Thursday, January 19, 2006


Much earlier in this blog, I suggested that Richard Dawkins, the notorious natural scientist might be open to the idea of the existence of God in an interview he gave some years ago.

Well, I was quite thoroughly raked over the coals by some resident MRTs. . .for daring to suggest that Dawkins had even the hint of monotheism in him.

Then I came across this little tidbit in the Times (UK):
Scientists all over the nation must hold their heads and groan whenever Richard Dawkins appears on television, as he did in The Root of All Evil? (Monday, C4). He is such a terrible advertisement, such an awful embarrassment, the Billy Graham of the senior common room. His splenetic, small-minded, viciously vindictive falsetto rant at all belief that isn’t completely rooted in the natural sciences is laughable. Dawkins is a born-again Darwinist, an atheist, so why is he devoting so much blood pressure and time to arguing with something he knows doesn’t exist? If it’s not there, Richard, why do you keep shouting at it? He looks like a scientific bag lady screaming at the traffic, and watching him argue with a fundamentalist Christian, you realise they were cut from identical cloth, separated at birth. Dawkins is, of course, the archetype of a man who protests too much, and I’d say he’s well on his way to, if not a Pauline, then at least a Muggeridgian conversion. Any day now, he’ll be back on telly quoting CS Lewis.

The author raises a point: Why is Dawkins so curmedgeonly on the topic? Remember, the opposite of love is not hate, but apathy. Dawkins is not apathetic on the subject of the existence of God.

On another note, can you IMAGINE the NYTimes running such an article? Never, not even down to Dante's Ninth Circle of Hell. I find it delicious that the UK Times can tweak the materialist/atheistic establishment, but no paper in the US to the left of the Washingon Times would ever dare challenge the regnant cultural mouthpieces.
<< # St. Blog's Parish ? >>