Richard Dawkins makes me want to be a fundamentalist
Monday, 14. April 2008, 09:35:29
The last mention that Dawkins received on this blog - an incidental mention in an entry about something else - was, in my eyes, at least, a favourable one. I would have been happy never to mention Dawkins again. I don't actually go out of my way to find out stuff about him or anything; he just seems to be everywhere I turn at the moment. For instance, I was recently sent the three clips of the Bill Maher show that are posted in this entry, the second of which features a satellite-link interview with the man himself. Unfortunately, I have to say that, of all the material in the three clips, the appearance of Dawkins was, for me, a real low point.
Bill Maher asks Dawkins why he thinks his book, The God Delusion has become such a phenomenon. Dawkins's reply is:
I've said this before, maybe it depends on what circles you move in, but there's absolutely no one thrusting imaginary friends down my throat. There are plenty of tools like Dawkins, though, telling me that I'm an idiot if I don't think exactly the same way they do, and become an atheist. Now, the thing is, I know this programme is a kind of comedy comment show, but elsewhere, even when it's humorous, the observation and comment on the show seems to be pretty sharp. Here, by contrast, the sharpest it gets is mention of 'imaginary friends' and 'talking snakes'. Is this really the level of Dawkins's critique of religion (and Bill Maher loses a few points in my estimation here, too, but he is American)? I honestly can't understand why anyone would think this guy has anything new or cutting edge to say on the subject. The observation here is neither particularly sharp nor particularly funny. It's the same, tired old line about, "What, believe in some old bloke with a big white beard sitting on a cloud?" Maybe I really am underestimating the number of people in the world who actually do believe in an old man with a white beard sitting on a cloud, or in a talking snake in the Garden of Eden, and underestimating the level of their power and influence in the world, but if such beliefs are not beyond the playground level of mental development (and I don't mean that in a good way), then neither is Dawkins's criticism here. There's a line from Nietzsche that goes: "Whomever goes to fight monsters should take care not to become a monster himself. And when you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you." I basically feel that this is what has already happened to Dawkins. He has become as shallow and literal in his analysis as the fundamentalists he has chosen for his enemy. God help me, therefore, if I stare too long into the shallow abyss of Richard Dawkins.
He then goes on to repeat what he's said before, in different words, about his agnosticism (which to him is immediately atheism) with regard to 'fairies' and 'pink unicorns'. Again, really cutting edge stuff. Why not mention the tooth fairy and Father Christmas while you're at it? Anyway, I like fairies. I like pink unicorns. In theory. It might depend on the individual fairy or pink unicorn, of course. I don't know what on Earth Dawkins has got against these very lovely creatures. I'd certainly rather spend my time with them than with a boring old git like him. Perhaps you think that it's not the point whether you like these things or not. No, Dawkins is, through these unimaginative conjurations of the imagination, trying to evoke the 'common sense' assumption that they don't exist. He is trying to plug into your common sense, your assumptions, and make them his own, therefore leading you to hear everything he says simply as one of your own 'common sense' assumptions. This has nothing to do with thinking or wanting you to think. It's a method of browbeating you into agreement. "If you don't think like me," his message goes, "you might as well believe in fairies and pink unicorns. And you wouldn't want that, because that would be really doolally pip." So he raises the cudgel of fear. Do you dare defy the Dawkins and be a weirdo? Well, I would much prefer that to being Richard Dawkins.
Here's a poem by Kaneko Misuzu that I translated some years back:
Things not Seen
What happened while you slept?
Pale pink petals fell
As rain in heaps on your bed.
You opened your eyes and they vanished.
Nobody ever saw them,
But who can say it's a lie?
What happened when you blinked?
Pegasus spread his white wings,
And faster than a white-feathered arrow
Disappeared into the blue.
Nobody ever saw it,
But who can say it's a lie?
Who is more imaginative? Kaneko Misuzu, or Dawkins? Who more intelligent? Who more fun to be with? My answer, to all of those questions, based on the evidence, would be Misuzu.
Another quote from Dawkins, referring to his book, The God Delusion:
Dawkins even, apparently, has a section on his website called 'Converts Corner'. He is looking for converts. What a cunt. Sorry, Dawkins, but your book has not had the desired effect on me. It has had almost the opposite effect. I have more sympathy with religion after reading your writing on the subject and hearing you talk about it than before.
You know, I very often feel like maybe I'm being unreasonable with the things I say on my blog, or going too far or something, and I like to try and re-evaluate things, and I was softening towards Dawkins and thinking I'd probably been a complete prick, and then I'm confronted with something like this and I think, "Christ, perhaps I'm not as wrong as I always assume myself to be." But the thing is, I don't want to be right, anyway. I just want to be able to be myself, some doolally pip fairy-lover, or whatever. Please, by all means, think I'm wrong about everything. It would probably even take a lot of pressure off me if you did. Unlike Dawkins, I'm not looking for converts.
What Dawkins says from this point onwards applies to me in reverse. For ages I didn't realise it was okay not to be an atheist. I thought somehow it wasn't respectable.
It is okay, though. It's okay.
Bill Maher asks Dawkins why he thinks his book, The God Delusion has become such a phenomenon. Dawkins's reply is:
I think people are getting a little bit fed up with other people thrusting their imaginary friends down their throat.
I've said this before, maybe it depends on what circles you move in, but there's absolutely no one thrusting imaginary friends down my throat. There are plenty of tools like Dawkins, though, telling me that I'm an idiot if I don't think exactly the same way they do, and become an atheist. Now, the thing is, I know this programme is a kind of comedy comment show, but elsewhere, even when it's humorous, the observation and comment on the show seems to be pretty sharp. Here, by contrast, the sharpest it gets is mention of 'imaginary friends' and 'talking snakes'. Is this really the level of Dawkins's critique of religion (and Bill Maher loses a few points in my estimation here, too, but he is American)? I honestly can't understand why anyone would think this guy has anything new or cutting edge to say on the subject. The observation here is neither particularly sharp nor particularly funny. It's the same, tired old line about, "What, believe in some old bloke with a big white beard sitting on a cloud?" Maybe I really am underestimating the number of people in the world who actually do believe in an old man with a white beard sitting on a cloud, or in a talking snake in the Garden of Eden, and underestimating the level of their power and influence in the world, but if such beliefs are not beyond the playground level of mental development (and I don't mean that in a good way), then neither is Dawkins's criticism here. There's a line from Nietzsche that goes: "Whomever goes to fight monsters should take care not to become a monster himself. And when you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you." I basically feel that this is what has already happened to Dawkins. He has become as shallow and literal in his analysis as the fundamentalists he has chosen for his enemy. God help me, therefore, if I stare too long into the shallow abyss of Richard Dawkins.
He then goes on to repeat what he's said before, in different words, about his agnosticism (which to him is immediately atheism) with regard to 'fairies' and 'pink unicorns'. Again, really cutting edge stuff. Why not mention the tooth fairy and Father Christmas while you're at it? Anyway, I like fairies. I like pink unicorns. In theory. It might depend on the individual fairy or pink unicorn, of course. I don't know what on Earth Dawkins has got against these very lovely creatures. I'd certainly rather spend my time with them than with a boring old git like him. Perhaps you think that it's not the point whether you like these things or not. No, Dawkins is, through these unimaginative conjurations of the imagination, trying to evoke the 'common sense' assumption that they don't exist. He is trying to plug into your common sense, your assumptions, and make them his own, therefore leading you to hear everything he says simply as one of your own 'common sense' assumptions. This has nothing to do with thinking or wanting you to think. It's a method of browbeating you into agreement. "If you don't think like me," his message goes, "you might as well believe in fairies and pink unicorns. And you wouldn't want that, because that would be really doolally pip." So he raises the cudgel of fear. Do you dare defy the Dawkins and be a weirdo? Well, I would much prefer that to being Richard Dawkins.
Here's a poem by Kaneko Misuzu that I translated some years back:
Things not Seen
What happened while you slept?
Pale pink petals fell
As rain in heaps on your bed.
You opened your eyes and they vanished.
Nobody ever saw them,
But who can say it's a lie?
What happened when you blinked?
Pegasus spread his white wings,
And faster than a white-feathered arrow
Disappeared into the blue.
Nobody ever saw it,
But who can say it's a lie?
Who is more imaginative? Kaneko Misuzu, or Dawkins? Who more intelligent? Who more fun to be with? My answer, to all of those questions, based on the evidence, would be Misuzu.
Another quote from Dawkins, referring to his book, The God Delusion:
If this book works as I intend, readers who open it will be atheist when they put it down.
Dawkins even, apparently, has a section on his website called 'Converts Corner'. He is looking for converts. What a cunt. Sorry, Dawkins, but your book has not had the desired effect on me. It has had almost the opposite effect. I have more sympathy with religion after reading your writing on the subject and hearing you talk about it than before.
You know, I very often feel like maybe I'm being unreasonable with the things I say on my blog, or going too far or something, and I like to try and re-evaluate things, and I was softening towards Dawkins and thinking I'd probably been a complete prick, and then I'm confronted with something like this and I think, "Christ, perhaps I'm not as wrong as I always assume myself to be." But the thing is, I don't want to be right, anyway. I just want to be able to be myself, some doolally pip fairy-lover, or whatever. Please, by all means, think I'm wrong about everything. It would probably even take a lot of pressure off me if you did. Unlike Dawkins, I'm not looking for converts.
Now that they've been asked to think about it... they realise that they've been atheists all along.
What Dawkins says from this point onwards applies to me in reverse. For ages I didn't realise it was okay not to be an atheist. I thought somehow it wasn't respectable.
It is okay, though. It's okay.
WIDGETIZE