First, some clarification. Some of our older reader may remember a Richard Dawkins, active in the 1970s, who wrote important works on evolutionary theory, such as The Extended Phenotype. But he seems to have died, or moved to Canada or something, and instead this post will be about another Richard Dawkins. This other Richard Dawkins writes potboilers with big print (small words though!) and lots of brightly coloured pictures like The Greatest Show on Earth. This other Richard Dawkins also hosts a website on which he expounds his (no longer) particularly interesting views on science, and his even less interesting view on politics. Like many of the New Atheists, Dawkins leans to the Right. He takes it for granted, for example, that Islamic fundamentalism is caused by Islam (i.e. that there is something about Islam that lends itself to fundamentalism), that so-called Islamic terrorism is caused by Islam, and so on. Like any good saloon bar bore, Dawkins feels no need to actually provide any evidence for these startling propositions 'cos it's like, obvious, innit? Besides, Dawkins has doubtless done much empirical work of his own, perhaps by interrogating the taxi drivers who meet him at the airport to take him to his 5 star hotel where he will be staying for yet another highly paid speaking gig, and asking them for their own scientific opinion on why the Muzzies just can't cut it.
But I digress!
Dawkins Mark 2 is as famous for being a New Atheist as Dawkins Mark 1 was for being a serious scientist. But like preposterous buffoon Sam Harris, Dawkins Jr has now started to waver even in that, the closest thing he had to a principle. Indeed, like Mad Sam Harris, Dawkins would now seem to have become a New Faithiest. All religions are equal of course (equally bad that is!) but now it seems that some are very much more equal than others.
'Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil, and looking at the map supplied by this Christian site, should we be supporting Christian missions in Africa? My answer is still no, but I thought it was worth raising the question. Given that atheism hasn't any chance in Africa for the foreseeable future, could our enemy's enemy be our friend? Richard' CF also here. (Note: Nick Griffin, head of the British National Party, has described Islam as a "wicked and vicious faith"). There are three things to point out here. First like the Wicked Hitch of 'The West', Dawkins Jr. is now keen on the imperial 'we'. Who is this 'we' who 'should' be doing things 'for' (not with, obviously!) Africans? Secondly, following Mad Sam Harris, it now seems that whereas, in theory, 'we' hate all religions, in practice 'we' should be prepared to countenance a sort of Nazi-Soviet pact with fundamentalist extremist homophobic Christians (and presumably with fascists as well, as Mad Sam has made clear). And finally, 'atheism hasn't any chance in Africa for the foreseeable future.' Dawkins views atheism as more or less synomymous with rational thought. So: according to this, rational thought has no chance in Africa for the foreseeable future. I know why Nick Griffin would think that. Why does Dawkins?
Labels: imperialists, Mad Sam Harris, nutters, racists, Wicked Hitch of the West |
