Why I Don’t Like Richard Dawkins

Considering that Richard Dawkins is one of the most intelligent men on the planet, he doesn’t appear to be very smart.

Late last month, the famed atheist once again dropped his own personal brand of truth bombs on humanity via some remarks which mentioned rape and paedophilia on Twitter. The ensuing furore was lively, to say the least. Last year, Dawkins courted controversy by managing to write off every single Muslim scientist on the planet. Again, his comments weren’t met with the response he would have liked (ie every single person who read it agreeing with him) and he reacted with the kind of scathing put-downs that have become his trademark. In both cases, when dealing with such incredibly emotive topics, could he possibly have expected any reaction other than the one he got? The most recent post-Twittergate entry on his website shows Dawkins being defensive and embattled. He is perplexed at the “bizarre” incident his Tweets generated. How can such a fearsomely brainy man be so naive? But such incidents indicate a much bigger problem with how he communicates with the wider world.

Richard Dawkins is a fearless maverick who likes to kick the hornet’s nest. Nothing wrong with that, it is vital that we stimulate debate via the sharing of ideas and opinions. Dawkins is a great thinker, and great thinkers can be notorious for their antagonism. And lest we forget, he is only one individual who is entitled to their opinion.

Criticising Richard Dawkins is a tricky business, as the man is so strongly associated with atheism and the bright, shining light of scientific fact as to be almost inseparable from its virtues. To me, the fact that Dawkins is an atheist is almost a moot point. What he believes is one thing, but how he discusses and delivers those beliefs is entirely another. My biggest issues with him, then, are two-fold;

1) He sees anyone who disagrees with him as not only incorrect but intellectually inferior.

2) His supporters treat anyone who disagrees with him as not just anti-Dawkins, but by extension, anti-atheism, anti-rationalism and anti-science.

Dawkins comments about rape and paedophilia were actually part of a wider intellectual exercise that he was using to demonstrate syllogism, or deductive reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from two premises. He picked a strong topic to base his examples off of, but the man is free to express himself however he chooses.

But when a number parties were understandably shocked or offended by the subject matter and how he presented his examples, his attempts at clarification were accompanied by an acidic order to “go away and learn how to think”. As a friend of mine put it so succinctly, any sense of humanity or compassion takes second place to his need to make an intellectual point. If you’re incapable of keeping up with him, (intellectually speaking) then that’s your problem. Dawkins isn’t the one at fault for using such a volatile topic, it is the reactee who is at fault for having an emotional – rather than logical -reaction in the first place.

What Dawkins is doing is laying landmines and then, when people tread on them, scorning them for getting blown to smithereens. Empathy takes a backseat when Dawkins has a point to make, and he is intolerant of anyone who doesn’t “get it” straight away.

It’s an unpleasant way to do business, but matters are made worse when you say don’t like Richard Dawkins and some of his supporters react with the kind of flawed logic that would no doubt make their idol’s toes curl.

I’ve called out Richard Dawkins before on the web, and anytime I have, I’m met with a cavalcade of disapproval from supporters (let’s call them Dawkinites) who rush to his defence with a fervour that one could describe, rather ironically, as religious. If you disagree with or dislike Dawkins, they think, then it stands to reason that you must also disagree and dislike what what he stands for.

From the Dawkinite perspective, their figurehead sees the world through science rather than religion, and that automatically makes him one of The Good Guys. He is a noble devotee of truth, reason and logic rather than a blind delusionist beholden to fairytales. Consequently, Dawkins enjoys a sort of get-out-of-jail-free card any time he puts his foot in his mouth. It doesn’t matter if he exhibits a profound lack of compassionate understanding, all that matters is that he has the facts on his side.

You probably don’t need me to point out that Dawkins, his cause and his believers can be just as dogmatic as the religious theologies that they frown on (an Orwellian mantra of “Reason. Science. Progress.” sits at the top right-hand corner of The Richard Dawkins Foundation website), but I will anyway. Just because you base your perception of the world on empirical facts doesn’t mean you are exempt from criticism. You aren’t automatically on the winning side just because you adhere to Darwinism instead of spiritualist parables spun thousands of years ago.

For my part, I choose not to label myself as an atheist or as religious. I choose not to label myself as anything if I can help it; too many labels are divisive and detract from the common humanity that unites us all. I also believe that you don’t need to to choose one side or the other. In my experience, life isn’t that black and white.

I don’t really care if someone worships God (or whoever) or not, all I ask is that they practice as much compassion and joy as they can. In parting, I will leave you with this short animation, taken from an actual Q & A with the man himself. You will notice that, rather than answer the question, he instead uses it as an opportunity to show how very, very knowledgeable he is about stuff.

Some of the coverage you find on Cultured Vultures contains affiliate links, which provide us with small commissions based on purchases made from visiting our site. We cover gaming news, movie reviews, wrestling and much more.