|
|
Dawkins’ Ironic HypocrisyPublished: 21 November 2008(GMT+10)Photo <www.expelledthemovie.com> 
Richard Dawkins Creationists are certainly accustomed to being dismissed as a crackpot fringe that holds a minority position—especially in the community of science, where indeed the vast majority of scientists argue for some form of evolution. We are also accustomed to being ridiculed by popularist demagogues like Richard Dawkins. Dawkins professes to find himself highly disturbed that anyone at all accepts young earth or creationist views, and is even more despairing that despite years of evolutionary indoctrination in our schools, creationism just doesn’t seem to be going away. Recently, at the Edinburgh International Science Festival, Dawkins was quoted as saying: ‘I have spoken to a lot of science teachers in schools here in Britain who are finding an increasing number of students coming to them and saying they are Young Earth creationists. Now this is a belief that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and it is such a staggering mistake that it is very concerning to hear this. It is no small error–it is equivalent to someone believing, despite the evidence, that the width of North America from one coast to the other is only 7.8 yards.’1 One could compile a lengthy list of the insulting rhetoric Dawkins has heaped upon creationists,2 but it is not my purpose to address that here. Rather, I’d like to comment on what has become a rather stunning irony and hypocrisy that has emerged from the rhetoric of Dawkins (as well as a handful of other critics of creationism). Dawkins and many others are quite frank in dismissing special creation as a minority, crackpot view. And yet it seems that when it comes to certain ideas that they find beneficial to their agenda, it doesn’t matter at all whether those ideas are considered a minority, crackpot view by experts in other fields! From the perspective of serious historians, the Christ myth is precisely that [a crackpot view]. It is a ‘staggering mistake’ and ‘no small error’—equivalent to someone believing, despite the evidence, that the width of North America from one coast to the other is only three centimeters, and that the continent itself is made of burnt toffee. The most stunning example of this, from Dawkins, is his tacit endorsement of what is popularly known as the ‘Christ myth’–the conception that Jesus did not even exist at all, not even as a person walking the earth (much less as the incarnate Son of God). In The God Delusion, for example, Dawkins says that it is ‘possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all’ and appeals to the work of G. A. Wells.3 Dawkins also made an appearance in a 2006 film titled The God Who Wasn’t There, created by apostate Brian Flemming. The God Who Wasn’t There argued vociferously for the ‘Christ myth,’ including the even more absurd proposition that Jesus’ life story was derived from accounts of pagan deities.4 While Dawkins did not address the existence of Jesus in the film, that he even appeared in it amounts to him giving the film and its main ideas credibility. And he praised it warmly in The God Delusion, despite its crass errors. Photo Wikipedia 
Bill Maher Dawkins himself apparently has not accepted the Christ myth as actually true. In The God Delusion, he says that Jesus ‘probably existed’ and leaves it at that. Nevertheless, that he even grants the Christ myth a semblance of credibility reveals a certain ironic hypocrisy in his criticism of creationists, and that of others who dismiss creationism as a minority or crackpot view: From the perspective of serious historians, the Christ myth is precisely that. It is a ‘staggering mistake’ and ‘no small error’–equivalent to someone believing, despite the evidence, that the width of North America from one coast to the other is only three centimeters, and that the continent itself is made of burnt toffee. Yet Dawkins willingly gives this fringe view a hearing and directs his readers to sources that advocate it. The Christ myth is not endorsed by a single reputable historian. The leading proponent of the Christ myth over the past century—G. A. Wells, whom Dawkins mentions—is not a historian, but a professor of German. (He has also recently recanted his position on the Christ myth.5) The current leading proponent of the thesis, Earl Doherty, possesses a mere Bachelor’s degree in history. Among persons who do possess an advanced degree, Robert Price, a biblical scholar, advances other fringe notions such as that sayings of Jesus may be more accurately preserved in Muslim Sufi tradition than in the Gospels. Note that these represent the Christ-myth’s most credible representatives.6 Dawkins of course is far from the only advocate of evolution to be a victim of this ironic hypocrisy, and he may not even be the most prominent. The recently released American film Religulous,7 hosted by comedian Bill Maher, features an ‘ambush’ interview of Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas, in which Pryor states that the scientific community is divided over whether evolution is true. Maher solemnly corrects Pryor by affirming that evolution is the majority view of scientists; yet elsewhere in the film, Maher advocates the Christ myth plus other wacky ideas.8 Many of Dawkins’ own fans, likewise, can be discovered to endorse the Christ myth.9 [Anti-creationists] would be well advised to remove the log cabin from their own eyes prior to giving creationists advice on extracting the mote they think they see in their eyes. Dawkins’ hypocrisy in this matter raises a number of interesting questions aside from the blatant hypocrisies involved. How far do Dawkins and his ideological cohorts actually investigate matters in their own field, if they so readily and willingly accept as credible a fringe thesis like the Christ myth? How much does this indicate Dawkins and others to be less objective scientists and thinkers, versus their being demagogues who have already decided what is true and will welcome any idea that they find amenable to their misotheism, no matter how absurd? Of course, these questions do not act as substitutes for directly addressing arguments presented by Dawkins and other evolutionists. They do, however, make it clear that they are in no sense deserving of any benefit of the doubt. They would be well advised to remove the log cabin from their own eyes prior to giving creationists advice on extracting the mote they think they see in their eyes. Related articles
Further readingRelated resources
The God Delusion Debate Dawkins Vs Lennox In this debate, Christian apologist / theologian Dr John Lennox calmly and logically shows that Professor Richard Dawkins’ atheism is ill-founded. However, Christianity provides an adequate basis for moral absolutes and has a good track record compared to atheism. Furthermore, science does not support atheism. Great for your sceptical friends. 112 mins. (High School–Adult) References
|