The Insulting Richard Dawkins

The Limits of Dawkins’s “What If You’re Wrong?” Reply

This is probably going to be the most simplest one for you to answer, but what if you're wrong?

Well, what if I'm wrong? I mean, anybody could be wrong. We could all be wrong about the flying spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn and the flying teapot. You happen to have been brought up, I would presume, in the Christian faith.

You know what it's like not to believe in a particular faith because you're not a Muslim, you're not a Hindu. Why aren't you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in America, not in India.

If you'd been brought up in India, you'd be a Hindu. If you were brought up in Denmark in the time of the Vikings, you'd be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you were brought up in classical Greece, you'd be believing in Zeus.

If you were brought up in Central Africa, you'd be believing in the great Juju up the mountain. There's no particular reason to pick on the Judeo-Christian God in which, by the sheerest accident, you happen to have been brought up and ask me the question, what if I'm wrong?

What if you're wrong about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea?

Why Dawkins’s Answer Misses the Actual Question

I have a real hard time understanding why people think Richard Dawkins is a deep thinker, a great thinker. That clip was insulting. Not only insulting to Christians. I mean, that's a given. He wants to be insulting to Christians.

That's how he gets his followers. But that was insulting to the young lady. That was insulting to the audience. That was insulting to anyone who gives any level of deep thought to the issues of theism at all.

And it really makes you wonder, why does Richard Dawkins think that that's even an answer? He clearly does not care if Christian intellectuals find his arguments absolutely absurd. They are not even a part of his audience.

He's not even trying to deal with them. Here is a man who specifically has as his audience the low-hanging fruit. People who have no idea what their faith is. Nominal Christians. This man is only concerned about nominal Christians.

People who are just brought up in a religion. The flying spaghetti monster. Unicorns. The flying teapot. These are supposed to have some bearing on the Christian God who is self-existent and eternal.

And all of the issues that go into the relationship between creator and creation. I mean, the flying spaghetti monster has within himself a rational explanation for how creation arises and the origin and source of the regularity of scientific laws?

Really? He says to the young lady, she happened to have been brought up Christian. In his world, evidently, no one actually chooses to be Christian. He says, if you had been born here, you'd be such and so.

That wouldn't have gone over very well with Dennis D'Souza, huh? Or anyone who was raised in a Hindu area or a Muslim area and who is now a Christian. That really wouldn't go over well there, but he seems to try to get away with these things because he knows, as you can see by the reaction of the mind-numbed audience that's just looking for red meat to be thrown to them.

Whoa, that's a great response! That was one of the most irrational, insulting, shallow, ridiculous responses I've ever heard from anyone who claims to be an intellectual at all. But he gets away with it, just like Hitchens gets away with it.

Because people don't think about these things. They don't think about the parameters of the discussion so they can recognize just how fallacious the responses offered by these atheists are. Not once did he actually respond to her question.

Her question was meant to get him to reflect upon, what if there is a God? How would an atheist respond to that? I mean, he could have gone someplace with that if he had wanted to. Instead, all he provides is this, well, pure mockery.

Pure mockery, nothing more than mockery. What if you're wrong about the great juju at the bottom of the sea is how he finishes his response to her. That's an answer. Amazing, amazing. The kind of rhetoric being produced by the Dawkins and the Hitchens of the world today is really indicative of the fact that we truly, in Western civilization, live in a culture where the attention span is so short and the study of logic, analysis of argumentation is so shallow that people like this are viewed as great thinkers.

It truly is indicative, in my opinion, of the judgment of God upon Western culture. That not only are they given a platform, but that they are viewed as deep thinkers. Truly an amazing time in our history.

Thanks for watching.