Richard Dawkins is a hypocrite

Richard Dawkins criticizes religion a lot, it’s role in society, and that our children are so indoctrinated to believe, which I don’t mind. But the prominent atheist/overglorified douchebag is one to talk, for you see, he is trying to do the same.

In 2008, Dawkins announced that he would be retiring from his post at Oxford University to write a book aimed at children, trying to convince them not to believe in fairy tales or tales of magic, witchcraft, and wizardry because they are “anti-scientific”. I’m not sure if the 2011 The Magic of Reality is that book, but that is outside the point. Do you know how Dawkins’ antics translate to me? Indoctrinating kids into believing what someone else tells you.

Instead of Christian priests at sunday school indoctrinating kids to believe what it says in the Bible, we have Richard Dawkins trying to persuade children into dogmatic materialism, and I don’t see the difference. All I see is that double standard Dawkins has: he’ll criticize religion for mindlessly venerating some sacred dogma or some figurehead, while doing little other than preach science and evolution like religious gospels, promote dogmatic scientism, and spray Charles Darwin with praise.

He has no right criticizing indoctrination of any sort considering he is doing the same thing.

I’ve heard of a rumour saying that Dawkins didn’t actually resign from his post at Oxford University, but was canned for his increasing outlandishness and his tying of science, dogmatic materialism, and atheism together, which some other faculty members and outside scientists opposed, which would mean the book story is a cover to save both himself and the university from embarassment. But the truth of that rumour is a different story, though it would certainly explain a lot.


7 responses to “Richard Dawkins is a hypocrite

  1. Well said. I have nothing against atheism, but I do have a problem with the stuck-up atheist who think they’re so much smarter and more “rational” than us serfs who “believe in fairy tales.” to me, they’re no different than the Fundamentalist Christians they rail against.
    But I disagree with you on Charles Darwin. He does deserve a lot of praise. He paved the way for modern science.

    • I never said Darwin did not deserve praise. All I said is praising Darwin is all Dawkins does. The atheism he preaches and is accepted is not atheism. So called “new atheism” is that twisted mix of science, scientism, atheism, and blind dogmatic materialism or physicalism. It is blind to the bigger picture and those who preach forget that they do not truly know.

  2. (I apologize in advance for writing so much. I’m a little ashamed.)

    Is it really dogmatic? Do we perhaps have some holes in our language to be able to suggest that Dawkins preaches the “religion” of science?

    Dogma, in the official sense, is when we proclaim a specific doctrine to be unquestionably true. Being “dogmatic” has come to mean: asserting beliefs in an arrogant way.
    I will agree that he can come off as being arrogant.

    But, The foundation of the “doctrine” of science is skepticism, doubt and the pursuit of evidence.

    I don’t feel like Dawkins tries to tell people WHAT to think as much as HOW to think. IF NEW evidence comes out about any one particular thing that Dawkins (or any other scientist) says, he tries to be the first to admit where he was incorrect. I suppose that’s how it is in the scientific community … they hold each other accountable in a way … so no one wants to sound like a credulous fool.

    “Indoctrination” is only a negative thing if you are teaching people to have absolute bias towards new and relevant information — in other words — teaching people to interpret the world through the eyes of our ancestors. If the bias of science is to be skeptical, then there is no down side to it. It teaches people that it is good to develop the skill of updating our beliefs as new information comes in — that we should interpret the world with an updated understanding. Not a single credible scientist, even an arrogant one, would ever claim to know everything.

    We have a confusing language which has kept me confused quite a bit in life … but, it may be possible to sort through it all with a modern understanding of how our brains work …

    Our human brains are inclined to “jump to conclusions.” This once worked successfully as a primitive survival mechanism … if primitive man saw a small animal dropping which was “fresh” (sorry to use poop in my illustration) … he might be able to recognize that it came from a rabbit and could set a trap in that area … If he saw a very large animal dropping, he might recognize it as being from a predator — and he could get the heck out of there before he was eaten. This ability to “jump to conclusions” is something that computers cannot do. It is a more complicated process than any algorithm that we have ever created.

    HOWEVER, it causes problems for us in modern society. It makes it difficult for us to accurately interpret our own thoughts and feelings and makes it easy for us to get into disagreements involving language. As our brains are inclined to make associations, or jump to conclusions, it makes sense that every word in our language has multiple meanings.

    We all know what “religion” means … but we have a tendency to swap definitions where it’s inappropriate. A religious follower of the NFL football is not the same as a follower of Christ. This seems obvious when you think about it — but, I’ve often made the mistake of assuming … well, a person might not have a religion that involves a god, but that person has simply made a god out of a non-god thing. This perhaps makes interesting poetic discourse and helps us conceptualize the similarities, but it does not make a credible argument. — if your aim is to compare the two in a literal sense.

    You may read this, and before you do — there is no way for me to know if you will interpret this as arrogant or antagonistic. I hope you do not, as that is not my intention. I do what I can to communicate effectively, but I’m working with and outdated brain — just as we all are.

    It will also be interesting to see if you approve this post for viewing. I hope that you do … as I think it is vitally important to keep discussions open … even with fools like me.

    • Skepticism is the doctrine of SCIENCE. Not the rest. Not believing in god is the central doctrine of atheism, and not believing in anything other than the physical is the doctrine of materliaism/physicalism.

      • I’m not aware of any central doctrine of atheism in the sense that I’m interpreting you mean it. As I understand it, atheism, materialism and physicalism are more commonly used as labels … there is no structured body of atheism, physicalism or materialism … like there are with religions.

        I can’t understand how it is the same thing.

        Even if atheism was more organized, I don’t see the down side.

      • There’s gotta be some structure with a philosophy. It’s not a religion, sure, but it’s not that disorganized. Atheism + physicalism/materialism + scientism is not atheism. It’s so-called “new atheism”. And it ain’t much better than what they’re trying to fight.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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