The True Colors of the New Atheists

Richard Dawkins thinks that if you believe religious things, you cannot be a journalist. (photo: Murdo Macleod)

Andrew Brown lays bare the hypocrisy of Richard Dawkins:

Richard Dawkins and Twitter make one of the world’s great pairings, like face and custard pie. But whereas more accomplished clowns ram custard pies into the faces of their enemies, Dawkins’ technique is to ram his own face into the custard pie, repeatedly. I suppose it saves time and it’s a lot of fun to watch. On Sunday afternoon he was at it again, wondering why the New Statesman employs an imaginative and believing Muslim:

“Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhamed [sic] flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist.”

But this is only half the fun. The real comedy comes when he lifts his face from the pie, dripping scorn and custard, to glare at the audience who can’t see how very rational he is. Because there are some people who don’t understand that everything Dawkins says illuminates the beauty of reason.

Read the rest: Richard Dawkins’ latest anti-Muslim Twitter spat lays bare his hypocrisy

So, by extension, no one who believes any religious creed is fit to be a journalist.

  • http://theepiscopalian.blogspot.com/ William W. Birch

    “. . . to glare at the audience who can’t see how very rational he is. Because there are some people who don’t understand that everything Dawkins says illuminates the beauty of reason.” Hahahaha . . . oh wow. Then again, this is so tragic; I think my “laughing out loud” was inappropriate. I mean, should one laugh at a train wreck? Oy.

  • Craig

    Suppose that “Jasan” admits to believing that Johnny flew to Jupiter on a five-legged jackal. Would this provide grounds to doubt Jasan’s credentials as a serious journalist? I think it would. While I don’t doubt that the context of religion can make a crucial difference, what exactly is it about religion that justifies the difference?

  • http://winter60.blogspot.com Lausten North

    “Of course Dawkins would probably deny with complete sincerity that this is what he means – until the next time he says it.”
    I see no basis for that. I’ve never seen Dawkins deny his statements on religion.
    “This doesn’t make him unusually hypocritical. It just means that he thinks the same way as people who believe stories that are differently ridiculous to his…”
    I’m not sure what this even means. What ridiculous things has Dawkins proposed? A hypocrite applies one set of rules to his own statements and a different one to what others say.

  • Sven

    404 hypocrisy not found

    Dawkins is pointing out what is, in his opinion (as well as mine), an example of extreme credulity. This is not a trait that lends itself to responsible journalism very well.

    Craig raises a great point: why do fantastical religious stories get a pass, while fantastical non-religious ones are (rightly) scrutinized ?

  • http://mrhackman.blogspot.com Andrew

    Yep… if one man believes that Joey rode his bicycle to the sky to meet heavenly aliens, he is obviously off his rocker. If a thousand believe it, it is a cult from which people must be deprogrammed. But if a million believe it, it is a religion, and we are to overlook the Joey and the bicycle story.

  • Chris

    Based on these previous comments it looks as tho’ modernism has not left the building.

    Philosophical postmodernism seems to have no (credible) response for it.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X