[geocentrism] Fw: The Elephant in the Living Room is Growing
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:55:14 +1000
Subject: The Elephant in the Living Room is Growing
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/11/12/are_atheists_the_new_gays
Are Atheists the New gays?
By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, November 12, 2007
Richard Dawkins has a bright idea: Atheists are the new gays. Is he joking? Not
at all. The bestselling author of The God Delusion has been suggesting for two
years now that atheists can follow the example of gays. This would put the
atheists last in the line of liberation groups: first the civil rights
movement, then the feminist movement, then the gay liberation movement, and now
the cause of atheist liberation.
What makes Dawkins want atheists to be like gays? Dawkins explains that gays
used to be called homosexual, but then they decided to pick a positive-sounding
name like "gay." Suddenly the meaning of the term "gay" was entirely
appropriated by homosexuals. Gays went from being defined by their enemies to
defining themselves in a favorable way.
Dawkins cited this example in advocating that atheists call themselves
"brights." After all, atheist is a somewhat negative term because it defines
itself by what it is opposed to. "Bright" sounds so much happier and, more
important, smarter. "Bright" kind of reflects the high opinion that atheists
have of their own intellectual abilities. Even the stupidest village atheist
gets to pat himself on the back and place himself in the tradition of science
and philosophy by calling himself a "bright."
Dawkins and the philosopher Daniel Dennett have both written articles promoting
the use of the term "bright." Not all atheists have warmed to the term, but
Dawkins and Dennett clearly envision themselves as far-looking strategists of
the atheist cause. But how bright, really, are they?
Dawkins has also suggested that atheists, like gays, should come out of the
closet. Well, what if they don't want to? I doubt that Dawkins would support
"outing" atheists. But can an atheist "rights" group be far behind? Hate crimes
laws to protect atheists? Affirmative action for unbelievers? An Atheist Annual
Parade, complete with dancers and floats? Atheist History Month?
Honestly, I think the whole atheist-gay analogy is quite absurd. It seems
strange for Dawkins to urge atheists to come out of the closet in the style of
the all-American boy standing up on the dining table of his public high school
and confessing that he is a homosexual? Dawkins, being British, doesn't seem to
recognize that this would not win many popularity contests in America.
If Dawkins' public relations skills seem lacking in this area, they are
positively abysmal when they come to building support for science. Remember
that Dawkins is professor of the public understanding of science. He has a
chair funded by the Microsoft multimillionaire Charles Simonyi. If I were that
guy, I'd withdraw the support, not because I disagree with Dawkins, but because
I think he is setting back the cause of science.
Basically Dawkins is saying if you are religious, then science is your enemy.
Either you choose God or you choose science. No wonder that so many Americans
say they are opposed to evolution. They believe that evolution is atheism
masquerading as science, and Dawkins confirms their suspicions. Indeed Dawkins
takes the same position as the most ignorant fundamentalist: you can have
Darwin or you can have the Bible but you can't have both.
Dawkins is in some ways a terrible representative for atheism, which I'm glad
about because a bad cause deserves a bad leader. He is also a terrible advocate
for science, which I'm sad about because science deserves all the support it
can get.
Having debated Christopher Hitchens, I'd like the opportunity to debate
Dawkins. I think I can vindicate a rational and scientific argument for
religion against his irrational and unscientific prejudice. When I wrote
Dawkins to propose such a debate, however, Dawkins said that "upon reflection"
he decided against it. He didn't give a reason, and there is no reason.
In his writings on religion, Dawkins presents atheism as the side of reason and
evidence, and religion as the side of "blind faith." So what's he afraid of?
How can reason possibly lose in a contest with ignorance and superstition? I
have written Dawkins back offering him the most favorable terms: a debate on a
secular campus like Berkeley rather than a church, with atheist Michael Shermer
as the moderator, and a donor ready and willing to pay both our fees.
So I hope Dawkins takes me up on my challenge to an intellectual joust. If you
want to encourage him, write Dawkins and send the email to
dineshjdsouza@xxxxxxxx I'll forward your thoughts to our wavering atheist
knight. He may want to pattern atheism on the gay rights movement, but surely
he doesn't want the world to think that he's a sissy.
Bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza's new book What's So Great About Christianity
has just been released. D'Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover
Institution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1127 - Release Date: 12/11/2007
9:19 PM
Other related posts:
