The frightened anarchists

Richard Dawkins

The new Pope of atheism. (Image via Wikipedia)

I just want to make a comment on the rising vitriol of the humanist secular/atheistic movement.  Partly because in an article in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald the columnist, David Marr, suggests he and his ilk are “outnumbered but among our silent minority of riff-raff are citizens of distinction”. 

SILENT minority?  Hardly!  More like a troop of barking baboons who will sit in the tree-tops, picking off each others’ fleas and throwing rotten fruit at anything that looks like honest and productive endeavour (particularly in the human services fields) below. 

None more so than the self-appointed new Pope of atheism, Richard Dawkins.  This fellow’s disingenuous modus operandi is to set up cheap straw men that vaguely resonate to the un-researched masses and then extrapolate that these childish and fictional characters are representative of the entire state of Christendom, religion even.  He then proceeds to break down this fractured and inadequate image of his own making (I told you he was disingenuous) to rapturous applause from fellow cohorts of chatterers who were probably whipped silly in a nunnery and have never forgiven the sting of the injustice. 

Just have a look at the comments section of Marr’s article and you’ll get a glimpse of the rising and condescending intellectual arrogance of the atheistic elites, haw hawing at each other as they make increasingly silly asides at these dumb yokels and their “fairy tales” that have stood the test of time, archaeology and history for more than 2,000 years.  It’s all very brave of you fellows. 

More like a troop of barking baboons who will sit in the tree-tops, picking off each others' fleas and throwing rotten fruit.

Courtesy of Greg Sheridan a more rationed approach to the place and contribution of religion in society was published in yesterday’s Australian newspaper.  It concludes with this:

The professional denouncers of Christian orthodoxy are trying a new experiment in their desperate search for a universal secularism, to create a society that lives permanently off the moral capital of its founding institutions, which it hopes finally to destroy. I’m not sure it can be done.

I think he’s far too polite, but he’s on the money.  Their belief system suggests we’re all the product of a 50 billion to one act of random chance (Dawkins’ words, not my own), a culmination of a survival of the fittest.  And they will noisily proselytise this position with precious little evidential basis, apart from the staggering statistic of the 50 billion to one chance that most, if not all people would agree is indicative of our chances of existing by random chance. 

Perhaps it’s time we called out the atheistic world view and the intellectual end-point of their position which is anarchy.  How many of them live lives that are consistent with their belief system?  Not many I’d imagine, so who’s the intellectual flyweight lacking gumption and in need of a divine crutch?

For mine it takes far more blind faith to be an atheist.  Roll up, roll up, it’s a two-horse race and the only bet you can make is everything you have.  In stall one we have a shambolic donkey that’s professionally ascribed a 50 billion to one chance of success.  It doesn’t take Einstein to work out what must be the odds on the other horse? 

Place your bets ……

Advertisements

4 Responses to The frightened anarchists

  1. Jenni says:

    Andrew

    You know better than this! Sure there is a disjunct between your world views and Dawkins – but you are both intelligent people – and there’s no need to sink to name calling. Dunno about Marr who or what he has written. But both you and Dawkins are honest , intelligent follk. A world where you both exist is good . A world where you both argue is good – provided there is some rigour in your arguments and not name calling only. Obivously when it comes to facts , Dawkins does win hands down ( sorry – I have been seen all the arguments on both sides, and even when I was most inclicned to wish Dawkins was wrong – he’s not. That can’t be changed) . When it comes to faith you win hands down. Where people stand on this depends on their emphasis and the world they live in – faith versus fact. Actually most peopel live in a world that has both.
    How people behave and whether they are part of a moral society or not has very little to do with whether you believe as you do or as Dawkins does. I know athiests who are far more moral and responsible as global citizens than their christian compatriots and I know christians who are far more moral and responsible as global citizens than their athiest compatriots. In the end , demonising either side of the religious argument is not in the interest of humankind. Live and let live… you should not be threatened by their beliefs and they should not be threatened by yours. Annoyed, yes. Irritated , yes. But neither of you are less “good” or less “moral” because you do or do not believe there is a god in the world. Debate is grand and necessary. Rhetoric is not. And you have used the same level of debate as you claim Marr has used ..possibly deliberatly? IT is far more complicated than your last three sentences indicate .
    My one complaint is that both you and dawkins are preaching to the converted. The rest of us just get pissed off with the the rhetoric….

  2. mzilikazi says:

    Ah Jenni, thanks for stopping by – you who forced me to think outside my formerly narrow teenage prism by introducing me to Shelby Spong. 😉 I agree with you that faith and fact can co-exist. This is one of the straw-men that Dawkins establishes, that the rabid 6 day creationist is indicative of all Christianity. I’ve never thought that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive – making me something of a creationist agnostic. The “how” of it is irrelevant as long as we know the “why”. Dawkins will hold to the “fact” of evolution but his faith is larger than mine, resting as it does on a 50 billion to one shot. My small faith is only enough to ride the second the remaining 49.99 billion or so.

    And of course the name-calling is deliberate. A bit of fighting fire with fire. Dawkins can be so putrid because he relies on a response of grace that he so decries.

  3. Siddharth Ranjan says:

    I second Jenni :

    she said:
    How people behave and whether they are part of a moral society or not has very little to do with whether you believe as you do or as Dawkins does. I know athiests who are far more moral and responsible as global citizens than their christian compatriots and I know christians who are far more moral and responsible as global citizens than their athiest compatriots. In the end , demonising either side of the religious argument is not in the interest of humankind. Live and let live…

  4. Pingback: The problem with Fitzy’s world view « Co-mission

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: