Why is Richard Dawkins so angry?

Greg Clarke

It has been a couple of years now since the book, The God Delusion, hit the shelves. Its author, Professor Richard Dawkins from Oxford, has become a worldwide celebrity. The book is a witty, aggressive and in many ways unfair attack on belief in God. It pulls together awful anecdotes and half-developed arguments that make the reader feel disgusted with religion, and then seek to convince him that because he feels disgusted, religion cannot be true. 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.

Dawkins’ superior intellect is certainly not demonstrated in the areas of philosophy of religion, theology and history.

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!

My third point of analysis, and here’s where I feel a bit mean, is that Dawkins really seems to enjoy being the bulldog. He loves to attack. He is fiercely intelligent, and I dare say comes across as a bit elitist. The last chapter of The God Delusion contains a good deal of ridicule for people who think that God fills what he laughingly calls … ‘a much needed gap’. Dawkins can come across as a bit smarty-pants, too clever-by-half, and he tends to suggest that religious belief is a simpleton’s path, uninformed by reason and science and intelligence. 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.

… most of the great minds and writers of the past few hundred years found the idea of atheism terrifying.

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

07-Jan-2009 10:07 AM Anonymous

There is much to critique in this article, but I will focus here on your statement that “Dawkins underestimates the ability of children to think for themselves”. Some children are, indeed, remarkably independent. But Greg, but in all honesty, what do you think is the likelihood that your own children will turn out to be Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, or atheists! After all, this is hardly on the same level as letting them decide for themselves their favourite colour or flavour of ice-cream. When you go to church, or when you pray before your meals, or when you tell them that “there is nothing more important than the quest for a God worth believing in”, do you give them the chance to opt out or disagree? Do you say things like this: "There are many other religions out there you can believe in. In fact, you don’t have believe in any religion at all. But don’t take my word for it: Here are some books/videos/people that can explain all the options for you. Daddy happens to believe in Christianity, but please feel free to make up your own mind. It’s your life, after all, and I don’t want to impose my own beliefs on you. Whatever you decide, I will support you 100%, even if you decide not to be a Christian." I suspect you would be an extremely unusual Christian parent if you took this approach. Here’s why: If you are a Nicene-Creed believer, then you will also believe that non-Christians will go to Hell; and however you define it, Hell is a very nasty place. Again, you yourself clearly agree with “most of the great minds and writers of the past few hundred years” who find that “the idea of atheism terrifying, depressing and a cause of dread.” Only the most morally depraved parent would want their own child to experience such ‘dread-full’ prospects for this life or the next. Indeed, given their beliefs, it would be morally negligent for them not to do everything in their power to protect their children from such a fate. Presenting other religions or no religion at all as ‘live options’ is hardly a protective strategy. It is far more likely that any half-decent Christian parent will ‘educate their children in how to think about what is true’ in such a way that ‘what is true’ will turn out to be Christianity. It would be utterly astonishing (and, to the Christian parent, a horrifying failure) if the way in which they educated their children resulted in any of them becoming atheists! No, the truth is this: you will do everything in your power to bring your child to believe in Christianity; and you will celebrate openly and demonstratively when they are ‘old enough’ to tell you that they, too, believe in Jesus. Tell me, honestly, that this isn’t so, Greg. Explain to me how the way in which you ‘educate’ your children is not ‘mere indoctrination’.

07-Jan-2009 12:26 PM Greg Clarke

Dear Anonymous Thank you for this comment. It is actually the nature of Christain belief that it can't be forced on anyone, not even your own children. So, yes, I do teach my kids Nicene Creed Christianity, but I also talk through the why and wherefore of all sorts of faith positions, as much as I am able. You are correct about the dreadful prospect of judgement, but no-one can be coerced into believing so the job of the Christian parent is surely to trust God with their offspring, to pray for what they hope God will do, and to model Christian living so that your kids might think there's something worth believing in. That's my approach anyway. You might be interested in the recent interview we did with an Oxford psychlogist, Olivera Petrovich, on children's belief in God. Best wishes, Greg.

07-Jan-2009 03:29 PM Anonymous

Dear Greg, thanks for your response. I agree with you that Christian belief cannot be forced on anyone; but that is not unique to Christian belief. It is the nature of belief in general that it cannot be forced on people. But this is beside the point. As you would know, belief is normally thought of as involuntary. We can’t just choose to believe something. (Try to believe that there is a pink elephant in your room right now!). Under normal circumstances, belief arises automatically in us just when have what we take to be good evidence for that belief (i.e. where ‘what we take to be good evidence’ is whatever makes it seem to us that the belief is more likely to be true than not). The way child indoctrination works, then, is not by ‘forcing them to believe something’, at least not in the literal sense. Rather it is done by controlling, restricting and manipulating the evidential environment in which they are placed, so that it is more or less guaranteed that they end up with the belief you want them to hold. With regard to religion, this can be done in several ways: (a) by presenting the child with the ‘evidence’ for ONLY your own religion (e.g. only taking them to a Christian church, only reading the Bible to them, and so on); or (b) by NOT presenting the ‘evidence’ against your religion or against religion in general. Of course, the strategy in (b) is not particularly easy nowadays, unless your kids are home-schooled, go to a Christian school and/or don’t watch TV, etc.. But you can still pull it off. Here are three traditional methods, probably employed in most Christian families: (1) Do what you can to make sure that the ‘evidence’ that they have for other religions or atheism is comparatively small (e.g. How many times would you take your kids to the humanist society or a Mormon temple, compared to Church or Christian conferences/camps, etc.?); (2) Present other religions or atheism in such a way as to make them seem utterly implausible (e.g. Why is it that Muslim kids routinely find the idea that Jesus might be the Son of God so ridiculous? Why is it that Christian kids find the idea that Mormon missionaries are a bit sad, weird and probably dangerous, whilst Christian missionaries are rather heroic and courageous?); (3) Consistently counter-balance the weight or significance of any opposing ‘evidence’ with the emotional manipulation of Pascalian-type wagers: e.g. Are you willing to risk the prospect of living a life that is “terrifying” and “depressing”? Are you willing to risk the “dreadful prospect” of judgment? Are you willing to be the black sheep of this family, causing your parents and siblings enormous sorrow, distress and sleepless nights? And so on. It’s not impossible, but I think it would be a rare child who could take the evidence for other religions or atheism seriously when faced with any one of these three methods, let alone the three combined. I accept, Greg, that you don’t literally try to force your children to believe in Christianity (a psychological impossibility in any case). I also accept that you are wanting to do the right thing by your children, insofar as that is consistent with your Christian beliefs. But I would be interested to know whether, hand on heart, you have found yourself using any of the strategies mentioned above? I think you would be a most unusual Christian parent, if you have not done so. But would you not say that these techniques amount to child indoctrination? Thanks again for engaging in a discussion. I do appreciate hearing your thoughts. Regards, Anon.

23-Feb-2009 03:09 PM Adam

My question is how do you not indoctrinate your child? How is it possible to objectively present all of the evidence from all persectives? Each belief manipulates the 'evidence' to say what they want it to say. If reality is a puzzle and evidence the pieces, each of us take a piece of the puzzle and try and make it fit into our own version of the picture. For the creationist the immune system of the human body is evidence pointing to intelligent design, to the evolutionist it is evidence of survival of the fittest. To let a child figure out the big questions of life for themselves leaves them open to many dangerous options. There are as many warped Bible teachers as there are warped Koran teachers as there are warped evolution teachers. I have heard all of the above teach philosophies that I would hope no one would live by. Which 'evidence' can our child believe is objective? Is it not up to the parent to prevent the child from being exposed to negative influences? At least until they are old enough to make their own decisions. Can any of us put our hand on our hearts and say we would like our children to see all of what every belief structure in the world has to offer? Don't Christians want to protect their children from the thought patterns of David Koresh? Don't Muslims want to protect their children from the teachings of Bin Laden? Eventually the children will grow to make their own subjective decisions. As a parent would you not want to be a major influencer of what that decision will be? And just because you try and indoctrinate your child, there is no guarantee that you will be successful. There are many people who still actively choose a different religion or belief despite the most violent opposition of their family and/or society. My thought is that objectivity eludes us. Each of us believe that our own is the perspective of objectivity, yet if we look closely can we really say that we have taken all of the evidence into consideration to find out what is the objective reality? Richard Dawkin's beliefs are as subjective as the rest of us. He takes the 'evidence' and makes it say what he wants it to say. But really, don't we all do that in our own way?

06-Mar-2009 10:21 AM Anonymous

Hi Adam, thanks for your response. 1. Your subjectivist solution leaves you with only prudential – rather than epistemic – grounds for your faith: that is, if the objective truth is beyond our grasp, then the only reason we can have for rejecting the teachings of Koresh is that they cause harm – rather than because they are false. Is that really what you want to say? 2. Once your children leave the ‘nest’, they will invariably face powerful criticisms of Christianity, along with a range of alternative worldviews. Their childhood faith may or may not survive the onslaught. But would you prefer that their faith survives because you have (a) indoctrinated them, using the methods outlined in my post above (07-Jan-2009 03:29)? Or because you (b) taught them how to think for themselves (e.g. how to assess evidence, identify logical fallacies, give other perspectives a fair hearing, etc.). Put it this way: If you teach your children to love the truth and how best to find it, then, if Christianity is true, you have little reason to be worried. But if Christianity turns out to be false, then you will have given them the keys to freedom. Cheers, Anon.

17-May-2009 03:50 PM jono andrews
Thanks Greg. Superb. I've read some Dostoevsky and Camus, and they were different, very different. None of the levity that we find these days. no bill boards telling us not to worry. I guess their message was the opposite...There is no God so WORRY!

30-Nov-2009 11:32 AM Think Radical

Parents have a honest responsibility to teach and protect their children that's why they are careful what type of information is convey to their offsprings. However, parents have a responsibility to honor the freewill that God gave every human being, hence parent should also teach their children how to think objectively so that they can judge for themselves over time if the information they have gotten from their parents or anyone else is logical and consistent!

05-Jan-2010 05:56 PM Anonymous

i quote: 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. endquote who are these professors? where can i find their rejections of his assertions? thank you for you attention to this matter.

27-Jan-2010 11:01 AM Simon
Hi anonymous, There are many people refuting Dawkins in the areas mentioned above. You might want to start with a look at the interview on the CPX site with Keith Ward, Peter Harrison, Michael Ruse, Alvin Plantinga and Olivera Petrovich. That might be a good start to get a feel for what is out there.

27-Jan-2010 11:14 AM Simon
Also, there are some very good answers to Dawkins argument in print – Keith Ward’s book Doubting Dawkins, Alister McGrath’s Dawkins Delusion, David Robertson’s The Dawkins Letters are things you might find valuable.

13-Apr-2010 12:16 AM Anonymous

Thank you "Think Radical"...well put. I am a follower of Jesus and was raised in a Christian family by loving, graceful and prayerful parents. They believe without a doubt that God is our Sovereign Lord and Jesus is the way to Life and as our faith encourages, they shared this same good news with me. The faith I learned of and experienced was not an empty indoctrination but rather one filled with science, goodness and common sense. I have no doubt that all taking the time to write on this wall will share their own views of life, origins and purpose with their own children, that it would be biased but personally I find it a little strange if it were not to. Upon leaving "the nest", my faith "survived the onslaught" all thanks to God and the blessing of solid parents who raised me to know what I believed but most importantly, why. Not only that, I was raised to have an answer to every question so enjoy the constant new challenges of objections or critiques to aspects of my belief and exploring deeper in to what the Bible said on these matters. I must take this one step further before I can truly believe and assess the evidence, logical fallacies and other perspectives before I can stand firm in it.

Copyright © 2008 Centre for Public Christianity | Privacy Policy | 02-Sep-2008 11:59 AM | Powered by Business Catalyst