Feb 142007
 

In a howling funny ironic letter to the editor of the London Times our favorite foil Richard Dawkins tries to commit humility while accusing theologian Alistari McGrath of hubris and dogamtism. After picking myself up off the floor where I was rolling in laughter, I thought I’d share this little tid-bit with you all here at TB. I don’t know whether to file this under “humor” or “sarcasm”. Either will do. Here’s a little tid-bit from RD’s (humble) letter:

Other theologies contradict the Christian creed while matching it for brash overconfidence based on zero evidence. McGrath presumably rejects the polytheism of the Hindus, Olympians and Vikings. He does not subscribe to voodoo, or to any of thousands of mutually contradictory tribal beliefs. Is McGrath an “ideological fanatic” because he doesn’t believe in Thor’s hammer? Of course not. Why, then, does he suggest I am exactly that because I see no reason to believe in the particular God whose existence he, lacking both evidence and humility, positively asserts?

How can anyone argue with such humble logic as that? I especially like the last sentence where he asserts with a very vigorous hand wave that McGrath (and presumably any other Christian apologist) lacks “evidence”. All that means is that there isn’t anything…anything at all…that RD will accept as being evidence for the exitence of God, which is a very different thing from his assertion. For someone who is supposed to be humble and rational and who always takes the high road of scientific reasoning, this strikes me as a rather dogmatic assertion. I guess RD is just dogmatic and proud of his humility!

  3 Responses to “Richard Dawkins Gives Humility Lessons”

  1. DonaldM, you were actually quoting the Dawkins ghost writer talking about the delusional Dawkins. This is actually what he said.

    Other Worldviews contradict the Atheist Manifesto while not matching it for brash overconfidence based on zero evidence. Dawkins presumably rejects the polytheism of the Hindus, Olympians and Vikings. He does not subscribe to voodoo, or to any of thousands of mutually contradictory tribal beliefs. Is Dawkins an “ideological fanatic” because he doesn’t believe in Thor’s hammer? Of course not. Why, then, does he suggest I am exactly that because I see no reason to believe in the particular amoral, meaningless, atheistic existence he promotes, while lacking both evidence and humility, positively asserts?

  2. cannot get more arrogant than this:

    It is tempting to quote Yeats (“Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?” ) and leave it at that. I will, however, dignify his article with a brief reply.

  3. Hmmm…two Richard Dawkins’s. That explains a lot!!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.