 |
|
|
Why is Richard Dawkins so angry? Greg Clarke
Over the last year, I’ve been discussing this book with religious believers, atheists and agnostics alike, and one theme keeps re-emerging. People keep asking − ‘Why is Richard Dawkins so angry?’ Some people are interested in Dawkins’ views on philosophy and science. But most people I know react to the book by saying, ‘Wow, Dawkins is a real brawler. He really seems to hate religious people. Why is he so mad?’ Of course, I have no idea why he is so mad, but if you will let me play amateur psychologist for a while, here’s my diagnosis. First up, he has said himself that what drives him is his desire to protect children. He hates the way children are put in a religious box from the beginning. He says that the sound of the phrase, I’m a Muslim child, I’m a Christian child is to him like fingernails grating down a blackboard. I sympathise with this … parents have to be very careful that they are educating their children in how to think about what is true, not merely indoctrinating them. But I think Dawkins underestimates the ability of children to think for themselves. After all, he came from a Christian home, but had decided it wasn’t true by age nine. Other children I know have come to the opposite conclusion. Second point: Dawkins ferociously rejects the claim that a person who doesn’t believe in God is a worse person than someone who does. He uses plenty of stories of hypocrisy, where religious people have failed badly and covered it up or denied it. And these stories really do make the reader (including me) feel disinclined towards faith. What a bunch of hypocrites! Again, I agree with him … there are good atheists, and bad Christians. But I don’t know any Christians who want to lord it over others, as if they are better than them. If they do, they haven’t been reading their Bibles where it says that people who think they have no sin are deceiving themselves! There’s no hubris in being a Christian, just thankfulness to God that he pardons those of us who fail!
His superior intellect is certainly not demonstrated in the areas of philosophy of religion, theology and history, where he is not expert. Dawkins speaks in these areas as if he knows what he is talking about, whereas the professors in these areas are by and large roundly rejecting his assertions. My final amateur psychological analysis of the new atheist, Richard Dawkins is again a risky one. Does Dawkins feel the weight of his claim that there almost certainly is no God? He seems to find the idea liberating. However, most of the great minds and writers of the past few hundred years found the idea of atheism terrifying, depressing and a cause of dread. Think of … the novels of Albert Camus, the great French existentialist, who wondered what morality was all about if there is no God …or the black-humoured plays of Samuel Beckett in which God is absent but longed for …or the intense struggle in the novels of the magnificent Russian writer, Dostoevsky, who worries about justice in a world with no God to judge us. These great thinkers struggle with the God question. It is a thought that controls all other thoughts. It’s that heavy. But in Dawkins’ books, there is no sense of crisis about this. He finds atheism freeing and refreshing. Perhaps you do too… Or perhaps, like me, you aren’t satisfied with that, it doesn’t seem right to you, and you want to continue on the quest to see whether there is a God worth believing in, because ultimately, what more important thing could you think about? Dr Greg Clarke Director of the Centre for Public Christianity and Macquarie Christian Studies Institute Click here for a print friendly version of this page |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2008 Centre for Public Christianity | Privacy Policy Shipping & Returns Policy | 20-Mar-2008 03:41 PM | Powered by Business Catalyst | ||