Skip to content

Richard Dawkins is a Small Smart Man

November 3, 2006

That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. Mark 4:12

My Unicode is messed up; the title was supposed to read, “Richard Dawkins is a Big Fat Dope.” But I really don’t like to call anyone that. “Richard Dawkins is a Self-Styled Militant Atheist.” There, is that better?

Richard Dawkins is an heir of sensualistic philosophy, and an impoverished heir at that. He’d be a minor player but for his diligent self-promotion. But he says some cute things, like:

“What are all of us but self-reproducing robots? We have been put together by our genes and what we do is roam the world looking for a way to sustain ourselves and ultimately produce another robot child.”

Most of Dawkins’s predecessors from Darwin’s generation displayed significant intelligence for self-reproducing robots, albeit flawed logic. I think some intelligence genes have been lost in the descent to Dawkins. When I had to refuse to review his book, The Blind Watchmaker, because I could not give it a favorable review and the magazine editor clearly wanted a favorable review, I read far enough to realize that it was the same old monkey-at-the-typewriter model without even the benefit of a new hat for the monkey. The capacities of abstraction and extrapolation are universally regarded marks of intelligence. Mr. Dawkins, Oxford professor of “public understanding of science,” whatever that is, apparently lacks the ability to abstract sufficiently to distinguish Christianity from astrology.

One thing at which Dawkins does excel–and brilliantly–is rarified arrogance and self-adulation. If I aspired to pompous narcissism, I’d be insanely jealous of his achievement. 

Okay, I’m on a tear. Please don’t take my word for this. Visit Richard Dawkins’s website; just please, don’t click any ads so as to enrich him. I don’t wish to speak about him without fully attributing my source. All quotes I use will be from his own site. There you will also find reviews of his books. I will not read or review them. I will rely fully on his own words to substantiate my testimony as to his shallowness. Let him introduce himself. He has a forum; if you are inclined to discuss the gospel with a world-famous atheist, there’s your opening. But I suspect he’s looking for affirmation, admiration, and adulation–his only shot at straight “A”s, and would toss you off his board.

Dawkins is as quotable as a beanbag chair. Despite all the stuffing, he doesn’t hold a shape. You can read on and on and it’s all stuffing and no cogent nuggets of intelligence ever cohere. Basically, his whole agenda in life is to prove that, since the brain is a great simulator and deceiver, and therefore we cannot trust our senses, then no sensory experience of God is reliable, therefore God does not exist.

Evidently, Dawkins has placed some very dense stuffing between himself and anyone with true faith. God-given faith, of course, does not rely on sensory experience. But Dawkins likes to disqualify the existent God with arguments any person of faith would also dismiss. His weapon of choice for discrediting religion out of hand is the Catholic Church, with its institutionalized superstition and widely publicized sexual abuse scandals.

In supporting a book written by Dr. Nicholas Humphrey, Dawkins appeals to the need to protect children from religion. He quotes Humphrey’s book:


“[I]n the same way as Amnesty [International] works tirelessly to free political prisoners the world over, we should work to free the children of the world from the religions which, with parental approval, damage minds too young to understand what is happening to them.”

Dawkins advocates the elimination of religious indoctrination of children. His intellectual ammunition appears to be that little Muslim kids are being taught to hate the West; therefore, no little kids should learn anything about any religion. But I’m merely gleaning from his sparse field of fruits; I’m sure there is much more of same in his pop-hate books. There I go again….Here are some of Dawkins’s own “quotes of note,” in case you are disinclined to make a visit. He placed these on his own site; they were not on a hostile Christian site. No one is out to make him look like a fool; he is competent to indict himself.

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”–Richard Dawkins

Compare and contrast:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen….Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:1,3

Here is something profound:

“Most of what we strive for in our modern life uses the apparatus of goal seeking that was originally set up to seek goals in the state of nature.”–Richard Dawkins

I paused for thought but it wasn’t there.

“There’s this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out.”–Richard Dawkins

I knew there would be common ground somewhere. I have a favorite:

“Who will say with confidence that sexual abuse is more permanently damaging to children than threatening them with the eternal and unquenchable fires of hell?”–Richard Dawkins

I will. And what is Mr. Dawkins’s motive? Is he talking about making gospel preaching a felony?Here’s what Dawkins, a man dedicated to science, says about science:

“Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion, but that is not what is interesting about it. It is also incompatible with magic, but that also is not worth stressing. What is interesting about the scientific world view is that it is true, inspiring, remarkable and that it unites a whole lot of phenomena under a single heading.”–Richard Dawkins

Shifting the beans, it would seem that Dawkins believes religion and science are incompatible because only one could possibly be “true, inspiring, and remarkable.” Dawkins posits that the universe would look different if there were a God:

“A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different.”–Richard Dawkins

I think this quote is most representative of Mr. Dawkins’s sense of fairness:

“I don’t want to sound callous. I mean, even if I have nothing to offer, that doesn’t matter, because that still doesn’t mean that what anybody else has to offer therefore has to be true.” –Richard Dawkins

I think of Mr. Dawkins listening to Paul on Mars Hill:

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”–Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins takes it upon himself to simplify the world and determine that all belief that fails to pass the fictive muster of actual sensory experience is irrational and potentially dangerous. Such beliefs ultimately are all alike–magic, astrology, Christianity, Islam–they’re all just so many blights on reason; they are imaginings attesting to Dawkins’s conviction that “[t]he human brain runs first-class simulation software,” and that what cannot be proven to his empirical satisfaction is simply, flatly, false. Not unprovable, but false.

So, I call Richard Dawkins a big fat dope. But he is really a poor blind sinner in a dreadful state of nature, in active, hostile rebellion against God, as was I, as were all those to whom God showed the mercy of faith. There is no less hope for Richard Dawkins than there was for Paul of Tarsus, or for me. Dawkins is on the lam.

The bad news is, Richard Dawkins’s book, The God Delusion, is currently Amazon’s #3 bestseller. The better news is, of the top five Amazon bestsellers, only one received a five-star review: The Beauty Buyble. There’s just no accounting for taste in this here decillionth or so generation of bacteria (why not slime molds?) Mr. Dawkins calls our ancestors.

Posted by Mrs. B at 6:24 AM

Victorbravo said…
Wonderfully scathing, but I seriously think that Dawkins and his buddies will not even understand what you are saying. They are that blind.

The quote about how a universe would look different without a God is amazing. Given his methodology, how could he even attempt to know what a universe with a God looks like? Perhaps he relies on the “I know it when I see it” analysis.

Someday he will.

9:17 AM
Mrs. B said…
Militant atheists are a real challenge to us, because we know they might have no one to pray for them (unless they are the unseasonable fruit of believing parents or something like that) and we really don’t want to. Probably more sanctified brethren than I would pray that God might be pleased to peel the scales from their scaly eyes. I’d have to pray for a lot more sanctification before I could earnestly pray for someone like this. It’s a good time to be a Calvinist; God will tag him if it is within his sovereign will to do so. I feel kind of off the hook.

9:28 AM
Mrs. B said…
Ok lookey here. A comment from Mr. Dawkins’s very own staff–via emai:

Perhaps if you are so bored, you should try reading books with some substance. Science books are really very exciting.

Best regards,

Quoting “Mrs. B & the Cat”

Mr. Dawkins,

As a courtesy, it is my policy to notify anyone whom I will mention or
feature in a post on my blog. You are the subject of a post I will
launch at 7:00 a.m. PST, Friday, Nov. 3 at .

10:34 AM
Mrs. B said…
(Here’s the full text with RD’s header for authentication.)

Subject: Re: notice of appearance on my blog
Date: November 3, 2006 10:16:12 AM PST

Perhaps if you are so bored, you should try reading books with some substance. Science books are really very exciting.

Best regards,

Quoting “Mrs. B & the Cat”

Mr. Dawkins,

As a courtesy, it is my policy to notify anyone whom I will mention or
feature in a post on my blog. You are the subject of a post I will
launch at 7:00 a.m. PST, Friday, Nov. 3 at .

12:00 PM
Mike Pitzler said…
Well, you did tell him that you were board. And as self-reproducing robots, (er, actually we are pots 1 , not ‘bots) would anything outside pertinent program be of any interest to us? And when I talk to Vic, I’m even more convinced that I’m not a robot, though I might be evolving some. Notice I created a target location within this HTML document and a link to it? Of course, it is a link to an extraterrestrial communication. Aren’t Richard and his non-material spirit guide Carl Sagan interested in communicating with the Creator? No? Carl is.

But you’re right: “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” 2

1 Isaiah 29:14
2 I can’t remember who said it. Do you?

5:26 PM
Renee W said…
John Byl wrote an excellent paper entitled Naturalism, Theism, and Objective Knowledge.

Here’s a quote –

“..the notion that only scientific knowledge is valid knowledge is itself extra-scientific, for science cannot prove that it alone can provide knowledge about reality.”

11:56 AM


Comments are closed.