Richard Dawkins Exposed: Part V – Cranmer vs Dawkins
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.
Cranmer writes,
…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!
What’s to know? A supernatural being created the cosmos – put us pathetic humans in charge of all other life -watches over us – presides over disasters in which tens of thousands, sometimes millions die – judges us harshly if we don’t believe in Him
That’s all you need to know to dismiss the lot out of hand.
You should write books about it, Jim. That’s about as much as Dawkins knows!
Like I say Stewart – that’s all there is… it barely fills a post on a blog.
And where do you expect your soul to go to after your bodily death?
As I asked English, Stewart (and I hope all is well with him – I know I insult him but I also respect him – maybe doesn’t always show) what do you think my answer to that would be? I’m not holding out on you. But, indulge me for a moment.
“If one were to critique evolutionary biology in such crass terms”
Oh, the irony.
Jim,
Yes, let’s pray that English is okay.
Indulge you? Well, I think you’d say that you don’t have a soul and if there is a heaven then you wouldn’t want to go there if it’s full of self-righteous bampots. You might believe those lying films that Hell is really fun, rather than the truth that it is torment without any possibility of remission.
Don’t have a soul is right Stewart. I’m just a self-organising chemical system, as are you. You may be better organised. The other stuff – nah – you see the whole Hell business is based on fear and I have no fear. Used to – used to be terrified of my own shadow as a kid – but not any more. There is nothing they can do to me the prospect of which bothers me in the least. Not that I believe anything happens beyond personal extinction. You are the one who is terrified. It’s no way to live your life my friend. And I count you as a friend, just in case anybody thinks that was sarcasm.
Jim,
Thank you for the explanation, but it’s illogical. Your self-organising chemical system is far too complex to have arisen by random mutations (I would say that). As for fear – like you, I was afraid of my own shadow when I was younger. With experience of life I now believe in the old German family motto, “Fear God, fear no man.”
Why do you think my love of God is grounded on fear? A child who has a healthy relationship with his father has a level of fear of him, but it is not the defining emotion.
Also to bear in mind: “The truth will set you free,” and “Perfect love casteth out fear.”
If I was living a life of fear, I wouldn’t be able to write the way I do.
I don’t really associate you with sarcasm, Jim. I guess I think of you as a cyberfriend too.
‘Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose you found yourself described as an… (various descriptions involving diseased lower body parts) Or suppose that somebody on the same website expressed a “sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails” down your throat. Also to “trip you up and kick you in the guts.” And imagine seeing your face described, again by an anonymous poster, as “a slack jawed turd in the mouth mug if ever I saw one.’
That’s Dawkins about recent reactions to imposing strict comment moderation on his site.
Evolutionary theory entirely aside, purely ad hominem observations, what kind of man takes offence at what people say on an open web forum such that he has to shut it down, and takes special offence, apparently, because he is ‘greatly liked and respected’? And he must be; he says so himself.