The Arrogant Atheist; Why I Think Richard Dawkins Has Little to Offer
The arrogant atheist already feels they have all the answers; at least in regards to religion. They are right and all those people who believe in something religious are wrong. The arrogant atheist believes that millions of people are deluded, but they are in the elect group that has all the answers. They sneer and distrust those outside their circle. They then go on to accuse the religious of being brainwashed and intolerant. They fail to see that there group could be equally labeled this way. The members of this new order don't gather in holy places, but instead increasingly gather in online forums where they can tell each other how right they are. For the atheists the questions about religion are over because they have all the answers.
The arrogant atheist likes to claim science as their own. If you would listen to some of them you would think that they regularly conducted scientific experiments down in their basement. The fact is that most of them don't but instead use faith in the work of the real scientists. These people fail to see that belief in science involves faith in inductive reasoning; the belief that because something happened previously it will happen for eternity. The arrogant atheist also fails to appreciate history and the fact that most of the scientific ideas we have put our faith in previously turned out to be wrong. The arrogant atheist also dismisses the fact that many of the real scientists do have religious beliefs.
Richard Dawkins is not the guru of this new atheist movement. The fact that he has an upper-class accent seems to be enough for people to accept him as an expert on all things religious and scientific. The man is making a fortune by telling people what he doesn't believe in and how everyone that doesn't think the same way as he does is wrong. If other scientists made such claims they would be rightly ridiculed. Personally I think it would have been nicer if he used his nice education and accent to promote something positive. Promoting religious intolerance does not seem like such a positive contribution to science if you ask me. The really galling thing is when people like Dawkins accuse other groups of intolerance and ignorance when he is advocating the same approach.
The choice to believe or not to believe in a supreme being is a personal one as far as I'm concerned. It is not possible to prove one way or the other. Atheists are being disingenuous when they claim that they don't have a faith; they are as narrow-minded as any group who thinks they have all the answers. There is also something a bit negative about basing your views on things you don't believe in as far as I'm concerned. Personally I like to always leave the door open to all possibilities and the wisest people I have met are those who realized that they knew very little.
Published by Garro
I was born in Ireland, spent my twenties in England, and now live in Thailand. I work as a freelance writer, but I'm also a qualified nurse. I have one book published and another one due for release next year. View profile
- A Republican's Perspective on the YouTube/CNN Democratic DebateI watched and learned more about why I am not a Democrat.
- Liberal America's ArroganceAmerica has been heading in a dangerous direction. Have you ever stopped to consider: What if there IS a God, and I eventually have to answer to him for some of my arrogant acts? Most Liberals don't.
- Atheistic Response: Views on Muscular Christianity in Victorian PoetryUsing three Victorian poems, I show how the Victorian movement of "muscular Christianity" was criticized by literary contemporaries.
Christians Completely Fail to Understand and Act in HumilityThe Christian definition of humility falls short. I have searched Jewish Talmudic teaching to find better definitions. I also give a list of common Christian cultural actions th...
Lost SocietyWake up call for America. Our country needs to go back to its foundations. This is an article I wrote to explsin what I am seeing in current events. That which is written her...
- The Dawkins Confusion
- I'm An Atheist ... And You Should Be, Too
- Just Let it Be, Dawkins and Co.
- The End of Myself: How and Why I Decided to Become a Christian
- Atheists Don't Need to Be Saved, but Thanks for the Concern
- A Traveling Guitarist's Tales from the Road: Gigs, Spirituality and More
- 'Darwinism' is Still a Fighting Word in the Culture Wars
19 Comments
Post a Comment@Pieter: It's seen as being offensive because he is extremely pretentious about it and tars all religious people with the same brush. Religion and Science can go hand in hand, it's just that both sides need to grow up and get past this rivalry. Religion needs to stop fearing science and science needs to stop patronising religion. That would be progression, not these ridiculous hate-promoting campaigns from both sides.
That was a great article. A big problem is people not defing their terms. If you define 'God' as 'the ground of being' or 'everything that ever was or ever will be - anywhere ' - then there is no argument.
While undoubetdly very happy with the thoughts his mind develops , when dealing with other people who do not hold philosophies similar to his own - Dawkins comes off as being smarmy and as closed minded as he imagines theists to be. It must be very frustrating for him being the genius surrounded by 'idiots'. If only the world thought as he thought - it would be such a poaradise, right?
The smartest thing Donald Rumsfeld ever said was :"
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
That's good advice for everyone to take on board - atheists, religious people and people with an
..wrong. Religion is a really useful tool for some people; it gives their lives meaning. If something works it does not matter if it is right or wrong ultimately - as far as I'm concerned. The frequent claim that you hear from atheists that those with religion are deluded is insulting and arrogant. I might be arrogant as well, and I'm prepared to consider that possibility.
Hi Aaron, you come across as quite logical and level-headed. I have made quite a few journeys into the online atheist community and most do not come across as reasonable as you. Maybe I have just been incredibly unlucky and keep on having contact with the wrong type of atheist on the wrong days. My problem is that many of the atheists I have come across seem to have made a hobby out of insulting people who do have a religion. They also seem convinced that they don't deal in faith. My argument is that even if they do conduct every experiment themselves they are still relying on faith; their faith in inductive reasoning. Now you can argue about reasonable faith and unreasonable faith but that is a separate issue. The world is an incredible mystery and for me anyone who thinks they have the answers is at least a little arrogant; unless of course they can convince people that they are an enlightened being. I do not believe in a supreme being but I also acknowledge the fact that I could be
@Louise: Are you making stuff up as you go along? How you you know that the atheists you refer to have never considered that god may be more than a glorified human? Can you read their minds? Have you asked them?
I have read Dawkin's book, I don't remember the part where he says that people who agree with him are brighter than people that don't. Have you some quotes?
If that was just your general impression fair enough. I found his comments on the illogical church writings quite funny, because the reasoning was so silly. I don't think he was sneering at believers - just highlighting some issues that many people don't notice. We all do silly things every day: observational comedy helps us to see these and laugh at them.
(continued from below)...
Many experiments are repeated year after year, by school and college students all over the world. If some fundamental laws do change then, I'm sure the world will notice.
If some atheists are claiming science as their own, then the religious should claim it back. You don't need a PhD
to do some simple tests. We could have done experiments in religion class for example. We could have checked if the wine that had changed to blood still had alcohol in it. Drinking a bottle or two would have done the trick.
I don't mean to be sarcastic - if someone makes extraordinary claims, I think its quite reasonable to check if they are true. I have not seen any evidence to support transubstantiation or any of the claims made by religion. If you know of any please let me know.
Paul,
Who are these arrogant atheists? The only one you mention is Richard Dawkins. What does his accent have to do with anything? I consider him a scientific expert because of his qualifications, papers and career in science, not because of his accent. I don't consider him a religious expert, just a guy who wrote an interesting book about religion and atheism.
The "experiments in the basement" idea is important. You claim (as a fact) that most arrogant atheists (whoever they may be) do not carry out experiments regularly. Have you any evidence to support that claim?? Have you surveyed these arrogant atheists?
I think the important point about scientific experiments, is that you can do them yourself. I did loads in secondary school. I didn't have to have "faith" in my teacher or school books, I could do the measurements and see the evidence myself. Also if I think that the laws of physics might have changed since then, I can re-run the experiments just to check. Many experim
It is so funny. Dawkins gives religious folks (a watered down) taste of their own medicine. Instead of carrying out some introspection, and maybe thinking "If I am so offended by just hearing another view than my own, how terrible it must have been for other people to have my view forced upon them by state, schools and other institutions", religious people just act offended and start putting their fingers in their ears and start calling Dawkins arrogant because he can use logic and reason.
@louise, just to finish my previous post which got cut off:
Now where between those two extreems do we find your god? I can imagine a god on some remote planet who has absolutely nothing to do with our presence here on earth, nor interferes with our observable world in any observable way. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence one might say. But this is not the kind of god you are worshipping, is it? No, the god you have in mind is rather much more like the imaginary elephant in my back garden. The absence of evidence is very strong evidence of absence indeed. And the more you undertake to validate your claim about lacking evidence not being evidence of absence, the more meaningless your god becomes.
@Louise
Actually absence of evidence can very well be evidence of absence. It depends.
You might claim that on some planet in some remote galaxy life exists. There is no evidence for this of coarse but in this case absence of evidence is surely not evidence of absence since any evidence that might exist is way beyond our reach (yet?).
On the other hand however I might claim that there is an elephant in my back garden. Again there is no evidence for this. Now if there really were an elephant in my back garden, than surely it would leave some traces that couldn't possibly be overlooked, even if you weren't specifically looking for it. So here the absence of evidence surely is strong evidence of absence.
Now where between those two extreems do we find your god? I can imagine a god on some remote planet who has absolutely nothing to do with our presence here on earth, nor interferes with our observable world in any observable way. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence one mi