Things I Thought When My Brain Was Off

I don't really do this, but my imagination was piqued earlier in the week and also tonight, so I did the unthinkable (literally, I had to stop thinking), I read some of Richard Dawkins' quotes. Okay, okay, there is a danger in reading quotes and a small diatribe; but hear me out, I didn't get them from any Christian web sites so I guess it counts.

Of course Dawkins makes some decent points, but the problem with some atheists and theists (unfortunately usually the most vocal ones of these groups) is that they believe they have made and/or are making the "slam dunk" argument; that after this argument there will be no more debate on the issue of religion and it will be over and done, Amen.

I think that is what makes some of these atheists so jaded. I once heard the story of a wealthy philanthropist who worked his whole life at something and when he accomplished his mission, he was angry and jaded because there was nothing left to do. Or, how about the fact that Martin Luther wrote a scathing anti-semetic work that embarrasses we Lutherans to no end and is completely unjustifiable, simply because the Jews wouldn't become Christians after the yoke of Rome had been removed. What is the similarity between the two stories? Though one person was disappointed with what he perceived was success and the other was disappointed with what he perceived as failure; both men put too much stock in their own achievements and win or lose became all that there was.

I think Mr. Dawkins puts too high a value on his own achievements, and that makes him look like a fool to a great many people (except his disciples). It allows him to go into areas of which he has no expertise (philosophy, literature, sociology). Then he says that that particular area is not important at all. This can make you a lot of enemies. However, Mr. Dawkins acts like a brash young bully rather than a person who really cares about his beliefs or, as he might say, "the facts". Mr. Dawkins overlooks the fact that in regards to the humanities he can allow himself to be outgunned and outclassed by simple bachelor's degree students. His hubris is his greatest failing, not his lack of zeal.

No one should debate Mr. Dawkins because there really will be no rational debate involved. I will give you an example. I once had a supervisor tell me I needed to get something done. It didn't make sense, so I asked why I needed to get it done? This person replied that he was in charge and, with all due respect, I shouldn't question it.* Mr. Dawkins seems to ignore a lot of things in his quest to be the world's smartest person. Ironically, the thing he ignores most is the fact that for every invective he levels against Christianity and belief of any kind for his own ego boosting, he is reinforcing the faith of every Christian and making his argument weaker by building it on his own very human understanding.

I wish Mr. Dawkins the best. I hope he finds a civil and intelligent way of debating with people, but until he does, I am thankful that the atheists will never have a foe worthy of the Christian's notice.



*In the hierarchy of things not to tell a philosopher, this is near the top. In the hierarchy of things not to tell an American, this is also near the top. Finally, under no circumstances should you tell a Christian this, just ask the Roman Catholic Church.