You are here:   Reputations >  Overrated > Overrated: Richard Dawkins
 

Back in 2006, Terry Eagleton began his review of The God Delusion in the London Review of Books: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."

Eagleton is right. Dawkins is aggressively eloquent, utterly confident and dismissively sweeping in his attacks on God and faith, but he is never profound or genuinely compelling. Bertrand Russell was deeper, H.G. Wells was more populist, even silly old Stephen Fry is funnier. Dawkins insists on the same attacks on the same straw men of religion, and he is extremely selective about whom he will engage in debate: he has refused public arguments with those he considers "unqualified" — a grotesquely snobbish euphemism and excuse. There are several North American Christian apologists who would be delighted to take on Dawkins, if only given the opportunity.

The philosopher and former atheist Edward Feser wrote: "Oddly, the rhetoric of the New Atheist writers — Richard Dawkins among the most prominent — sounds much more like that of a fundamentalist preacher than like anything I read during my atheist days. Like the preacher, they are supremely self-confident in their ability to dispatch their opponents with a sarcastic quip or two. And, like the preacher, they show no evidence whatsoever of knowing what they are talking about."

At the Rally for Reason in 2012, after that terribly brave performer Tim Minchin had repeatedly sung, "Fuck the Motherfucking Pope", Dawkins told the hysterical crowd, "Mock them, ridicule them in public, don't fall for the convention that we're far too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe, which need to be substantiated. They should be challenged and ridiculed with contempt."

Too polite to talk about religion! Where has Dawkins been, where does he live? It has been open season on Christianity for almost a generation now, and the last acceptable prejudice in so-called polite society is anti-Catholicism. Dawkins's greatest achievement is Dawkins. He has closed rather than opened the debate around faith and reason, and made life far more difficult for informed believers as well as informed sceptics. What will St Peter will say at the Pearly Gates, if indeed he knows who Dawkins is?

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Gordon
March 3rd, 2014
7:03 PM
The more we know the more Darwinism fades away.

hainez
February 27th, 2014
4:02 PM
I am glad this magazine/website has the small readership it deserves. Frankly, stumbling upon it, I have happened to read two of the most vacuous articles I have read in a long while. I will not stumble again.

Harley Fd
February 18th, 2014
7:02 PM
Dawkins is nothing more than a learned egoist. The wide appeal he has to young secularists can only be attributed to his shrewd wit, vanity, and his dictatorial approach to all religion. Behind all his "wisdom" and "enlightenment" is deep anguish. Where is the remotest sense that he has grappled with the REAL issues? Which have nothing to do with science and the literal meaning of scripture, and everything to do with the meaningfulness or otherwise of human life, the existence or non-existence of objective moral values, or the truth or falsity of the idea of human freedom. Historians will look back at the phenomenon of new atheism in the 21st century with sheer wonder at their popularity! On the surface it may sound profound but deep down, it's superficial.

HRosenberg
December 28th, 2013
6:12 AM
Best article I've read in a long time (and good comments).

Malcolm McLean
December 11th, 2013
6:12 PM
I think this is substantially unfair. Dawkins sometimes does himself no favours, as with the silly, gimmicky "arrest the Pope". But he has homed in on the most pressing question of our age - is the secular, material, empirical, scientific model right, or is there a God?

Anonymous
November 29th, 2013
7:11 AM
Although I agree that Dawkins is overrated and that he's ill-informed yet supremely confident and that in many ways, he resembles a fundamentalist than most so called 'fundamentalists' do, the article just wasn't quite as nuanced as one would hope it to be. The criticism was self-indulgent and insipid, not powerful enough.

Bonnie Tiler
November 28th, 2013
1:11 AM
Atheists are in many cases dogmatists every bit as much as religious zealots. No-one can say for sure if there is no "higher power". After all, when there is no real explanation of why a bunch of atoms can be endowed with a conscience - or some similar concept, is it not better to say: we don't know. Emphatic certainty is a desire by many humans to be sure. In that, Dawkins is quite religious in his behaviour.

NBeale
November 27th, 2013
5:11 PM
He's a talented science writer but was never up to much as a scientist - he last published a peer reviewed research paper in the 1980s and it was pathetic. It now turns out that the basic idea of "the Selfish Gene", technically known as "inclusive fitness" is wrong (see the latest PNAS paper by Nowak, EO Wilson & others which you can find from www.starcourse.blogspot.com) so his "science" is wrong as well. As for his hysterical attacks on "religion" they are almost laughable in their naivite.

Anonymous
November 26th, 2013
5:11 PM
A peculiar article...a lot of wasted words to claim ...mm to claim what? the point of the article is lost on me.

Haylan Fraser
November 20th, 2013
9:11 PM
The war on Christianity here in the USA is an even greater absurdity since our country was founded by those who sought religious freedom. I have never been a believer myself, however, I am glad that I was brought up in a Protestant household. In that household we discussed philosophy, theology, and other points-of-view. So many atheists seem petty, small, minded and unaware of intellectual history or the foundations of scientific inquiry. I thank all the comments here. This book and RD are outstanding examples of the vacuity of progressive so-called thought.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.