Read how Dawkins chose to defend the heinous crimes
of atheism during the 20th century, and draw your
own conclusions!
Whoever happens to tackle the feat of reading the
entire book by Richard Dawkins titled “The God
Delusion” will find himself in a quandary:
given the
humour employed by the author, the reader will
constantly wonder if Dawkins wrote it to support
atheism, or if he was perhaps determined to... mock
it…
[i]
If only the sober reader of this book could convey
the sense of condescension s/he feels for the
ideological supporters of atheism, who shouted for
joy when it first circulated... This is the precise
sentiment conveyed by (the admittedly overly polite)
Alister McGrath in his responsive work “The Dawkins
Delusion”, (“Ouranos” publ., Athens 2008) who
decided to write a critique on Dawkins’ arguments.
Alister McGrath is the ideal person to provide
answers. With studies in Chemistry at Oxford
University and postgraduate research in molecular
physics, he is able to fully perceive the
anti-scientific acrobatics of Dawkins’ thought
process, while simultaneously, as a professor of
religion at Oxford University, he can more
accurately distinguish the naivety of Dawkins’
positions on issues of comparative religion. His
sang-froid is legendary, in the innumerable places
that Dawkins derails his own book, down to the level
of coffeehouse chitchat.
One classic comment is found in the phrase: “I
don’t believe there is even a single atheist in the
world who would level Mecca, Sartre, York Minster or
the Notre Dame to the ground.”
[ii]
Alister McGrath naturally points out: “Dawkin’s
simplistic perception that atheists would never
commit crimes in the name of atheism, stumbles over
harsh reality”
[iii],
and he reminds Dawkins that “the
history of the Soviet Union is rife with the
torching and blowing up of a vast number of churches”
and that “his
viewpoint regarding the innocence of atheism in
regard to violence and oppression – which he links
to religion – simply cannot be supported anywhere
and it denotes the existence of a significant gap in
his thought.”
[iv]
Of course the destructive mania for the buildings or
the religious articles in churches is nothing,
compared to the executions, the tortures and the
exterminating imprisonments that were perpetrated by
the atheist regimes, based purely on their own
particular beliefs.
But that is not the incredulous part; that which
nobody could have ever imagined is the way that
Dawkins chose to acquit atheism of the crimes that
were committed in its name, by using an “argument”
we had never heard before.
First and foremost, he had dedicated a mere 7 pages
to this matter (in a book that has 400 pages), and
had made references therein ONLY to Stalin and
Hitler.
To quote him: When asked, “Since
both of them were atheists, why did they flatten the
world underfoot?”, he firstly counterposed
a….”joke”, that they “both
had moustaches like Saddam (Hussein);
therefore, what does that say?”[v].
(brrrr...
no more jokes, please…).
Then, from page 272 onwards, he provides us
with the jaw-dropping explanation, that Stalin (whom
he admits was an atheist
[vi]),
had indeed committed so many crimes, shed so much
blood, murdered so many people, because PERHAPS as a
boy, he had... attended a theological seminary
[vii]!
Dawkins
thus states in conclusion that “there
is not the slightest indication that atheism
systematically directs people towards evil.”[viii]
Well, the man obviously doesn’t take anything
seriously - not even himself – because normally,
anyone would be ashamed to give an excuse like that
for so many crimes that were committed PRECISELY
because Stalin had consciously professed that
atheism would save the world.
Stalin had
not declared himself “a Christian gone astray,” but
had actually committed those crimes because he
sought to improve the world by eliminating religion,
which would have led to that much-desired atheism.
(Regarding Hitler, however, Dawkins resorts to
“switch” tactics by claiming that Hitler... believed
in certain transcendental powers and as such, was
not a genuine atheist; Dawkins repeated the same
ridiculous comment, by suggesting that Hitler was a
Christian in his youth, therefore Christianity was
to be blamed for Hitler’s crimes as well!)
So, presumably:
When both Stalin (let’s include Ceausescu here as
well), were youngsters, they used to go to church
with their mothers?
Did
the atheist Chinese murderers also go to church?
What about the Cambodian slaughterers – were they
also churchgoers? Did the Koreans also attend church
when they were little children?
Is Dawkins
telling us that atheist criminals such as Mao
Zedong, Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, and thousands more -
of their leaders, their second-in-command officials,
officials, minions and their armed atheist assassins
- all hung out together at
(Christian)
Sunday schools?
It is needless to say that Dawkins makes no
effort to concern himself with an in-depth
critique of Christianity,
which of course contains no incitement to
violence, in fact, quite the opposite;
which is why it follows that the responsibility
for violence lies in every individual deviant
who resorts to vice, using his religion as an
excuse.
However, when taking into consideration the
above note, the use of two standards of
comparison by Dawkins renders the entire matter
of his book a mockery; whereas he insatiably
ascribes EVERY violent event, NOT to the
individual and his vices, but rather to their
faith (especially Christianity or Islam),
on the other hand he asserts that when violence
originates from a self-declared atheist, then
those acts of violence do NOT stem from the fact
that the individual is an atheist believer (!),
and that there is not the slightest indication
that atheism systematically drives people
towards evil!!!
And he continues undaunted in chapter 8, which
he has titled “What's
Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?”
Even if someone were to take the matter at face
value and embark on an ideological
confrontation,
the actual casualties in the name of atheism
within only a few decades are FAR MORE than the
casualties that were the result of exploitations
in the name of Christianity over 2,000 years!
What
comparison can there be made - even to the
centuries of the Inquisition that Dawkins
continuously invokes - when, in far fewer years,
the atheist cleansings of “traitors” in ONE
country alone, succeeded in greatly surpassing
the Inquisition, both in casualties and cruelty?
3. The thought that the eradication of religion
is the “medicine” for curing humanity is – to
say the least – at a nursery school child’s
level: What
about the crimes that give rise to poverty and
hunger, or the crimes of racial discrimination,
or crimes that are linked to property, or are
the outcome of class discriminations or domestic
violence? Is
religion to blame for all those crimes as well?
Wherever “peace” may exist today, thousands of
crimes continue to be perpetrated daily, and
religion is nowhere implicated!
This
signifies that (for those who do not believe in
the importance of Christian Soteriology), the
only thing that needs to be eliminated is
personal fanaticism and inequality, not
religion! Given
the horrific, bloody, abhorrent “crimes of
passion” that occur every day, should a
senseless book be written, proposing the general
prohibition of love and marriage as the solution
to the problem?
To the justified question, “How can Dawkins
write all those things?
Has he
no shame at all?” the answer is obvious: NO,
there is no shame. Dawkins incessantly violates
common sense and sound reasoning (which he
constantly invokes), and even violates his own
arguments!
Which is why, when you read Alister McGrath's
books, you will find that this man has ascetic
patience; he takes the trouble to respond to
Dawkins, literally debunking his acrobatics, for
the sole reason that the book had generated
excessive hype among atheists - and (naturally)
NOT because it contains any noteworthy
argumentation.
The epilogue here, therefore, belongs
to that brilliant author, Alister McGrath.
With an exceptional sense of humour and
in just a few lines, he literally denudes
atheists and anti-Christians alike:
“God,
in Whom Dawkins does NOT believe, is a ‘base,
unjust, remorseless and oppressive monster; a
vengeful and bloodthirsty subject of ethnic
cleansings; a misogynist, a racist, a child
destroyer, pestilent, megalomaniac,
sadomasochist and a particularly villainous
swaggerer, who among other things fears
homosexuals and fancies genocides.’ Come to
think of it, not even I believe in such a God.
Actually, I don’t know anyone who believes in
such a God.”
[ix]
And so, to the uninspired aggressiveness of
atheists and anti-Christians who interpret the
Holy Bible as they see fit and then attack...
their own interpretations - in essence saying:
“According to what WE say, you Christians
believe in a God that is this, that and the
other” - the simplest answer would be:
It is more likely that YOU believe in the
existence of such a God ... we certainly do not…
******************************************
Translation: R.I.
Notes
[i]
An article writer with great humour, who decided
to write a critique about Dawkins’ book,
provides us with some
moments
of merriment:
http://www.mic.gr/books.asp?id=14025.
To be honest, this
book hardly deserves any scientifically informed
critique…
[ii] “The
God Delusion”, page 249.
[iii]
McGrath Alister, “The God Delusion”, “Ouranos”
publ. 2008, pages. 100-101.
[iv]
McGrath Alister, “The God Delusion”, “Ouranos”
publ. 2008, page 100.
[v]
“The God Delusion”, page 273.
[vi]
“The God Delusion”, page 272.
[vii]
“The God Delusion”, page 273.
[viii]
“The God Delusion”, page 273.
[ix]
McGrath Alister, “The God Delusion”, “Ouranos”
publ. 2008, page 96.
