Dawkins, properly, taken to task… but…

Dawkins has a generous self-centredness. Everything associated with him is blessed – his parents for giving birth to him, Ali, the ”loyal’’ family servant in colonial Africa, and Balliol College, Oxford, which had the good fortune to admit several generations of Dawkins men. When he admires others, one is made to feel how lucky they are.

via How dare God disagree with Richard Dawkins – Telegraph.

The review is a hoot and three-quarters, but the title leaves me a bit dissatisfied. It plays into the notion the atheist believes himself to be god and thus would have no other god before him.

If this was only true of atheists, maybe we could like titles and slams like this slide, but it is not. Not only does this employ a bad definition of god, but it ignores the myriad of Christians who treat themselves in the same regard — or higher — than we are led to believe Dawkins treats himself.

Anyway, for fans, or foes, or Richard Dawkins, the above article is… needed reading.

Joel L. Watts
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

One thought on “Dawkins, properly, taken to task… but…

  1. Regardless of religious inclination or disinclination, mankind is inherently egocentric. In some instances, this tendency to be self-important is merely more pronounced than it is in others. The notoriously reclusive, elderly, and tax averse billionaire Barclay Brothers – owners of both the rightwing Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph for the past decade – are at least as self-serving as Richard Dawkins. The fact that the Barclay Brats’ alter ego in print finds Dawkins’ precepts offensive to their snooty tastes is less news worthy than it is amusing. In truth, neither side is this little tiff has much use for the God of the Bible. Were this not the case, the Barclay Brats would have long ago offered their accumulated mammon to feed the poor.

Leave a Reply, Please!