Posted on | August 1, 2014 | 28 Comments
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.”
— Romans 1: 18-19 (KJV)
Three days ago, I took notice of how notorious atheist Richard Dawkins had grossly offended many liberals with his Twitter rants about rape and pedophilia. One is reminded of last year’s atheist sex scandals which involved, among other things, Professor Lawrence Krauss’s defense of the billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Such is his appetite for self-destruction that Richard Dawkins is now being denounced by a feminist columnist in the Guardian:
Another day, another tweet from Richard Dawkins proving that if non-conscious material is given enough time, it is capable of evolving into an obstreperous crackpot who should have retired from public speech when he had the chance to bow out before embarrassing himself. . . .
This is Dawkins in 2014: a figure of mockery, a man so convinced that he possesses God-like powers of omniscience that he can’t understand why everyone’s getting angry at him for pointing out the obvious. Why won’t we all just learn how to think, damn it! . . .
Remember when Dawkins was widely respected? . . . I don’t. Having grown up after Dawkins made the transition from lauded science communicator to old man who shouts at clouds, it’s hard for me to understand why anyone continues to listen to him about anything.
Dawkins made his reputation as a “lauded science communicator” on the basis of his selfish arrogance, and is now destroying himself because of that same trait. Dawkins was embraced by liberals, so long as he limited his attacks to Christians. Now that he’s offending Muslims and feminists, however, Dawkins gets no love:
It’s hard to deny that Dawkins’s ‘secular fundamentalism’ — as liberal commentators now describe it — makes for an embarrassing spectacle. When enraged pensioners pick fights with total strangers, one’s natural reaction is to go and sit somewhere else on the bus.
But Dawkins was just as offensive when his target was Christianity; it’s just that the Left didn’t have a problem with his description of Pope Benedict XVI as a ‘leering old villain in the frock’ who ran ‘a profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution … amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.’
As I said at the time, that article — in the Washington Post, no less — ‘conjures up the image of a nasty old man who’s losing his marbles. It’s not very nice about the Pope, either.’ But Dawkins has not become any crazier in the intervening four years; he’s simply widened his attack on blind faith, as he sees it, to include Muslims and feminists.
Da Tech Guy points out that atheism is not random in its hostility to religion. Atheism has a teleology — a purpose, an inherent goal — having developed in the West as a means of undermining the social and legal authority of Christian morality. Atheism is therefore not equally hostile to all religious beliefs, nor is it objective in its selection of targets.
People who hate Christianity nowadays declare themselves “atheists” in much the same way as people who hate America once declared themselves “Communists.” For that matter, it’s the same way women who hate men call themselves “feminists.” The claimed label is a means of rationalizing one’s hatred in a self-flattering way, by distinguishing one’s own enlightened sophistication in contrast to those whom one ridicules as ignorant simpletons for their traditional beliefs.
Nearly 2,000 years later, this verdict still condemns them.