of our secular humanist friends their “atheism” was not and never was about a disbelief in a or the gods worshiped by humans on planet earth.
No Professor Dawkins by his consistency of thought has confirmed that secular humanism always has and always will be just another vehicle to attack & deny and marginalized Christianity under the quite correct theory that it’s truths are a direct threat to the ideology of the worship of one’s self.
Thank you so much Professor Dawkins for providing that important service…
…but I still think you’re an ass,
Update: Stacy gets it:
Atheism has a teleology — a purpose, an inherent goal — having developed in the West as a means of undermining the social and legal authority of Christian morality. Atheism is therefore not equally hostile to all religious beliefs, nor is it objective in the selection of targets.
People who hate Christianity nowadays declare themselves “atheists” in much the same way as people who hate America once declared themselves “Communists.” For that matter, it’s the same way women who hate men call themselves “feminists.” The claimed label is a means of rationalizing one’s hatred in a self-flattering way, by distinguishing one’s own enlightened sophistication in contrast to those whom one ridicules as ignorant simpletons for their traditional beliefs.
Nearly 2,000 years later, this verdict still condemns them.
Dawkins at least has the virtue of consistency.