Once more, Richard Dawkins has amply demonstrated why he should cease being taken seriously on any topic outside of biology. In a recent article in Time written by Dawkins and Robyn Blumner (executive director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation), further evidence was supplied that the “New Atheists” are driven more by emotion than rationality. Given that one would think Dawkins and Blumner would be fairly certain of their words in an article written for a national weekly, let us examine those words for their adherence to rational discourse:
If Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee’s disparagement of atheists was just the ranting of a tinpot politician turned Fox News bloviator, it could be left without comment or fuss.
Nothing like starting out with an ad hominem attack to set the tone for “rational discourse.”
Unfortunately, not only does Huckabee have to be taken seriously as a possible Presidential candidate in 2016, but his suggestion that atheists who work for the government (primarily elected officials) be summarily “fired” is an applause line in too many quarters in the United States.
So did Huckabee actually call for the summary firing of atheists throughout the federal government? Well, no. It was the usual grab bag of buzzwords and “get out our vote” sort of thing executed at political gatherings on both sides. You know it by now: If only our guys had not stayed at home and got out and voted, [fill in the name of despised politician] would not have been elected and [fill in the name of the latest national angst] would not have occurred! He then suggested that his side get out the vote and “fire” those elected officials who do not support the things his side does.
This is neither surprising nor alarming. Politicians routinely tell their support base to get out the vote and send those on the opposing side into unemployment. Furthermore, the electorate actually does have the right (at least until Richard Dawkins becomes world dictator) to remove elected officials with whom they disagree – even if they disagree with Richard Dawkins. They call it democracy.
At no point did Huckabee ever suggest that someone face job discrimination for being an atheist. I am quite certain he would gladly accept the support of Ayn Rand type atheists who wail against socialism and keep saying “Who is John Galt?” to random people. The context of his statements were clearly dealing with elected officials and voting out those who disagree with his principles. This is a family values forum, so he plays up the morality angle. Next week, if he speaks to a group of businessmen, he will play up the get the government off the backs of business angle. Remember when President Obama ran as a peace candidate? Politicians are like that.
That nonbelievers somehow deserve to be discriminated against is a view widely shared, particularly among Christian conservatives who seem to think “religion by the sword” is an oldie but a goodie.
There was absolutely no hint of some anti-atheist pogrom in the works. He was suggesting that they vote out anti-family (which he identifies as belonging to the other party) for pro-family candidates (who he suggests belong to his party). That’s it. The fact that Dawkins and Blumner read into it a foreshadowing of discrimination against atheists demonstrates they either were not paying attention or were engaged in a bit of demagoguery. As for people wanting to discriminate against atheists, that is simply not the case. Rather, they just don’t like them for the same reason they don’t like some Christians: They are obnoxious loudmouths who divide the world into the superior us and the disdained them. Whether the interaction be with the street preacher condemning everyone to hell or the sneering atheist disparaging the “dims” (as opposed to the “brights”), it is not a pleasant experience. The problem for atheists is that most folks know very nice Christians and appreciate the good things religion brings without excusing the bad. Their interaction with atheists, on the other hand, tends to be with the obnoxious louts like Dawkins who seek to browbeat everyone into submission and dismiss those who disagree. Part of the problem is that many functional atheists prefer to refer to themselves as “agnostic” simply because they do not want to be seen as another Dawkins.
As for the sword, this canard is one of the great double standards. Dawkins is quick to point to Christians who have persecuted in the distant past to link it to radical forms of Islam in the present. But is anyone really concerned about Lutheran suicide bombers or Presbyterians flying planes into skyscrapers? In fact, the conservative Christians that Dawkins presumes to view persecution with nostalgia are largely from the Baptist and Anabaptist traditions that usually were at the other end of that sword wielded by the various state churches. But let’s not allow facts to get in the way of Little Dickie’s snit fit.
This latest bit of hate was offered up – where else? – at the 2014 Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. The ritual hookup between Christian conservatives and Republican presidential aspirants is a right wing, Jesus-loves-us debauch of Homophobia, Intolerance and Militarism, a trifecta easily remembered by the acronym “HIM”.
“Homophobia,” like “racist” or, better yet, “sexist” (a word Dawkins has had tossed his way on more than one occasion), are attempts to end all debate with a smear. Fact is, believing that families work best with one mother and one father is not indicative of a phobia as much as observing the obvious. However, the current political climate is trending in the opposite direction so Dawkins must lead the parade from the rear.
Huckabee, in a tortured metaphor about answering phones “God is ringing,” exhorted his audience to answer the God-call by making sure only people with the right values are hired for jobs in Washington and by making sure those who “refuse to hear … God’s heart” are fired. No joke, Huckabee is suggesting that we should: 1) Find out whether government employees are true believers; 2) Fire those who aren’t.
Yes, that is illegal, which makes the suggestion all the more stunning from someone who expects to be taken seriously on America’s national political stage.
Once more, Huckabee was suggesting voters vote out those whose values they do not share. It had nothing to do with rank and file civil service employees. And yes, Mr. Dawkins and Ms. Blumner, it is legal. They call it an election.
But such warped intolerance toward people who simply don’t subscribe to a deity, is considered a ticket to electoral success in some parts of the United States. Consider Zach Dasher’s view of nonbelievers – comments he rolled back on Monday after public pressure.
This Republican congressional candidate in Louisiana and nephew of “Duck Dynasty” patriarch Phil Robertson, suggested on his faith-based podcast that atheism contributed to the Sandy Hook massacre of 20 children and six adults in 2012.
Apparently, the premier driver was not the mental illness from which shooter Adam Lanza clearly suffered, nor was it that an unstable man was able legally to amass a stockpile of weapons, thanks to his mother supplying them.
According to Dasher, “the reason why (the Sandy Hook massacre) happened is that we have denied as a culture that man is made in God’s image.” He said the “atheist agenda” reinforces a message that says “you don’t matter … all you are is chemical, all you are is material.”
Had Dasher bothered to find out about atheism, humanism and the nonreligious, he would have come to understand just how precious this community views life.
Perhaps Dawkins might consider the possibility that Zach Dasher’s comments have nothing to do with his faith and more to do with his not being the sharpest tool in the shed. Dawkins should no more judge others by Dasher’s statements than I would judge other atheists by Dawkins and Bluner’s logical train wreck of an article.
Unlike Dasher, who believes there is another existence – a better one — outside the temporal, atheists, humanists and freethinkers believe they have one life and one chance to do something meaningful with it. With no supernatural arbiter to fall back on, nonbelievers know it is up to them and them alone to promote justice, compassion and a fair society.
One wonders exactly what meaning Richard Dawkins could actually find in life given his naturalistic worldview. After all, no matter what you accomplish, in the end it is all nothing but the random movement of particles. His movements, thoughts, and even his atheism (as well as my Christianity) are, by his philosophical outlook, just the outgrowth of a natural process. One should conclude that Dasher is no more individually responsible for his statements than his receding hairline. Furthermore, by what standard are we to judge what is just compassionate, and fair? What meaning can that have for one who views life in naturalistic terms? Where do we find an objective basis for such concepts? From Richard Dawkins? Given his comments on the relative degrees of rape and pedophilia and his advice on children with Down’s syndrome, I certainly hope the world would not sink to than level.
The proof that secular people are good, care for others and build healthy societies is evidenced in cross-national studies. The research of Phil Zuckerman at Pitzer College, demonstrates that secular societies, such as Sweden and Denmark, among others, are more likely to enjoy broadly shared prosperity and a high level of societal health and happiness than traditionally religious ones, and certainly more so than the United States.
Gregory Paul has done a similar comparison, as well as one between states within the US, and found parallel results. Which way the causal arrow goes is an interesting question: does secularism foster healthy caring, or does religiosity die away in societies where people care for one another? Paul himself says, “once a nation’s population becomes prosperous and secure, for example through economic security and universal health care, much of the population loses interest in seeking the aid and protection of supernatural entities.”
Actually, Dawkins fails to ask the real question: Do countries become secular after becoming prosperous? Most of Europe was traditionally Christian and quite prosperous long before secularization. Although many are now secular, they still retained some sense of morality informed by Judeo-Christian values long after the Church had ceased to be a force. As this erodes, we will see how things go. Also, Dawkins fails to mention other secular nations like the former Soviet Union and China. Must have been a slip, no doubt. It’s the old double standard: remember the thousands killed by the Crusaders but forget the tens of millions killed by staunch atheists like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
Thus, Dawkins fails to even consider the quite likely possibility that our society’s morals were formed by its Christian past and is currently living off that borrowed capital. There is no guarantee that this will continue as the society moves further away from that prior history and certainly none as the West allows the easy immigration from lands with no such history. As Europe is now discovering, not all religions share the same values just as not all forms of atheism share the same values. Unfortunately, they may see the evidence in front of them but their “politically correct” values, a phenomenon that belongs to secularism alone, will not allow them to reach the obvious conclusion.
Whichever way the causal arrow goes, politicians like Huckabee and Dasher would do well to ponder (if indeed they know the meaning of the word) on Zuckerman’s summation: “(W)hen we consider the fundamental values and moral imperatives contained within the world’s great religions, such as caring for the sick, the infirm, the elderly, the poor, the orphaned, the vulnerable; practicing mercy, charity, and goodwill toward one’s fellow human beings; and fostering generosity, humility, honesty, and communal concern over individual egotism — those traditionally religious values are most successfully established, institutionalized, and put into practice at the societal level in the most irreligious nations in the world today.”
With that reality, one has to wonder what politicians like Huckabee and Dasher really stand for?
I suppose Dawkins fails to see the obvious: Zuckerman states the fundamental values and moral imperatives are contained within the world’s great religions. I would add that they are more prevalent in some of the world’s great religions than others. Yes, these values may now be expressed best in secular democracies but those democracies grew out of a particular historical background of which religion played a major part. Outgrowths of the recent secularism such as political correctness and the devaluation of the marriage, the family, and the sanctity of life have slowly eaten away at this moral fabric – a process that is increasing at a rapid pace. Of course, the secular mind refuses to see this and will continue to do so until the assumed supremacy of the West is a dim memory.
The article by Dawkins and Blumner makes a farce of their supposed esteem of reason. They completely misrepresent Huckabee’s statements and force through a series of emotional non sequiturs to reach a final evaluation that flies in the face of history. They wish to stake the moral high ground but they must live off the borrowed capital of their foes to establish such ground exists. It is the price you pay for being an ideologue.
