Atheist Spring is Over, Dawkinsism Out of Style
I ran into a card-carrying Dawkinsite once. It was at a University, she was in her early 40's, and she even had one of his books under her arm. Her comment irritated me. I still remember her 7 years later, but interestingly, I just found out that all of that was just another fashion that is on its way out now. Some more good news from the Spectator:

Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists
Secular humanism is recovering from its Dawkinsite phase – and beginning a more interesting conversation

The atheist spring that began just over a decade ago is over, thank God. Richard Dawkins is now seen by many, even many non-believers, as a joke figure, shaking his fist at sky fairies. He’s the Mary Whitehouse of our day. So what was all that about, then? We can see it a bit more clearly now. It was an outpouring of frustration at the fact that religion is maddeningly complicated and stubbornly irritating, even in largely secular Britain.

Continue Reading
I think Hitchens death left Dawkins exposed. His intellect is less bright than a 25 watt bulb. I remember an Evangelical that knocked him back with questions concerning natural selection as the mechanism which brings evolution of a species. He was flat footed when he asked how reducing the total genome of a species can cause variety. That's about where he switched to comparing  DNA to Information Theory in Telephony except that theory has no concern about the quality of the data being transmitted but about how much can be transmitted in the "pipe". He's a dip switch and it's off.

Dawkins is nothing but a sophist. His understanding of the Five Ways is as simplistic as mine was when I was in high school.

In my philosophy courses, we try to understand atheists on their terms before debunking their arguments. Dawkins fails to show this same kind of sophistication when he addresses theistic arguments.
The largest problem with Dawkins was that he pandered to the plebeians, but ignored the scientific senate who sacrifice their Sundays to God.

Henry F. Schaefer, a preeminent Chemist; Robert Jastrow, who has more degrees than Davy Crockett; etc. are all gobs smarter than Dawkins, who consistently talked outside of his competency, and yet he wants to harangue those who are smaller than him. He is an intellectual bully who fights the twerp, but runs home when anyone of his field would face him.

At least Hitchens would go toe to toe with anyone. Hitches was a rhetorical genius, though a sophist. Dawkins is just a an academic with sound byte quality who debates like a complete punk.

My hero atheist is Berlinski, while admitting he has no faith is a Thomist, and is a Math Logician, and in his books has backhanded Hitchens and Dawkins as if they were mosquitoes. This is a contradiction but Berlinski deserves prayers for conversion, he'd be a humdinger of a Catholic intellectual.

yes at least Berlinski admits the limitations of the atheistic position and appreciates the accomplishments that theism has brought to the world.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)