Richard Dawkins: The (A)theist's Worst Enemy

The agreed upon functional role of the public intellectual - if there ever truly was one- is to bring their expertise and knowledge to an issue in such a way that some sort of progress is made, we are brought further along in our understanding of it, and are made to think differently and more productively about that thing now that we’ve more or less “seen the light” projected by this person’s expertise. According to USC professor Stephen Mack’s blog post on the decline of public intellectuals in the Western sphere, their job is to more or less ensure that popular discourse is circulating something “worth talking about” (par 10.) The resources and experience of this person can be used as a tool to elevate our understanding of something that is ushering us further along to the “correct” conclusion, something that would’ve maybe possible through the layman, but not as influential without the intellectual’s perceived authority. The functional intellectual is an incredibly powerful way to alchemize popular thought, and has been used on everything from astronomy to racial segregation. Now, thanks to the enlightenment, it’s become acceptable, if not enticing, for modern intellectuals to issue new takes on an old problem: the primacy of God and the nature of faith. The collective force of their machinations and discourse has now allowed us to ‘progress’ to a breaking point on the topic: if God is truly a human construction, what the hell do we do now? If we recognize that religion is truly a delusion, is it harmful for others to gratify this fantasy? Should the lack of religious beliefs be organized into a formal structure that can proselytize? These are difficult questions to pose, let alone answer,

given how recently divorced from religion Western thought is. On the other hand, According to Oxford naturalist and resident atheist intellectual Richard Dawkins, the matter is simple: anyone who doesn’t give a resounding ‘yes’ to these latter two questions is on the wrong side of history- and he makes a healthy living saying so. This approach proved popular, evidenced by Dawkins’ appearance in Britannica, but is ultimately reductive, and this Dawkins-brand dogmatism risks alienating both theists and more tolerant atheists while also feeding into the patronizing idea of the public intellectual more than it is ‘progressing’ us through the issues surrounding religion.

A good deal of people in the West have at least a faint idea of who Dawkins is and what he believes, even if he hasn’t been a household name for some time. His intellectual battle-ground of choice is, famously, the machinery and ideology of every religion- from the occult to mainstream establishments like Christendom and Islam- with the firm assertion that theism and anyone who tolerates it will only bring harm to a civilized society. Dawkins is not the first prominent atheist in the public sphere, but he is the flagship for this so-called “fundamentalist” atheism that opposes any and all theistic beliefs. The God Delusion, Dawkin’s seminal book on this antagonistic atheism and what he is undoubtedly best known for, lays out a comprehensive plan of attack that addresses everything from the rote existence of God to the consequences of religion in both Europe and abroad. While the endless stream of positive response from atheists in book reviews and comment sections affirms that Dawkins’ work has armed a generation of nonbelievers with the rhetoric and support to take on harmful modes of thought rampant in theism, the use of ‘delusion’ title alone impresses that Dawkins believes religion is not a cultural phenomenon but a mental illness. This approach is not only patronizing, it poses the risk of being so obtuse that it actively prevents proselytization. If his core assertion that religion is ubiquitously bad is to be believed, the end goal should be to convince, not to mock. He’s accumulated a steady amount of press and footage of him appearing to do exactly that, whether it’s “schooling” nervous theology students at conferences or travelling to the middle East to explain to Muslim schoolteachers in patronizing detail that the ‘theory’ in scientific theory is almost a misnomer. While it makes great ammunition for atheists to amuse themselves with how seemingly backwards and anachronistic theists from under-educated countries experiencing a humanitarian crisis are, it doesn’t seem to ever produce tangible results. The evangelicals and muslim extremists who have spent their entire lives believing in the existence of a higher power are not going to be converted by a pallid academic dancing around the smug assumption that they’re all just too stupid to realize that God isn’t real. Dawkins risks actively harming the very movement he’s trying to propagate- in Guardian writer Adam Lee’s words, he is a “liability at best, a punchline at worst.”

Perhaps the more draconian of Dawkin’s ideas is the concept that even a mild tolerance for religion and, in particular, the reinforcement of faith, acts as the driving force behind everything from Christian extremists blowing up abortion clinics to jihadists throwing bombs at passersby (The God Delusion, 302.) He argues against the idea (ostensibly raised by psychologists and journalists) that people who kill other people on the basis of religion are psychotic and puts forward that, instead, that they are enabled by faith into doing something they believe is genuinely good and just. More exactly, he writes that “suicide bombers do what they do because they really believe what they were taught in their religious schools: that duty to God exceeds all other priorities, and that martyrdom in his service will be rewarded in the gardens of Paradise” (302.) According to Dawkins, it is religion itself, not fringe extremism, that allows a delusion that theists will be rewarded by an intangible force if they punish sinners or commit acts of violence. Mainstream religion, not fanatics, transformed genteel, rational young men and women into rabid threats to society, and to respect the faith they are brought up on is to tolerate Osama Bin Laden and David Koresh. Dawkins also ties this in with the education of religion in children, claiming that it “corrupts” the way that they think- to be exact, that “faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong” (306.) Anyone who has met more than a handful religious people in their life should be able to intuit that this particular take is a little cursory for an issue like, say, the twin towers no longer existing. Dawkins has found a clever way around this issue by utilizing an extremely reductive approach to religion itself- rather than treat it as a multi-faceted cultural phenomenon or paying attention to any historical implications, it becomes simply “believing in fairies” (102.) Agnosticism becomes a “cop out” because religion is now a logical fallacy, an equation with the wrong answer (53.) To frame something so one-dimensional is to prepare the audience for a one-dimensional solution, no matter how obnoxious- even if it means adopting a zero tolerance approach.

Although Dawkins has voiced a dislike that his beliefs are considered fundamentalist (286) there exists evidence that the influence he exerts on public opinion has pushed atheism toward that direction. Those who follow the Dawkins dogma have developed an in-group (true atheists) and out-group (“faithiests”) where those in the out-group are not “atheist enough” because they do not subscribe to this zero-tolerance approach. Salon contributor Chris Stedman describes interactions with the atheist community that left him disillusioned with the movement, where he was excluded and mocked on the basis that he is a social worker who cooperates with theists. He claims that he was told “there’s nothing worse than a faithiest” (par 12) at one of the several atheist events he attended before abandoning them entirely, and that the belittling term was prescribed to him on several occasions. In a community that supposedly believes in the primacy of scientific evidence and ardent contrarians, it’s hypocritical to attach a stigma to playing devil’s advocate. To stick so stubbornly to what we think of as intellectual- secular, tweed, and smart-mouthed- is to ignore an entire world of philosophy and reflection that is partially responsible for the modes of thinking we enjoy today. The conception of what the phrase ‘public intellectual’ refers attaches itself automatically and comfortably to academia, something that we assume is secular and scientific, and the more imaginative of us might take the liberty to conjure up in our mind’s eye a silver-haired professor with a polemic streak(that Dawkins embodies) or a heavily-bearded ancient Greek sophist to represent this idea- but this was not always the case. Pre-enlightenment, several of the most influential intellectuals throughout the centuries were devout theologians, from Aquinas to Augustine, and their machinations on what it means to live under god has arguably contributed to our ‘progress’ on secular problems just as much as Descartes and Kant.

Dawkins has not addressed his critics beyond those who think he is incorrect about the existence of god (and who all happen to very bad at public discourse) but he has made a pastime out of posting extremely controversial statements on twitter, whether it’s telling rape victims they shouldn’t report their rapists if they were drunk or that fetuses with Down Syndrome should be aborted. Dawkins has reaped all of the (in)fame and lucrative book and speaker deals of being a controversial public intellectual without necessarily satisfying the obligations of the role- controversy without discourse, discussions with plugged ears. If we look at public intellectuals through whether or not they serve their designated function of progressing perspectives- as Mack puts it, “keep the pot boiling”- then Dawkins has failed, refusing to touch the burner because he thinks cooking is stupid.

WORKS CITED

Stedman, Chris. “Toxic Atheism Drives People Apart.” Salon, Salon.com, 22 Oct. 2012, https://www.salon.com/2012/10/21/toxic_atheism_drives_people_apart/.

“Richard Dawkins Has Lost It: Ignorant Sexism Gives Atheists a Bad Name | Adam Lee.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 18 Sept. 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Black Swan, 2016.