It is really and truly difficult to imagine that Richard Dawkins could actually be a stupid man, and yet there is some evidence to suggest it. On video, no less.
I just finished watching a clip named “7 Clever Atheist Flawless Victories“, but saying the video failed to deliver would be a major understatement. Why did I even bother to watch it in the first place? My best, most honest answer would be morbid curiosity.
Knowing your enemy seems to be a very sound battle strategy and between theism and atheism there is an ongoing war of ideas. Yet despite the video’s provocative title, my expectations going in were low and still went unmet. Frankly, there are no new arguments for atheism, and all the old arguments are incredibly weak. Personally, I don’t view individual atheists as my enemy. Atheism is my enemy.
I don’t hate atheists, but I’m not a fan of atheism. Why? Atheism is the enemy of logic and scientific evidence. My book proves that with a comprehensive argument that is utterly devastating to atheism. That’s why I like to offer the atheist visitors to my Facebook page a free ebook copy so they can see for themselves and check all my references.
Sadly, far too few accept my generous offer, even if they live in a country where I can upgrade the gift to an audiobook. They would prefer to remain willfully ignorant rather than tackle an argument that could (and would) rock their worldview if they took the argument seriously.
This particular video promised not only one, but seven different arguments for atheism that were (allegedly) perfect in their rendition. In lieu of atheist visitors who bring their “A” game to the Facebook page, this is about the best I can do to keep my mind sharp and ready for the decent argument. The video’s title is exactly the sort of claim that grabs my attention.
I don’t care about all the weak arguments for atheism–I want to hear the very best arguments they’ve got. The only argument for atheism that gives me any sort of trouble at all is the problem of suffering and evil, but my only problem with that argument is getting the atheist to understand my response, not the argument itself. My problem isn’t defending against the problem of suffering and evil.
My problem is that I lack the wisdom of God.
So, I watched the video with eager anticipation, expecting to see some of the best “winning” arguments from some of the brightest atheists in the public forum today. Instead what I got were bad, underwhelming arguments from the likes of Christopher Hitchens, David Silverman, Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Sean Carroll (whom I like). There were not one but two different comments or arguments from Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous atheist currently alive.
Naturally, Dawkins was featured as the #1 atheist on the list.
Now, I’m not going to go through each argument and rip them apart. I could, but I want to get straight to the point. If you want me to take Neil deGrasse Tyson or Sam Harris apart in another blog piece, leave me a comment identifying which argument you’d like me to shred and tell me what you liked about it.
In the #1 segment of this particular video clip, Dawkins was attacking the biblical God of the Old Testament and his interviewer interjected, “Some would say the abolishment of slavery was very much inspired by the Bible, even though slavery might have been the same…”
Dawkins interrupted him and said, “You’ve got to be joking! Because what you’re saying is you can if you look through the Bible pick a verse–you can probably find a verse you can read as abolishing slavery and then you’ve got another verse that says you should keep slaves so you’re picking and choosing, that’s all I’m saying. We don’t get our morals from the Bible because we pick and choose on the basis of a modern morality which is evolved, and quite right to say it’s evolved.”
Of course, according to Richard Dawkins everything has evolved, possibly even the universe itself. But that is beside the point.
The question of the moment is this: is Richard Dawkins a complete idiot? How can this be possible? Richard is a British academic type. How ignorant of modern British history does he have to be to give that answer to the interviewer’s question about Christians being behind the abolition of slavery? Has Dawkins never heard of John Newton or William Wilberforce?
Seriously, I’m just a lowly American writer and Richard Dawkins is a very well-respected academic, and yet for some strange reason I appear to know a lot more about the abolition of slavery than he does.
For example, I know that John Newton was an Anglican minister who had once been a slave trader. He nearly drowned on one voyage while transporting slaves and had his “come to Jesus” moment on the high seas. Newton went from being a man who profited from the slave trade to a man who vehemently opposed the ugly business. Newton became famous for a couple of reasons: he wrote “Amazing Grace”, one of the most beautiful hymns in the Christian religion, and he mentored William Wilberforce.
William Wilberforce literally dedicated his entire life to the abolishment of slavery. They even made a movie about him and gave it the same name as Newton’s famous hymn. He died in 1833 only three days after being assured that the legislation to permanently bring the slave trade in Great Britain to a permanent end had been passed by Parliament. Also yes, Wilberforce was a very enthusiastic Christian and his faith had a significant influence on his politics. It’s absolutely silly to argue otherwise.
The question isn’t whether Christians led the movement to abolish slavery in both the United States and Great Britain, because they clearly did. Has Richard Dawkins never heard “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”, which begins with the lyric, “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord…” That song was written by abolitionist writer Julia Ward Howe.
The question is, how could Richard Dawkins not know any of this? How could a dumb American nobody know so much more than an esteemed British scholar and academic? Frankly, I believe Dawkins does know, and he’s lying. He hates Christianity so much he’s willing to blatantly lie about recent history. Just how desperate can a person get? Surely, on some level, Dawkins must realize he’s stealing from God in order to criticize Him.
If slavery in the Bible was seen as a good thing, why did Moses lead the nation of Israel on the exodus from Egypt? Slavery in the Bible was never a good thing. It was also a human thing. God didn’t want us to have kings, either, but people seldom listen to God and do what He wants.
Also, never underestimate how desperate a human being can become about being right. Dawkins wants us to think secular morality is superior to religious morality, but secular morality is by definition also relative morality, which means my morals can be different than yours, and who is to say whose morals are better? Let’s say you believe that two men should be able to marry each other and have the exact same relationship as a husband and wife, but I do not. Or, that a man can claim to think of himself as a woman in order to compete in women’s sports, and I say that’s wrong and unfair because men are naturally bigger and stronger than biological women.
Who is right, and who is wrong?
In a secular society, the person who is “right” is the person who currently has the most power. There is a growing and very vocal minority who advocate for gay marriage and transgender rights while making a curiously intolerant demand for “tolerance” for their worldview, which includes public events like Drag Queen Story Hour. Your morality may defeat my morality in the arena of ideas because of mob rule…more people support your worldview than mine, so you win. Coincidentally, that’s exactly how Hitler seized power but we’re both sure you’re a much better person than Hitler, right? Right?
But what if you aren’t a vast improvement over Hitler? For that matter, what if Hitler had won? I believe he would have eventually killed every Jew on Earth. But so what? Would that have been morally wrong? People often confuse legality and morality and think of them as interchangeable, but in fact laws originate from morals, and our morals originate with God. Don’t believe me?
Then ask yourself one simple question: why is rape wrong?
According to Darwinian natural selection, rape should be allowed. In fact, it should even be encouraged, as men seek to reproduce as often as possible with as many partners as possible in order to ensure the survival of the species. Darwinism only cares about the perpetuation of the species, right?
Darwin’s famous book even says in the subtitle that the whole point of evolution is the preservation of the species. So, why is rape wrong? Easy answer: because it interferes with the woman’s freewill. She has no choice. She is the victim of the crime, which is a crime because it is immoral.
That isn’t Dawkins’ only problem in the clip. He does a remarkable job of projecting how he reads the Bible onto Christians by saying Christians like to cherrypick verses to defend slavery in the Bible when that’s exactly what he’s doing to attack the Bible. To truly understand the Bible you can’t simply read it and you certainly can’t cherrypick from it. You must http://iowacomicbookclub.com/old-index.php study the Bible.
Does Richard Dawkins really even care about slavery? There are more slaves being held in captivity today than there were when slavery was legal. Many of them are sex slaves. Many of them are children. Watch the movie “The Sound of Freedom.” Then get really, really mad that nothing significant is being done to stop this terrible business except for a few brave souls like Tim Ballard and the man called Vampiro.
Many who patronize these sex traffickers are Americans. We could quickly put an end to this travesty of justice if every American demanded we end it.
Where is your outrage? For that matter, where is Richard Dawkins’s outrage? Does Dawkins really care about slavery, or only attacking the God of the Bible? Perhaps on some level, Dawkins realizes that if he’s right about the existence of God, he’s wrong to say that slavery is inherently evil.
Because that’s just his opinion.
Speak Your Mind