Mr. Dawkins, Say Hello to Logic

Just for fun, let’s analyze a quote by Richard Dawkins from his Web site:

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

Clearly he’s saying that atheists are more reasonable than other people because they take the logic of atheism to its completion. Now the only way this idea can make any sense is if you hold the following hidden assumption:

ASSUMPTION: Rejecting gods is a good thing in and of itself.

If you believe this, then of course rejecting one god more than most people reject is a good thing. Forget whether there are true god(s) or false gods. Rejecting any god is good in and of itself.

By the same token we could say that because rejecting scientific theories is sometimes a good thing (because some have been shown to be false), it follows that rejecting scientific theories is good for its own sake. So the more we reject, the better! To paraphrase Dawkins’ quote:

We all reject lots of scientific theories that have been put forth (in the past), but some of us just go further and reject all scientific theories!

So sad, so pathetic. I guess my expectations of atheists are too high. It probably comes from my studying philosophy in college. When I go to an atheist publication, I guess I unconsciously expect something challenging like Flew’s invisible gardener parable, or on the other side, Anselm’s ontological argument for God’s existence, both of which are equally invalid, but which really challenged me when I encountered them in college days.

But we have to remember: Richard Dawkins is a zoologist trying to do philosophy. Most Internet atheists are not trained philosophers either. Not that you have to be a trained philosopher to be able to think clearly. But maybe these people could at least take a class in informal logic or something. I mean, next thing you know, we’ll see some Hollywood director trying to do historical research into tombs from the time of Christ! The sad thing is not the shabby thinking and theorizing these people do, it’s the extent to which they’re given a platform.

Most shocking of all, though, is that I so often experience the same dashed expectations when I study the writings of someone like Dawkins on evolution, an area where he is a bona fide expert. Somehow I expect to find challenging arguments in favor of evolution—and occasionally I have. But very often they’re as lame as any Internet atheist’s disproof of God. But in this case, it’s not due to lack of expertise. No, the cause is very different, and quite obvious to anyone who is able to attain some objectivity in looking at the matter. It’s simply that a materialist metaphysics has come to overshadow the scientific facts. But that’s another story.