With all the recent media coverage about atheism and Richard Dawkins shtick, I thought I’d have a crack at making some sense of it.
I think the atheism movement, or “fundamentalist atheism” as I like to call it, has rather hit a brick wall. Their entire argument is the existence of God, rather, the lack of. So where do they go from here? Endlessly reiterating the same point does nothing to substantiate or progress the argument.
Before I dive headfirst into this, I’d like to say that I’m bringing a fairly neutral perspective to the table, in that I am fairly unsure myself as to the existence of a higher power. To me, the God/no God argument is irrelevant. I’m more interested in the basis for such opinions being formed.
On the whole, us humans object to someone stating the bleeding obvious. Being patronised, having something shoved in our face is the sort of thing we don’t like. Dawkins and his followers of staunch atheists relish in ramming their beliefs down our throats. What other groups share this contemptible characteristic. Oh yes, fiercely religious sects of course. I’m just as pissed off when The God Delusion thrust my way as “compulsory reading” as when I’m approached by the Hare Krishna’s. “But they’re a bunch of deluded religious loonies!” I hear you cry. Perhaps. But are you going to begrudge the fact that Christianity gave my late grandparents great strength when times were tough? Delusional they may have been, but to derive such cast iron will from religion to get through the worst of times cannot be mocked.
“Ah yes, granny and grandad going to church is fine, but what about September 11th?”
A lot of the war and conflict in this world is based on differing aspects of faith. Dawkins argues that religion is an evil tool in this sense. Let me put forward a comparison for you:
If guns were outlawed in America tomorrow, what would happen? Would crime cease? No. Criminals would go on using them, and now the general public would be defenceless. Guns have been freely available in North America for years, and a law isn’t going to stop those with the intent to commit crime from using them.
Likewise, citing Islamic fundamentalists as a reason why religion is evil is pointedly short sighted and naive. That’s right, I’m calling atheists naive. Whether organised religion was around or not, these people would still be out to cause trouble. Atheists seem to think that if they get everyone converted the weapons will be laid down. Are they really so arrogant that they think they can overturn belief systems which are based on thousands of years of knowledge? It’s like trying to overturn the myth that everyone who went to Oxford is a sparkling font of intellectual power.
In a way, I almost want the Christian afterlife to be correct. That way I can have a good old chuckle in purgatory while Dawkins is forced to kiss the feet of a Christian Fellowship, a situation that surely takes on hellish proportions in his mind.