Discussing the existence of God is currently a favoured topic for those interested in circular, tedious arguments. Typically, an enlightened student of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Ricky Gervais crudely regurgitates arguments against the existence of God to an opponent either obsessed with scriptural inerrancy or reluctant to engage their ‘progressive’ opponent.
University campuses across Britain are teeming with forthright students eager to highlight why Mother Theresa is guilty of perpetuating poverty in India or how the continuation of Sub-Saharan poverty is entirely attributable to the reproductive policies of the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, in the same breath, these crusaders of freedom assert that religion must be crushed due to its reliance on sensationalism, ignorance and bigotry. Must we continue to ignore the hypocrisy?
Last week, Richard Dawkins intelligently tweeted: “Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist.” The reaction to Dawkins’ Islamophobic bigotry has quite rightly been scathing. Mehdi Hasan writes many fantastic articles on an array of interesting subjects – being a Muslim has nothing to do with it. Moreover, by applying his carefully crafted brand of sensationalist reductionism to the Sura on Muhammad’s rise to heaven, Dawkins has managed to provide yet another reason for why his is a professor of Evolutionary Biology and not Philosophy. I used to consider myself an atheist but, as Owen Jones stated earlier this week, “if atheism means being bigoted about Muslims or wanting to drive people of faith from public life, then I am not an atheist.” I believe it has meant this for some time.
Like many others, I love science for its contribution to the progression of humanity and despise those who perform acts of terror in the name of religion. Nonetheless, my affection for science does not automatically make me an abortion-loving liberal who gleefully wields the trusty sword of logic in the presence of religion. Dawkins is especially guilty of these pernicious, arbitrary displays of apparent intelligence. Certainly, in the heat of debate, these impressive exhibitions of ‘rationality’ can prove decisive but Dawkins et al are simply missing the point.
How many Christians assert that the foundation of their faith is the belief that every parable, poem and command in the Bible actually happened? It would be a ridiculous generalisation. Reducing religion to a ludicrous, hateful caricature is not the monumental academic feat it claims to be.
The atheistic denunciation of those who believe without evidence has become shameless in its ignorant rhetoric. Large swathes of humanity continue to fret over a question to which nobody knows the answer- even Dawkins admits this. I repeat, we cannot comment on the existence of God using a logical framework. Therefore, whilst it may be true that scientific discoveries continue to further understanding of our reality, not believing in God also remains a leap of faith. “Well okay, that’s fair enough. Do you follow the same rules with Santa? Which God don’t you know exists?” I hear the Gervaisian scholars retort.
Again, merely appealing to simplistic, sensationalist misrepresentations of the debate is the academic equivalent of shouting “Look over there!” and running away. Stop ignoring logic when ceases to be useful.
Logical incoherence aside, a wider point must be made about atheism and the atheistic movement. Simply, they are guilty of extremism and culpable of behaving like the religious organisations they claim to stand against. Dawkins’ latest exultation is simply racist bullying and his status as a respected academic should not let him get away with his ignorant drivel. Thousands of people have subsequently sent abusive messages to Hasan in support of Dawkins. Apart from being a Muslim, what else has Hasan done? In the words of your great leader atheists: “dogmatic belief… is pernicious and it drives people to do terrible things.”
Well, here we are, latest nasty little article crying out for an end to the criticism of religion. This seems to be a growing trend – a backlash to the raised cultural profile of the attack on religious ideology.
It’s getting quite predictable. I bet I could write one of these myself:
– Claim atheists are extremists and like a religion.
– Ridicule an apparent excessive reliance on logic but then capitalise on any apparent lack of it.
– Mistake rhetorical technique for actual ignorance, while at the same time indulging in all the same imprecise rhetoric techniques yourself.
– Use examples of rude or ill-informed attacks on religious or the religious to veto criticism of religion.
– Claim that because most religious people belive a heavily pruned version of the ideology they identify with it has somehow been sorted out.
– Claim famous modern atheists don’t understand philosophy, while being painfully ignorant of theological debate yourself.
– Claim criticisms of the actions and beliefs of certain individuals or minorities are inherent criticisms of these people and minorities.
No. No, drop this line where you found it. Philosophical and scientific advancements of the last several hundred years have routed the credulity of religious ideology, and it’s time is now done. It’s over, and you shouldn’t stand in the way.
(Unless there are unjustifiable but not inherently connected concerns, eg racism.)
I dare say that you should’ve put “Logical incoherence aside” at the beginning of this article, not at the end.
You appear to find yourself attacking a group of people (which I would also disagree with) but don’t realise that, by calling them “atheists”, you are committing the same act which you condemn when you state it to be a “ridiculous generalisation” to assume all Christians are fundamentalists.
Oh and clap clap for being the first person to characterise Dawkins as an evil old man. That’s not been done before. It is as if you haven’t read anything post-God Delusion. Take that comment for this article as a whole.
I’m also very glad that you’re omniscience enough to state that “we cannot comment on the existence of God using a logical framework”. Pray tell where such divine wisdom sprang from, or are you unaware that you are applying circular reasoning?
I count myself fortunate to have witnessed this public display of general ignorance bathed within its delicious hypocrisy. “simplistic, sensationalist misrepresentations” indeed!
Patrick, I’m bemused about your claim of ‘logical incoherence’. Perhaps you can expand on it.
You state that “I repeat, we cannot comment on the existence of God using a logical framework.”
But we can comment on the existence of *some* Gods using a logical framework:
Premise 1: God is an all-loving God who will always intervene to eliminate suffering
Premise 2: Suffering exists
Conclusion: God is not an all-loving God who will always intervene to eliminate suffering,
Of course, that still leaves many things of what God could be, but we can use this sort of reasoning to show that many of the conceptions of God can’t be true, even if we can never prove that there is not a God who never intervenes.
I was about to spend a good chunk of my afternoon composing a witty, insightful comment to contradict all of your unnecessary generalisations and point out the mistakes in your argument. As it is, I shall bite my tongue (well, fingers) and be content to say, merely, that I am an atheist and I respectfully disagree with the bulk of what you accuse me of.
“I repeat, we cannot comment on the existence of God using a logical framework.”
To many professional philosophers, that would translate as ‘you cannot comment on the existence of god’. To the rest, it would translate as ‘there is no god’.
This is what happoens when you try to speak or write without a logical framework –
“Stop ignoring logic when ceases to be useful.”
Finally, Dawkins was criticising Hasan for holding exactly the kind of reductionist, literal view of Islam you feel is unrepresentative, that Mohammed really did ascend to heaven on a real winged horse. Saying that this is a ludicrous, hateful caricature is an insult against Hasan, not Dawkins.
Do you actually have an editor for this website? “Extremist Atheisim” and “reason for why his is a professor of” are two typos I can see whilst briefly scanning this article.
Also you seem to not be able to understand Atheism is not a monolithic bloc, but those who you’ve highlighted are part of New Atheism. If you are going to write an article about such things, at least don’t make sweeping statements.
Yeah, I think I’ll just second Arthur, here. I’ll also disagree with most of what you’ve said about Dawkins, but as you’ve failed to support your accusations I won’t bother to explain why I think you’re wrong.
Anyway, I’m off to kill a dishonourable relative. Oh, wait, no I’m not – my “extremism” will remain on Twitter, as usual.
As an ardent non-theist (yes that’s right. I don’t believe in atheism either) I’m glad that someone is pointing out some of the fucked up shit that Richard Dawkins has said. Even so, this article is chock-full of lazy & often dangerous logical leaps. Other commenters have alluded to the viewpoint of logic being applied to religious conviction and how it falls flat, providing with a well structured argument that if the framework of logical reasoning cannot be applied to something, the thing in question cannot exist. That’s why we invented logic, y’all.
But the main point I wanna make is one that people like Richard Dawkins have made, but stubbornly refuse to base their arguments around in favor of Islamophobic and/or reductionist bullshit: tha relitgious moderates, those who allegorically, metaphorically, symbolically believe in religious doctrine and are parts of religious communities in whole or in part because they are communities, are not dangerous or worthy of condemnation on their own virtue. But it’s because our society has a silent majority of religious moderates that we have any kind of religious extremism. If people can agree on select points with the likes of the Taliban, Westboro Baptist church, and even less hate oriented factors like the Israeli government and the holy see, then those people can and will continue to spew that same bias, will feel validated enough in their viewpoint that their dogmatism will continue unchecked.
‘Typically, an enlightened student of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Ricky Gervais crudely regurgitates arguments against the existence of God to an opponent either obsessed with scriptural inerrancy or reluctant to engage their ‘progressive’ opponent.’
‘But to hear him regurgitating half-remembered Christopher Hitchens tirades against religion is excruciating: it’s like watching Noel Edmonds trying his hand at King Lear.’
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100098424/throwing-pies-at-lefty-comedians/
Who crudely regurgitates again?