RESPONSE TO A CRITIC

 

 

Since writing my critique of The God Delusion, I’m not too surprised to have received some emails from revved-up skeptics.

Whilst it’s both sad and bemusing that they cling to their atheism in the face of such a magnificent, proven alternative, it's also, in a sense, understandable to witness their pride being affronted by someone hinting that they may have made such a dreadful, monumentally consequential error of judgment.

It seems that admitting having got it wrong becomes a far greater stumbling block to them than any other consideration.

Further to that hypothetical meeting between Richard Dawkins and the Majestically Complex Being, I’m perhaps more convinced that he and his ilk, so pathologically opposed to admitting their error, will continue arguing over the evidence well into eternity. In fact, I very much doubt that they’ll ever feel they’ve been proven wrong. Such is the mind of the pure-bred atheist.

Yet, despite the near impossibility of making any headway with Dawkins himself or one of his fans, there are still millions of non pure-breds, fence sitters and doubters around – hopefully one or two of whom will be watching as I clarify a few points from my critique and add a couple more.

For what it’s worth, I basically think it’s a good idea for every true believer’s apologetic streak to be encouraged and honed. Still, I don’t plan to make a habit of replying to every atheist who thinks they’ve refuted me, as I should probably just let my original piece speak for itself.

The critical email I’ll reply to happens to be the first, longest and best of the lot – I hope those who missed the cut aren’t too offended by the implications.

Given the self-confidence and, I must admit, sometimes entertaining nigglesomeness of this critic, I thought it reasonable to administer – indeed, I felt invited to administer – a dose of reality (or tough love, if you will).

In fact, sensitive readers might like to avert their eyes when I begin a sentence with the courtesy “If I may say so”.

Immediately below is the critical email, which is then followed by my response.

 

Date: 02/10/07
Subject: LOL!!

Are you kidding me?!  Mr. Dawkins had 7 and a half pages of cited and recommended books, as well as  11 and a half pages of referenced notes...  So few?

You don't understand how his non-belief system (not the same thing as meaninglessness) could generate meaning and purpose?  By virtue of writing a critique, I assume you've actually read this tome.  Your second paragraph belies my assumption.  Mr. Dawkins' explains quite elegantly in the preface why he felt compelled to write the book "The God Delusion."  Your lack of acceptance of, or belief in, those reasons does not negate his having made them quite clear.  The "incongruity" is either an oversight on your part (perhaps you didn't feel you needed to read the preface) or it is pure fiction (because you don't believe any of your "faithful" readers will ever deign to read a work of such heresy) that you didn't think you'd be challenged to defend.  Your statements on suicide, the Soviet Union and Columbine.  Wow, do you have gall.  You are certainly invited to prove a direct causal relationship between atheism and any of these examples.  Pretty tenuous.  As such, do suicide bombers, the Inquisition, the Crusades, abortion clinic bombings, et cetera, ad infinitum, mean anything to you?  In every case, God has been cited by the perpetrators as the ultimate cause.

"All are marked by excessive speculation and an inability to be verified."

Yet again, I find myself laughing out loud.  You aren't using this as a condemnation of Dawkins'  book are you?!    Or even the naturalist theories Mr. Dawkins reports on with no judgement as to their actual merit?  So your completely fact-less belief is somehow more warranted than Richard Dawkins'?  Would you prefer to be the pot, or the kettle?

Isn't the very statement "It may even be..."  an admittance by those hypothesizing (or at least Mr. Dawkins himself) that they aren't sure of the nature of the beginning of the universe?  It's certainly not a  resounding statement of surety, and an unlikely preface if your assumption of his smug conceit  had any basis.

And yes, Zeus must be an "end product" even if he says he's not...  Oh, wait, you mean the Christian God;  oops, my bad.  My point is that you assume your religion (and thus your god) somehow has more merit than any other religion.  Since you have no evidence of the temerity of your argument, I won't stoop to defending Dawkins' when he has no need of it.

Your statement that not all religious belief is Truth (only your Truth is the real Truth, right?) is in keeping with every other set of religious tenets, the world over.  Every religion believes it has cornered the market on Truth.  Yes, Mr. Dawkins is lumping your religion in with every other religion;  where it belongs.  Mr. Dawkins is fully aware, I assure you, that you believe your Truth is mutually exclusive of other religions.  To use this as a legitimate point of contention will only resonate with other Christians.  I, on the other hand, feel that you have made his point for him.

In regards to your use of the opinions of "respected academics" to prove the historicity of New Testament events and personages....  It might behoove you to mention plainly that all of these noted academics are Christian theologians.  Not exactly my idea of an unbiased source.

I could go on, and certainly would if I thought it would do any good.  Your unfettered hostility towards an academic refutation of your belief system is certainly understandable, if not actually reasonable.  Without fail, every point you made is rooted solidly in a belief system, and not fact, and it is too exhausting to toss my pearls before swine...

Cheers,
SM (Denver, CO, U.S.A)

_____________________________________________________

 

Subject: LOL!!

(For those unfamiliar with internet slang, “LOL” means Laugh[ing] Out Loud)

Are you kidding me?! Mr. Dawkins had 7 and a half pages of cited and recommended books, as well as 11 and a half pages of referenced notes... So few?

I think you missed my word-play on Winston Churchill: Never in the fields of science or history have so many facts owed so much to so few – and to an author’s vivid imagination. The point is, Richard Dawkins, as The God Delusion’s sole author, could have cited 177 pages of books and 211 pages of notes, but I doubt any of their authors would be able to match his talent for producing baroque fallacies, odious caricatures and ridiculous just-so stories.

You don't understand how his non-belief system (not the same thing as meaninglessness) could generate meaning and purpose?

No, not really – as per the several hundred words I’ve already written regarding his nonsensical “non-belief” system. 

By virtue of writing a critique, I assume you've actually read this tome. Your second paragraph belies my assumption.

By virtue of studying the tome, and then spending a fair amount of time writing a critique, I’d hoped that my central themes had proved a little easier for you to comprehend.

Mr. Dawkins' explains quite elegantly in the preface why he felt compelled to write the book "The God Delusion."

Is it because he wants to make the world a “better” place? (As distinct from liking the sound of his own voice and/or resenting the living daylights out of the theists.)

It seems the elegant Mr. Dawkins fails (unlike Dillon Kliebold and Eric Harris) to recognize that it’s absurd and illogical to meaningfully attempt to make the world a “better” place, if the notion of “better” is nothing more than an objectively baseless opinion – essentially indistinguishable from the notion of “worse” – that has resulted (supposedly) from eons of unguided, purposeless accumulations, ultimately materialized in the form of involuntary, predetermined brain chemistry. (Perhaps you could direct one of your “pearls” at that insurmountable philosophical conundrum.)

To labor a point, even if you and Dawkins seem to happily ignore the abject pointlessness of your existence, many other non-believers don’t or can’t – hence the tragic increases in substance abuse, depression, social dislocation and suicide.

Your lack of acceptance of, or belief in, those reasons does not negate his having made them quite clear.

If I may say so, your acceptance of, or belief in, Dawkins’ reasons does not negate the fact that they’re patently vacuous and incongruent.

The "incongruity" is either an oversight on your part (perhaps you didn't feel you needed to read the preface) or it is pure fiction (because you don't believe any of your "faithful" readers will ever deign to read a work of such heresy) that you didn't think you'd be challenged to defend.

Please refer above, and I fully expected to be “challenged”.

Your statements on suicide, the Soviet Union and Columbine. Wow, do you have gall. You are certainly invited to prove a direct causal relationship between atheism and any of these examples. Pretty tenuous.

Stalin was an avowed evolutionist and atheist. Stalin hated theists because they were theists. Stalin tried to kill or imprison every single theist he could get his hands on. Stalin evidently understood well that according to his “non-belief” system there was really nothing “wrong” with his actions. Stalin would probably laugh-out-loud at you for questioning his motives – then he’d consider sending you to a gulag. (You will have noticed that I’ve earlier addressed suicide and Columbine.)

Yes, I realize Stalin killed other atheists (or at least those pretending to be) and political opponents and such. But your point is?

As such, do suicide bombers, the Inquisition, the Crusades, abortion clinic bombings, et cetera, ad infinitum, mean anything to you?

Yes, as someone who believes in absolute morals, such tragedies do have actual meaning to me (and needless to say, nothing could be further from Christ’s teachings than murder). And yet, aside from these being amongst the most adored and overused canards in history, can they really “mean” anything to you?

Forgetting again how demonstrably meaningless and subjective your purely materialistic “emotions” and “thoughts” are (and how fallacious it is to compare murder counts in this instance), would it shock you to “separate fact from fiction” and discover that, as heinous and indefensible as various acts of “the Inquisition” were, the truth about it differs dramatically, in so many ways, from the incessantly perpetuated crown-jewel-of-canards version you’re probably familiar with. That is, far from every second Spaniard being burnt at the stake, a person stood a greater chance of being killed by a bee sting than by an Inquisitor—and therefore it is hardly worthy of comparison to an atheist like Joseph “Murder by the Million” Stalin.

On the subject of fallacious arguments and canards, why not mention the flat earth…oh, of course.

In every case, God has been cited by the perpetrators as the ultimate cause.

Well, as explained, this link between the perpetrators and God is actually (to use your phrase) “pretty tenuous” (regardless of what they themselves may have claimed). Given these man-made events are grievously contrary to His own nature and commands, surely God would be at least as appalled by them as you. Of course, it’s impossible to fathom how deeply God would then feel about having these crimes attributed to Him.

It’s worth noting that my main point in this area regarded ideological consistency and inconsistency. Since you led us to compare body counts, the ideologically consistent Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Adolf “Survival-of-the-Fittest” Hitler make the atrocity tallies of the ideologically inconsistent Crusaders and Inquisitors seem almost charitable.

“All are marked by excessive speculation and an inability to be verified.”

Yet again, I find myself laughing out loud.

I’ll have to take your word on that; but there’s really nothing funny about you staking everything on the fanciful speculation of others whose thoughts (according to properly understood materialism) are no more legitimate or reliable than an axolotl’s.

You aren't using this as a condemnation of Dawkins' book are you?!

Amongst other things, I was alluding to the cosmological argument. A professionally formed argument (not Dawkins’ slap-dash parody of it) that many – including famous former atheists – have found worth pondering.

Or even the naturalist theories Mr. Dawkins reports on with no judgement as to their actual merit?

Whilst Dawkins may not make any specific judgments regarding specific hypotheses, he never ever questions the notion of the universe’s purely naturalistic beginnings. So it’s more than a stretch to imply that he’s an open-minded, un-biased, non-judgmental type when anyone who disagrees with him is deemed to be stupid, insane and/or perniciously misleading.

So your completely fact-less belief is somehow more warranted than Richard Dawkins'? Would you prefer to be the pot, or the kettle?

And what variety or magnitude of fact would you need to believe? Paul had Damascus, but apparently you and Dawkins wouldn’t find a Godly meet-and-greet all that convincing.

Isn't the very statement "It may even be..." an admittance by those hypothesizing (or at least Mr. Dawkins himself) that they aren't sure of the nature of the beginning of the universe?

Certainly sounds like it (and that was my point). Along with asserting how ludicrously one-track-minded he/they/you are.

It's certainly not a resounding statement of surety,...

As I said, he/they/you really haven’t got the foggiest.

...and an unlikely preface if your assumption of his smug conceit had any basis.

Whilst Richard Dawkins is certainly one of the smugger, more conceited entities in the cosmos, I can’t understand why you’ve chosen this particular section of my critique to raise this.

And yes, Zeus must be an "end product" even if he says he's not... Oh, wait, you mean the Christian God; oops, my bad.. My point is that you assume your religion (and thus your god) somehow has more merit than any other religion.

“Assume” is a very crude way to put it. “Thoughtfully confirm” would be more accurate.

Since you have no evidence of the temerity of your argument, I won't stoop to defending Dawkins' when he has no need of it.

As above, you and Dawkins do seem a little hard to please in the evidence department. Again, have you a mind for any particular piece of evidence? Perhaps I could track something down for you. (I’d suggest you examine evidences for the Resurrection, here and here, although I’d hardly expect a Christophobe to give that a fair go.)

Speaking of evidence, would you kindly provide a sensible link (i.e. one not expounding extraterrestrial egg-laying, sperm or any other alien intervention) from a team-atheist site that addresses the intractable problems entailed with chemical evolution?

Your statement that not all religious belief is Truth (only your Truth is the real Truth, right?)…

Yes.

 ...is in keeping with every other set of religious tenets, the world over.

Yes and no. Mainly yes, but there are always some who audaciously attempt to reconcile the contradictory claims of the various “religions”.

Every religion believes it has cornered the market on Truth.

Again, largely so. Yet a hyper-liberally minded type might enquire as to what you mean by “Truth”.

By the way, I have long since noticed how you’re going for the really big build-up before regurgitating a manifestly illogical conclusion.

Yes, Mr. Dawkins is lumping your religion in with every other religion; where it belongs.

That hardly seems fair or scientific, given the rather obvious and dramatic differences between the various “religions”.

Mr. Dawkins is fully aware, I assure you, that you believe your Truth is mutually exclusive of other religions.

That’s very perceptive of him.

And, I assure you, I’m fully aware of Dawkins’ stereotypical ignorance and superficial disdain for any and all “religions” despite their massively contrasting natures, impacts and outcomes.

To use this as a legitimate point of contention will only resonate with other Christians.

This highly legitimate point of contention would certainly resonate with other rational true believers. Indeed, even a Marxist like Terry Eagleton – whilst at this stage stopping a little short of embracing the Truth – agrees with the learned consensus that Dawkins’ theological knowledge and understanding is profoundly shallow and inept.

 I, on the other hand, feel that you have made his point for him.

And I feel that you fail to see the non-sequitur you’ve so earnestly built-up to, and finally delivered. I presume you and Dawkins both dismiss multiple choice examinations on the (less than ingenious) grounds that because most of the choices are wrong, they all must be.

In regards to your use of the opinions of "respected academics" to prove the historicity of New Testament events and personages.... It might behoove you to mention plainly that all of these noted academics are Christian theologians.

If I may say so, instead of putting your foot in it every three seconds it might behoove you to plainly do some research. You would find a number of former secular scholars who, despite their best efforts, found the historicity of the Bible to be miraculously credible. That is, they only became Christians after they couldn't disprove the historicity of the Testaments.

Not exactly my idea of an unbiased source.

No, of course not; I think we all know who your idea of an unbiased source is.

I could go on, and certainly would if I thought it would do any good.

Rather than offering yet another objectively baseless opinion of what “good” is, you might be better off reading my critique again and clicking on some of those (dark blue) hyperlinks.

Your unfettered hostility towards an academic refutation of your belief system is certainly understandable, if not actually reasonable.

If I may say so, your unfettered inability to grasp any of my arguments is bemusing, as is your wont to describe Dawkins’ 400 pages of biased bluster as being “an academic refutation”.

Without fail, every point you made is rooted solidly in a belief system, and not fact…

Hopefully by this stage many other readers have both comprehended my themes and noticed your extreme partisanship and would therefore understand if I really wasn’t too concerned by what you thought my points are or how they arose – although, ideally, I’ve made some headway with you as well.

In any event, would you please spare us the “they’re really silly, and I’m really smart” routine.

Remember, we all have access to the same evidence, it’s just a matter of how we choose to interpret and react to it.

...and it is too exhausting to toss my pearls before swine...

Trust me, it’s rarely, if ever, becoming for a Dawkinsian to quote scripture – especially when there’s such an imminent risk of wrapping oneself in unintentional irony.

Cheers,
SM

Don’t forget those hyperlinks,


P.M. Doyle

March 21, 2007