11.03.2009

Atheism Doesn't Make You a Scientist

Or, Richard Dawkins is a giant jackass.

I noticed that he's written a book with the word "Evolution" in the title. Since I don't have any intention of trying to find it again, and I'm still trying to convince myself that this is just a terrible hallucination, I can't give you the title, but it looks like he's presenting his own argument for why evolution is true.

I say his own argument, because I highly doubt anyone like this could be a scientist. That is, someone who is not level-headed, rational, and tolerant enough to conduct science, which demands a really high acceptance of results that have nothing to do with what you expected, or for that matter with reason as you know it at all. And which should apply itself to the presentation of argument and use of rhetoric as well.

Let's face it: he's one of the brand of atheists whose ancestors were right there at the front of the Spanish Inquisition, torturing people into agreeing with them.

Because atheism is a religion. Sure, it doesn't have a strong ritual component--unless you count being an intolerant asshole of Christians in particular, and only certain sects follow that--but there's a ton of faith involved. You have to be convinced that nothing awaits us after death, that the body is everything, and that God is, beyond a doubt, nothing more than words on page and a long history of bloodshed. There's even suggested reading, but considering how good the theists are about doing theirs, I somehow doubt atheists are any better.

So, long story short:

Keep your goddamn belief system out of the laboratory! Fanatics these days, bah.


P.S. I'm trying to come up with a symbol that atheists would set on fire in nonbelievers' yards. Maybe a circle with a slash through it?


Addendum: evidently, he has a degree in zoology and taught animal behavior until 2008. Now I'm just completely aghast and trying to figure out where the rationality went. I guess you could say that scare tactics work far better on the vitriolic-minded public, but the whole point of being a scientist is that, well, you don't want to go there. You don't want to become one of the single-minded idiots. (And I found out what the title is.)

I realize you probably don't see atheism this way, so let me present it like this: suppose a man had written several vitriolic books on why God existed, simultaneously putting down other beliefs and especially atheism. He then proceeds to write a book on evolution. Would you be inclined to take this seriously, especially if the title implied that evolution is somehow a circus?

Dawkins should have used a pseudonym.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

just a heads up, Dawkins has a D.Phil. in Zoology and had been teaching Ethology (study of animal behavior) at Oxford until he retired in 2008. yes, he is best known for being a die-hard atheist, but he has published several academic papers on evolutionary biology, genetics, and animal behavior.

The Reporter said...

Wow. Would not have expected that, but it's good to know.

I'm not sure how much of this qualifies him as an expert on the actual archaeology of evolution, but that's because I'm not an evolution specialist either.