Firstly, note that his condemnation of Christian theology, or anything at all for that matter, may be utterly disregarded due to the fact that he has no premise upon which to base his condemnations—none beyond his personal preferences which he bases upon his personal preferences.
When he was asked how he would show someone who broke into an old man’s house and murdered him that what they had done was wrong he responds, in part, by imagining what he would say to such as person:
“This is not a society in which I wish to live. Without having a rational reason for it necessarily, I'm going to do whatever I can to stop you doing this.”
I couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, “Well, in this society you can't get away with it” and call the police. I realise this is very weak…”
1) That that would not be “a society in which I wish to live” is irrelevant as the burglars do want that society and now it is survival of the fittest.
2) He admits that he has no “rational reason for it necessarily” and “couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually.”
3) That he would “call the police” presupposes that the police agree with him. If he called the police in Nazi Germany to complain about the mistreatment of Jews he would have been summarily placed in a camp.
4) Indeed, “this is weak.”
Yet, Richard Dawkins does take a solid stance on evil.On pedophilia; he references “gentle pedophiles” and thinks that too much is being made of it (see here).He makes a habit of referring to those with whom he disagrees in Hitlerian terms (for which I gave him The Reductio ad Hitlerum Award).
As for Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, (as stated to byFaith Magazine), “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.”As for parents who raise their children according to their “religion” (as stated to the Telegraph), “It is evil to describe a child as a Muslim child or a Christian child. I think labelling children is child abuse and I think there is a very heavy issue.”
Let us consider Richard Dawkins’ latest example of the lucidity with which he expresses his own ignorance and then rages against his very own misunderstandings.
He argues that while the earthquake was a natural event unconcerned with sin or human suffering and that “The religious mind” that is, the mind of the overwhelming majority of the entire planet’s population:
…restlessly seeks human meaning in the blind happenings of nature. As with the Indonesian tsunami, which was blamed on loose sexual morals in tourist bars; as with Hurricane Katrina, which was attributed to divine revenge on the entire city of New Orleans for harboring a lesbian comedian, and as with other disasters going back to the famous Lisbon earthquake and beyond, so Haiti's tragedy must be payback for human sin.
But where are the plethora of quotations and citation to such sentiment expressed, as if with one voice, by the overwhelming majority of the entire planet’s population? It comes down to a fallacious generalized assertion and one single name, you guessed it, “Pat Robertson” (where he to have thrown Jerry Falwell into the mix he would have all but exhausted his source for such statements).
But not so fast, he is about to demonstrate that those, Judeo-Christians, who do not agree with Pat Robertson are hypocrites:
Needless to say, milder-mannered faith-heads are falling over themselves to disown Pat Robertson, just as they disowned those other pastors, evangelists, missionaries and mullahs at the time of the earlier disasters.
At this point; note that you are dammed if you agree with Robertson and dammed if you do not.
Richard Dawkins asserts that Pat Robertson, “stands squarely in the Christian tradition” and those who disagree with him, “are denying the centrepiece of their own theology. It is the obnoxious Pat Robertson who is the true Christian here.”
But why is this? Because via Noah’s flood God was “systematically drowning the entire world, animal as well as human, as punishment for ‘sin’” and likewise with Sodom and Gomorrah thus, he notes,
Dear modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated Christian, your entire religion is founded on an obsession with 'sin', with punishment and with atonement.
And Richard Dawkins’ is obsessed with getting rid of sin by claiming that there is no such thing and by promulgating the atheist consoling delusion of lack of ultimate accountability and the delusion of absolute autonomy.
Now, he asks, “Where do you find the effrontery to condemn Pat Robertson” when, after all, “the President of one theological seminary” wrote,
The earthquake in Haiti, like every other earthly disaster, reminds us that creation groans under the weight of sin and the judgment of God. This is true for every cell in our bodies, even as it is for the crust of the earth at every point on the globe.
Committing an expandio ad absurdum he implies that the Bible asserts that every natural disaster and disease is demonic in nature—this is a common misconception.
Richard Dawkins concludes by proposing a Bible study,
Pat Robertson may spout evil nonsense, but he is a mere amateur at that game. Just read your own Bible. Pat Robertson is true to it. But you?...your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering.
Note that, actually, his own Darwinian worldview is one long celebration of suffering as it is through suffering/struggling to survive as the fittest that evolution occurs which is why Sam Harris argues that rape played a beneficial evolutionary role.
Charles Darwin asserted races are preserved via the struggle for life, “Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle…he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would soon sink into indolence, and the more highly-gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted.”
Edward Grant Conklin wrote, “the lesson of past evolution teaches that there can be no progress of any kind without struggle.”
Sir Grafton Elliot Smith made reference to the “glorious unrest” in that, “While man was evolved amidst the strife with adverse conditions, the ancestors of the Gorilla and Chimpanzee gave up the struggle for mental supremacy because they were satisfied with their circumstances.”
Misia Landau noted, “Darwinian narratives, which, owing to their emphasis on natural selection, are often cast in terms of transformation through struggle.”
Richard Dawkins succinctly wrote, “In nature, the usual selecting agent is direct, stark and simple. It is the grim reaper.”
Now, the basic point is that since Judeo-Christian theology asserts that creation has fallen into entropy due to, beginning with, Adam’s rebellion against God, Adam’s sin, then every tragedy can be ultimately traced back to Adam’s sin. Thus, we all suffer because of Adam and Pat Robertson is correct is asserting that it was sin, “a pact with the Devil,” that caused the earthquake.
Firstly, let us note that indeed, the Bible paint a picture of the ultimate global village—we are all connected, all part of one family, all brothers and sisters, all created and love by God and also rebellious against God.
Yet, the Bible does not affirm that every natural disaster and disease is demonic, or sin related, in nature rather. Rather, it implies that God created the material realm and that the material realm functions according to material cause followed by material effect—this, by the way, is what makes science possible. While there are rare instances when certain un-natural disasters and diseases-like symptoms are demonic in nature, or sin related, it describes natural disasters as natural disasters and treats physical disease as physical disease (consider, for example, the medically regimented description of dealing with leprosy in Leviticus ch. 13 and 14).
Now, who is correct about the biblical worldview? Richard Dawkins, Pat Robertson or Jesus?
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish” (Luke 13: 1-5).
This may not be of any comfort to adherents of the Dawkinsian School of Dogmatheistic Theology. Yet, the point is that Dawkins claimed to have drawn a logical conclusion via the Bible to hypocrisy in disagreeing with Pat Robertson due to the Bible’s affirmation of the fall into sin. Yet, the Bible does not draw this conclusion and so Dawkins is in error.
Moreover, Pat Robertson did not appeal to sin in general or the fall into sin. He reference an, un-evidenced, “pact with the Devil.” Thus, Richard Dawkins is further in error via another expandio ad absurdum.
To reiterate; the point is not whether it makes sense to you or not. The point is that Dawkins claimed to draw a logical conclusion from the Bible and yet, he contradicts the Bible’s contents, concepts and contexts.
 Richard Dawkins, “Haiti and the hypocrisy of Christian theology,” The Washington Post January 25, 2010
 Nick Pollard talks to Dr. Richard Dawkins (interviewed February 28th, 1995 published in Third Way in the April 1995 edition [vol. 18 no. 3])
 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (Princeton reprint of the 1st edition), p. 2:403
 Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), p. 35 quoting “The Trend of Evolution,” in The Evolution of Man, published by Yale University Press, 1922, pp. 152-84
 Lewin, p. 35 quoting Essays on the Evolution of Man, published by Oxford University Press, 1924, p. 79
 Misia Landau, “Human Evolution as Narrative,” American Scientist, 72:262-268, 1984
 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker—Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1986), p. 62
This essay is copyrighted by Mariano of the “Atheism is Dead” blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com.
It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose—in agreement or in order to criticize it—only as long as the following conditions are met:
1) Give credit to “Mariano of the ‘Atheism is Dead’ blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com”
2) Inform me as to which essay is being reproduced and where it is being reproduced via the comments section at this link