Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How Dawkins is losing his own base, which is what matters

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
File:Improved no2 Wagon.jpg
Cretors/popcorn maker

Further to: Whatever made Dawkins famous, he has lost it (We have it on good authority that some naturalist atheists have abandoned their principles and are abjectly praying to the Retirement Fairy. 😉 ), Damian Thompson observes  at the UK Spectator,

It’s hard to deny that Dawkins’s ‘secular fundamentalism’ — as liberal commentators now describe it — makes for an embarrassing spectacle. When enraged pensioners pick fights with total strangers, one’s natural reaction is to go and sit somewhere else on the bus.

But Dawkins has not become any crazier in the intervening four years; he’s simply widened his attack on blind faith, as he sees it, to include Muslims and feminists.

In the process, he’s exposed a rich vein of hypocrisy in the Left — and, more significantly, an intellectual rift between hard-line and multiculturalist atheists. That rift is growing fast: non-believers, having exhausted their anti-Christian rhetoric, are turning on each other with the ferocity of religious zealots. Enjoy.

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG Actually, the downhill path might have began with the “elevator” episode in 2011. Remember that?: Dawkins is “kaput”? Due to a wee hours row in an elevator at a Skeptics convention? (A row he wasn’t even in?):

Feminist harridans blasted Dawkins as an evil man-pig. Dawkins tried to fight back, but his rhetorical skills were not up to the task of arguing with fellow atheists. The New Statesman figures Dawkins is kaput unless he repents and begs forgiveness.

He should have taken up William Lane Craig’s offer to debate. Then he’d have a new set to hang out with, who don’t care what happened in the elevator he wasn’t even in.

But it’s probably too late. By now, Dawkins just brings too much baggage with him, baggage that’s not even about the Darwinism that made him famous. By the way, readers,who have Darwin’s followers got now, who actually generates headlines? Makes Darwinism seem cool?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
I’m sure Dawkins gets a lot of hate among you guys, but you have to commend him on one thing: he did not apologize when commanded to do so. He may not be able to articulate his principles, having renounced all such language in favor of evolutionism and determinism, but he still has them nonetheless.
Unfortunately, from an evolutionist or determinist standpoint, there's nothing to commend him for. Whatever he did has no moral significance beyond "he did whatever he did". As for having principles, these are an evolutionary by-product of some kind and again, he deserves no credit for having or not having them. That's the problem. Evolutionists want it both ways. They want credit for what they think are morally courageous actions and then to claim that human beings are the products of a blind, purposeless natural process. "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."Silver Asiatic
August 1, 2014
August
08
Aug
1
01
2014
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
I'm sure Dawkins gets a lot of hate among you guys, but you have to commend him on one thing: he did not apologize when commanded to do so. He may not be able to articulate his principles, having renounced all such language in favor of evolutionism and determinism, but he still has them nonetheless.AveryM
August 1, 2014
August
08
Aug
1
01
2014
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply