Just what the world needs. Another pop pseudo-intellectual guru with a bone to pick championing a topic that is far larger in scope than his finite mind can handle. Has Dawkins read the Critique of Pure Reason recently? He clearly hasn’t because he overtly presupposes things about God as if he truly knows what God is. How does he know God as an essence, though? I wonder. He must cheat.
And Dawkins is a cheater.
Perhaps, Richard Dawkins should read some Dons Scotus or Occam, or Lucretius, or Longinus, or Augustine, or Aristotle, let alone Bruno, or the esoteric tradition, or the apocrypha, or even the well-known Perennial Philosophy as evidenced by Huxley and Blake and by every single human society since recorded history.
I wonder has Dawkins’s read about the Egyptians? He certainly rarely talkx about them. He is keen on assaulting one tradition alone: the Judeo-Christian one. Why? Because the Bible is brutal?
Okay. Close. But I will tell you why.
Dawkin’s arguments are old ones about the Bible; he has nothing new to say. He is simply regurgitating the great atheists who came before him so others can hear what they want to hear.
He has about as much original thought in his brain the standard deviation of its occurrence would border on its non-existence.
The existence of God is a ridiculous debate; one allotted to college stoners, poets who believe in mystical experiences and zealots on both sides alike.
The debate is not even important to our times and it usually ends up nowwhere.
So why this Dawkins now? Why do we need to know the good news that God does not exist?
Because we have real human problems to deal with—-and the existence of God is a false problem (that only appears important because it has been so in the past).
We have so many others problems to take care in the world rather than get off on some power trip by some secular humanist who feels compelled to share the great news that God is Dead again.
With all due respect, Richard Dawkins is an eloquent man, but he is about as interesting to observe as a carrot sitting in a glass of water. His reach exceeds his grasp; he bites more than he can chew and, quite frankly, defines God is very exoteric terms. I would go so far as call him a bigot. He has contempt prior to investigation and is often guilty of what he blames in his religious others.
Clearly, Dawkins has a beef with one particular kind of God, which does not surprise me. For every atheist, in fact, we may conjecture, has backstory and I trust Dawkins has his own.
Too bad Dawkins is not Carlyle and will be forgotten like the rest of the atheists who adhere to his school of thought; for the European Enlightenment and Crises of Religion of the 19th century is over; and it took place long ago; and here Dawkins is still at it, fighting battles that with ghost armies who have already been pushed forward and articulated more than a thousand times.
Subsequently, it amazes how many people think this guy actually constitutes the patina of an intelligent human being, when in reality it is clear: Dawkins is a bigot (who won’t budge for you or for anyone) and will not be open to any other argument except those ones that harmonize or are in congruence with his pathetic presuppostions, which are older than he, and for that matter, make him a lot of money because he can articulate a dumb-man’s atheism for the masses, who can’t think for themselves and need their atheism preached back to them, only so they can regurgitate those views back to others (who are their opponents). In short, I am of the school of thought that the mystique of faith in God (whatever it is) cannot be reduced to a simply thought-experiments alone, nor through argumentation alone, but can be, in some cases, far different than what Dawkins presupposes.
Moreover, Dawkins has no monopoly on atheism. He is another cog in the machine and his presence in our world in inconsquential. He is simply an indicator in how useless debates about the existence of God runs counter-productive to solve real human problems, like the war refugee crises all over the world, wars, rape-camps, corruption, women’s rights, the advent of New Science and the schism that it produces politically and ideologically for our species…..which runs the gambit, and sets up the prospect that we are heading for another dark age, all of which have nothing to with God and everything to do with people who are dividers and usurpers, wandering stars.
Stars that from their pulpits preach with passionate intensity about things that are ultimately inconsequential or at the very least, not up to Richard Dawkins at all, but up to the individual person who has a chance to choose to believe whether or not God exists rather than have the idea chosen for them by the likes of secular tyrant who really doesn’t have humanity’s best interest at heart, or at least only has it in appearance, which is travesty in and of itself and ultimately an indictment on how easy it is to follow the cult of personality.
No matter what the content of belief or lack of belief may be, drilling into the brain what seems like answers, but ultimately is nothing but a bunch of absurd rhetoric, should make us pause.
Kant himself explicated how we cannot know essences. And yet here Dawkins is claiming to know ultimate reality, that is, some essence, a things-in-itself, as if he has even access to that realm in any way, shape, or form. He must consider himself a realist. How quaint, but I dont’t buy it.
I think Richard Dawkins is full of shit.
He is feebl because his position in untenable, if not laughable, as he squanders through his books and notes, in an effort to retort to why he says what he says.
I assure you it’s not because Dawkins believes its for the higher good of humankind to not believe in God, rather it is something that helps him be somebody in this meritocracy, wherein every point of view is for sale, including Dawkins’ own atheism, which for lack of better of words is an old hat: for his lies are old, but he tells them well. There is price-tag to his atheism.
I’d like to see him argue against someone his own size, rather than pick on those “Christians” who are more vulnerable than he. Must he argue against pastors? Preachers? Sufis? Imams?
I remain unconvinced that secular gurus like Richard Dawkins is telling us anything of value, or anything we haven’t already heard before.
All he does is negate.
He is like a drug then: an opiate for the masses. He negates. He is liquid negation like dilaudid.
Let the masses take him in small quantities at first, then build up a tolerance. We already have.
In a matter of time, we wont’ feel a thing and Dawkin’s arguments will be lost in the world’s cultural metabolism as a fad, a fraud, and a harbinger of discord rather than of harmony.
There are far better atheists out there than Dawkins—-Kropotkin and Marx being two of them.
If he is going be an atheist at least be one within the frame of something far more larger project.
We don’t need another negator, another opiate of the masses, to tell us God is bad and man is good.
What we need is new kind of hero: a militant philosopher who gains traction by arguing for the sake of universality, that is, someone who resets the coordinates and starts asking new questions.
Dawkins is simply too closed off to offer something truly progressive. He is, in fact, regressive. He, in fact, regresses to places only an atheist can regress to.
It’s the problem of evil he is really arguing about: he has linked the existence of God debate with the problem of evil issue.
Wedding those issues, in that regard, I’d choose an progressive atheist over a zealous believer any day of the week.
But Dawkins is not extreme enough; he rests on his laurels. He does not take it to the end. He lets people believe in God (why I do not know), which is something that is peculiar.
For to let people disagree with you is one thing, but to devote your life on one idea is an impoverished angle at best.
Let Dawkins see the error of his one-edged point and from there drown from not knowing where to stand up strait.
He slouches like a humanist without hope. He is the very alternative to nothing in particular.
And that is why he is must be avoided; for if his atheism had clout and if it was set within some larger political or socio-historical framework then and only then would his thought justify its means. But he is no philosopher and we should not expect him to be: he asks the wrong questions and for that it is unpardonable.
Dawkkins could save a life, rather than negate a god.
He could enlighten humankind, rather than negate it’s previous way of seeing the world.
He could try to help rather try to deconstruct, but he has nothing to build and nothing to create.
He could be a historian, if he tried.
But all he has is deconstruction, air quotes, and a sharp tongue with a spiteful attitude.
And that is why he sells books. No other reason. People love him for those attributes alone.
He is a rebel for the masses; he is a hero for the afraid.
But I want my atheists deep, but he does not go deep; he stays on the surface.
He does not know his own enemy; he does not know his own nemesis.
In that regard, he will never win anything in this world for this world is too much like Dawkins: Anglo-philic, proud, self-righteous and absent of self-critique.