The Deluded Mind of Richard Dawkins

http://www.dailynewspaper.us/27017/rory-fitzgerald-richard-dawkins-should-be-arrested-for-covering-up-atheist-crimes.html

For many years now Richard Dawkins has been working like a demon, you might say, to discredit all belief in God. He has now said that he wants to have the Pope arrested when he comes to Britain for later this year for covering up “crimes against humanity”.

As a lapsed atheist, I have the greatest respect for those who do not think that there is anything beyond the material in this universe. Many friends and family feel that way: they are staying true to the best truth available to them. Yet most remain open to new possibilities and acknowledge that they are not entirely omniscient. Most too are respectful to those who think differently to themselves.

Dawkins, however, has nothing but contempt for the majority of human kind who believe in God; but more than this, he no longer appears to be a seeker after truth: he now seems to be someone who just hates and seeks to destroy Judaeo-Christian moral principles.

Dawkins has many times tried to say that Einstein did not believe in God. Yet Einstein said this:

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”

Here is a vastly more important scientist with a far more profound mind, but with the humility to acknowledge how feeble and frail the human mind is. There is no such humility from Dawkins: the only illimitable thing he knows is his own arrogance.

Our universe is far from explained and the more our scientific knowledge increases, the more mysterious our reality seems to be. It is untrue to say that the settled explanation of our universe is that it is a meaningless accident that functions solely on mechanistic principles.

Richard Dawkins has become a sort of Messiah for atheists. He is a microbiologist. I’m not sure why he feels that expertise in such an arcane field gives him authority to pronounce on spiritual questions. But, if microbiologists hold the keys to heaven, people may wish to consider the thoughts of Nobel Prize winning microbiologist Werner Arber, or eminent geneticist, Francis S. Collins, who led the Human Genome Project. Both are believers in God, and both find evidence for the divine in science itself. The debate about the reality of the spiritul is fascinating and is of profound importance to human kind, but Dawkins increasingly only brings to it noise and hatred.

His particular bile is reserved for the Judaeo-Christian traditions. You will not see him spouting off so vociferously about Mohammed. He is too cowardly for that.

His obvious hatred and detestation for the Judaeo-Christian religions is markedly similar to some earlier atheistic ideologies, which also utterly despised Jewish and Christian thinking, and were often obsessed by natural selection.

The Nazi ideology, for example, led to the deaths of over 50 million people in the Second World War, and caused immense and unprecedented human suffering. This ideology considered itself very scientific and Hitler was inspired by philosophers like Nietzsche who proclaimed that “God is dead” and that Christian morality was a “slave morality”, not befitting an “uebermench”. Atheistic communism, as manifested in the Soviet Union, hated religion, “the opium of the masses” and brought about the murder of millions more in death camps, Gulags and most nations who lived under its sway remain spiritually dead today.

As recently as 1979, the Cambodian genocide killed 1.7 million people. These were murdered by communist atheists. War crimes tribunals are now being set up in Phnomh Penh. I don’t see Dawkins loudly decrying the actions of his atheist colleagues in Cambodia. Why? Because his agenda is not to rail against evil wherever he sees it and to seek objective truth. His agenda is to mock, pillory and destroy the Judaeo-Christian principles and beliefs upon which Western Civilization is founded. Indeed, his ideology ultimately renders discernment of good and evil impossible, subjective and arbitrary.

He does not conduct the debate about belief in God in a respectful and sincere way. He is himself a narrow-minded fundamentalist who appears to be lacking in some basic human faculties, beyond intellect. He is increasingly redolent of a man with no sense of smell going around shrieking to everyone that their sense of smell is a delusion. Meanwhile, the rest of us get on with smelling the flowers, and the coffee.

Dawkins imagines that by promoting his grim angry personal philosophy as ultimate truth, and by viciously attacking ancient moral systems, he will bring about some sort of atheist utopia. In doing so, he seeks to magnify wrongs done by religions, and to breeze over the immense horrors brought about by atheist belief systems. You could even say that he is involved in a cover up that would make a Bishop blush: for we have seen what atheist utopias look like: they look like cattle trains rolling in to Belsen with women and children hudding together in the cold.

There is nothing particularly original about atheism: the ancient Greeks knew it well, and in the 1600s Bacon said “a little philosophy inclineth a man’s mind to atheism, But depth in philosophy bringeth men’s mind about to religion.” Dawkins is intent on spawning a generation with a little philosophy.

However such a generation may prove very short lived. Nature seems to abhor atheism as much as it does a vacuum: History suggests that virtually all societies that wholeheartedly embrace atheism either go straight off a demographic cliff, or embark on a programme of mass murder, or both.

Ed West of the Daily Telegraph in the UK, recently noted that: “Across the western world the fertility rate of religious conservatives far outstrips that of non-believers, so much so that modern liberal secularism is endangered. That, anyway, is the thesis of Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, a fascinating new book by Eric Kaufmann of Birkbeck University, which is published later this month. It may well be one of the most significant books of our era.

“It used to be taken for granted that, just as liberal democracy meant the end of history, so it also meant the end of religion. Once people became rich, educated and sexually liberated, they left irrational beliefs and other such nonsense behind. Christianity declined steadily from the mid-19th century but it wasn’t until the 1960s that European societies were able to fully abandon the emotional baggage of their civilisation’s infancy, and especially its repressive attitude to sex.

“But if what Kaufmann is saying is true – and the demographic data suggests it is – then the contraceptive Pill was not so much secular Europe’s liberation as its cyanide tablet…
New Atheists comfort themselves with the idea that religious people will continue to drift their way, like rustics to the city, but the figures do not bear this out….

While the likes of Richard Dawkins aim their bile at traditional Christianity, fundamentalists are largely immune to their attacks, and become only stronger as the more committed members of the established churches head their way. Those religions that survive will become more conservative…the Catholic Church will become smaller but more committed. It will continue to exist at the margins of an atheist-dominated Europe ruled by an increasingly intolerant secular Left….

It’s happened before: Kaufmann believes that Christianity’s rise from 40 followers to 6 million within three centuries had less to do with conversions that with higher birth rates, since the Christians rejected such pagan practises as polygamy and infanticide.

Today we view the ancient world’s attitude to infanticide as barbaric and incomprehensible, but perhaps future generations will look at our attitudes to abortion in the same way – that’s not because pro-lifers would have won the argument, simply that (in addition to the effect of the Pill) abortion is killing the atheists of tomorrow.”

The new and militant atheists appear to have a lot in common with hte more fanatical religious fundamentalists in that both are marinated in fear and hate, posses an iron certainty that they alone are right, and seek only to mock and deride those who think differently to themselves. These people create a lot of noise, and do not contribute meaningfully to a most fascinating debate.

Perhaps all sides ought to ponder Hamlet’s phrase, “there are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophies”

Dawkins imagines that he is preaching the truth; but in reality he cannot and does not know the ultimate truth about the universe and the nature of mankind. What is certain is that he is preaching atheism to the masses. And what is also certain is that atheism has repeatedly proven itself to be the most destructive worldview ever known to mankind. Whereas, religious belief has been shown to have many measurable positive consequences for individuals and societies.

But perhaps the most apposite warning for Dawkins comes from Einstein himself:

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”

Dawkins feels certain that he has unravelled the mysteries of the universe, or the lack thereof. He is not the first to suffer from that delusion, and he will not be the last.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Our GOD, in which he disbelieves, must be laughing big time.

No doubt! :) ....... www.NeedGOD.com