The Dawkins Delusion

I remember reading The God Delusion as a twelve year old and becoming fascinated with Richard Dawkins. I had been raised in a rather secular family, so more than anything it clarified for me a lot of the doubts I had experienced during the occasional religious worship I did encounter while at primary school (usually under the guise of a young, hip vicar called Alistair who used to take his shoes off and tell us about this “really cool dude” Jesus of Nazareth). I used to watch countless videos in awe as Dawkins verbally obliterated every reverend or rabbi he came across.

This man is rather a hero of mine, I thought. He was able to express, in words far more eloquent than I ever could, the reasons behind which I was made so uncomfortable by the key tenets of religion. I would defend him on countless occasions from detractors (usually Christians) who thought he was the devil incarnate. Upon joining Twitter I would often retweet his comments about religion’s negative effect on global society, proudly informing my followers that, yes; I was an atheist, a sceptic and a supporter of the Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. But gradually, and I am not sure exactly when, Dawkins’ infamous Twitter rants went from ballsy attacks on the supposedly infallible and untouchable demeanour of organised religion, to, well, mental.

The squirrel faced Oxonian whom I once admired began to espouse dangerously right-wing rhetoric in his bizarre and often incomprehensible tirades against organised religion, with a particular focus on Islam. Now, I must clarify my stance on Islam before I go any further. I, like Dawkins, and like most atheists, dislike the oppressive theocracies of Islam. I find the idea of genital mutilation, the cruelty towards animals that are slaughtered without being stunned, the repression of women, and the despicable treatment of the LGBT community absolutely abhorrent. However, these practices are not reserved solely for Islam, and indeed feature in many of the teachings of organised religions, whether it is Kosher meat or the criminalisation of gay sex in Christian Uganda.

But gradually…Dawkins’ infamous Twitter rants went from ballsy attacks on the supposedly infallible and untouchable demeanour of organised religion, to, well, mental

It is true, as Dawkins says, that Islam is not a race, and therefore should be subject to discussion, debate and scrutiny just as any theory, political, scientific or ideological would be. However, Dawkins’ recent barrage of Tweets, the first most notable written in March during a debate at University College London featuring Lawrence Krauss and Hamza Tzortzis, or as Dawkins referred to him “some Muslim or other” where the audience was segregated by gender at the behest of Tzortzis, which Krauss, rightfully, I might add, refused to participate in until the seating was mixed.

The Dawkins Delusion: Coming to a bookstore near you?

While Dawkins was absolutely right to engage in criticism of this discriminatory arrangement; asking “Who the hell do these Muslims think they are?” is edging close perilously close to the type of statements typical of far-right anti-immigration commentator and all-round scumbag Pat Condell, who, interestingly, Dawkins admires. Dawkins frequently claims not to be racist, but it follow that if you have to defend your comments that often, it’s probably reasonable to assume that they are probably a bit racist. Certainly, by attributing Tzortzis fundamentalist views to the whole of Islam is discriminatory, and by using vocabulary such as “these Muslims”, Dawkins creates an “us” and “them” attitude which presents all Muslims as foreign, threatening and dangerous.

This wasn’t the last of it, though; as Dawkins went on to make a comment last week which drew criticism from many different circles. His statement that “all the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge” is both out of the blue and unreasonable. Dawkins hastily backpedalled by saying he was only “stating a fact” but the fact that he chose Muslims, rather than, say, Christians, is another example of Dawkins’ prejudicial rhetoric. What Dawkins does by “stating this fact” is imply that because few Muslims have won Nobel Prizes, all Muslims by association are stupid. If Dawkins were to say the same thing about black people – an equally factual statement, by the way – his accusations would be indefensible and his reputation in tatters. Dawkins fails – or I suspect refuses – to take into account that many Islamic countries are also developing countries, ravaged by both global and civil wars. Many do not have the same access to scientific resources and development as the fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge do. It has relatively little to do with their religion at all.

And since when have Nobel Prizes been the sole indicator of scientific and intellectual achievement anyway?

Dawkins disguises his prejudicial beliefs behind the mask of secular scepticism, but his apparent bias against Islam in particular is becoming increasingly evident. I have now unfollowed Dawkins, albeit with a slightly heavy heart. He used to be a pioneer against illogical thinking, but he has now become as disgruntled and unpleasant as the grouchy old white men of the English Defence League, spouting out nonsense against anyone he misguidedly considers inferior.

Stop it, Richard, for the love of God.

[divider]
Featured Image courtesy of: flickr/ nadworks
Body Image (un-edited) courtesy of: flickr/ Rob Boudon