When Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion back in 2006, he became an instant atheist hero. Since then, however his star has fallen. He made some impolitic remarks that offended feminists. The reaction was predictable.
Atheists couldn't get enough of him so long as he was savaging Christianity. But when he shifted to Islam, many of his former fans began to turn on him:
All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.
I thought about comparing the numbers of Nobel Prizes won by Jews (more than 120) and Muslims (ten if you count Peace Prizes, half that if you don’t). This astonishing discrepancy is rendered the more dramatic when you consider the small size of the world’s Jewish population.
It's understandable that Muslims would take umbrage at these slighting comments. But you have the spectacle of atheists accusing him of bigotry and racism. Disowning their standard-bearer. Why?
He attacks Islam for the same reason he attacks Christianity. He's a militant atheist. He opposes religion in general. He's just being consistent. What did they expect?
Some chide him for failing to distinguish between Muslims and Islam, but they weren't bothered when he lumped Christians and Christianity together.
This exposes the fact that for many, atheism is just a social fashion statement. Liberals treat Muslims as a protected class, like other "minority" groups. Therefore, you have this blatant double standard. Everything liberals find objectionable in Christianity they ought to find twice as objectionable in Islam–both in what it teaches about women and homosexuals, as well as what it actually does to women and homosexuals. Yet we so often see liberals defending Muslims.
Incidentally, his invidious comparison between Jewish Nobel Laureates and Muslim Nobel Laureates is awkward inasmuch as some Jewish scientists are observant Jews. So that makes it harder for him to drive a wedge between religion and science.
I found this observation from Peter Pike to be rather insightful on the subject of atheists. Peter's comment reinforced my personal view that there's actually no such thing as an atheist, they're really anti-theists.
ReplyDeleteHere's Peter's comments from his blog detailing a facebook exchange:
Both atheists in this discussion wanted to move to the moral problem with God rather than His actual existence. I find this fairly typical of discussions with atheists in general. It is a bit odd. I mean, it’s like if I considered my next door neighbor to be an “a**hole” and therefore proclaimed he doesn’t exist. This attitude, I believe, is because at root atheists do not so much disbelieve in the existence of God as they despise Him. In short, they define themselves not so much by lack of belief in God, but rather they define themselves by putting themselves at enmity with Him.
Maybe the atheists are scared. They know Christians won't behead them.
ReplyDeleteCan't be so sure of that when you're dissing Islam.
I'm sure that's sometimes the case. However, many liberals view Muslims as a minority group. Therefore, they automatically support Muslims, and classify opposition as "racism."
Delete