Okay, this is last week’s news, but I promised somewhere I would write about it. Cranmer posed the question, Should Richard Dawkins be arrested for incitement to religious hatred? He was responding to Richard Dawkins’ ‘rant’ in The Times, Hear the rumble of Christian hypocrisy, about the comments made by TV evangelist Pat Robertson concerning the earthquake in Haiti being divine retribution for that country’s ‘pact with the Devil’ and about this being, according to him, adherence to Christian orthodoxy.
I have read bits and pieces of Dawkins’ writings and I can agree with Cranmer when he says of him,
He displays a sub-GCSE level of comprehension of theology and an utterly simplistic caricature of religious philosophy. If one were to critique evolutionary biology in such crass terms, Professor Dawkins would be the first to dismiss one as being an intellectually deficient ignoramus.
This is one of the aspects of Dawkins’ writing that discourages me from giving him any credence whatsoever. To confuse his gentle readers (or perhaps he genuinely is confused himself), he constantly talks about ‘religion’ as if they are basically all the same. The major religions are wildly different. Trying to equate the Son of the Living God with the animal ‘gods’ of Hinduism and the warmongering paedophile Muhammad (as some people call him) is obviously a good way to discredit the notion of religion, but it doesn’t do anything for the pursuit of truth.
It does sell books though. Lots of them.
Dawkins replied to Cranmer privately, who in turn issued A response to Richard Dawkins.
…this blog…appears is fast-becoming the last bastion of unfettered religio-political speech in the United Kingdom.
Well, this one is also available for all opinions to be expressed, but to back up his point, I was banned from Dawkins’ Clear-thinking Oasis last week. Apparently I was trolling. I have been leaving comments now and again for about a year (I think) and have even been told by some of the regulars that I am welcome.
My crime seems to have been talking about the salvation possible through Christ. I occasionally quote some scripture. Now this seems perfectly fair and logical to me based on the fact that the discussion is often about faith and I am responding to the questions others pose.
I suggest that the ‘atheists’ do not like their consciences pricked nor their souls inconvenienced with spiritual matters when there is so much sinning to be done! What else can they do but report me for ‘trolling’?
Here is a rare example of my downright proselytizing, but it was only in reply to somebody who doesn’t understand what saving faith is.
Anyway, I did resolve to spend less time on Dawkins’ blog, so they have done me a favour.
Dawkins begins his letter to Cranmer with this accusation,
I am intrigued by the Christian vitriol that is being thrown in my face after my article in The Times. You, Cranmer, have even suggested that I should be arrested for incitement to religious hatred.
Dawkins believes that religious people should be seen and not heard. Well, not seen either. We should leave our faith at home. He also seems to like labelling plain speaking as ‘vitriol’. I get the same accusations on a number of topics of discussion.
I am constantly tickled, and disturbed, by Dawkins’ insistence that his blog is a Clear-thinking Oasis. Strange, then, that judging from the comments on both blogs, Cranmer’s supporters are generally erudite and polite, appearing to be fully human – while Dawkins’ are rude, crude and give credence to the theory that man evolved from apes!