Response to a Christian's question - Why does Dawkins hate God?
On the Twitter, I find myself having an interesting conversation with a Christian who began the talk by asking me if I felt that Dawkins was helping anyone when his message seems to be that he hates God. How can hate be helpful, he asked, and why don't more atheists dedicate themselves to building relationships with the religious community rather than isolating themselves from the religious by way of harsh criticisms of God.
I feel like these are all really good questions, not because of the questions themselves, but they're good questions because they expose a fundamental difference in thought that makes it difficult for theists and atheists to get along.
First off - atheists don't hate God. Some of us hate the concept of God, but to say that an atheist hates God is like saying a Jewish person hates Satan. They don't hate Satan, they don't even believe in Satan. The same is true for atheists and God. Hating a concept is not the same thing as agreeing that a concept physically exists.
I told my twitter pal that if he had questions about Dawkins' personal motivations that he would have to ask him, however I did say that for a lot of people in a lot of areas of the world - the US included - being an atheist openly was a great way to lose your job, lose the support of your family, or otherwise be treated badly. People like Dawkins are appreciated in the atheist community not because they're perceived as being hateful but because they give a lot of people hope and encouragements about themselves as human beings.
How many times have you heard from one source or another that atheists lack morality? That atheists are sub human, incapable of being parents, are inherently selfish, shouldn't be allowed in positions of influence, are untrustworthy, and on and on and on? Is it any suprise that there is an outpouring of support for authors like Dawkins and the like who are publishing books that say - "you're not a bad person for thinking this way. I think this way too, and here's why." Of course people who are atheists are going to look at the bible and say 'why does it contradict itself? If God is loving, why did he kill so many people? Why did he kill babies and tell men to stone their wives and sell their daughters?' When you reject the divinity of something, it's far easier to see all of the parts that comprise the whole.
Logically, this criticism is going to be offensive to the religious. Of course it will be. But I think it's unfair to say that people like Dawkins are wrong or destructive in their actions because they offer the kind of support that a lot of non-religious people need right now. Would it be fair to say that slaves in 1870 who distrusted the forces that oppressed them and worked to create support structures for their people were being unhelpful or hateful because they weren't trying to build bridges with the people who were in positions of influence and power over them? Of course not. Slavery and atheism are vastly different cicumstances, but the social repercussions of being an outsider in a society is the same regardless of who is being excluded. I don't think atheists are to a point yet where we have the political or social clout to build bridges - we're still convincing ourselves that we're not broken human beings for rejecting God despite a large, vocal, and powerful group of people who still have no qualms telling us we are!
So no, I don't think Dawkins is a bad guy for what he says or even how he says it. I think he's a reflection of how a lot of atheists feel around the world - we are good people with strong moral values and our lack of belief in God is not an excuse to marginalize us.
I feel like these are all really good questions, not because of the questions themselves, but they're good questions because they expose a fundamental difference in thought that makes it difficult for theists and atheists to get along.
First off - atheists don't hate God. Some of us hate the concept of God, but to say that an atheist hates God is like saying a Jewish person hates Satan. They don't hate Satan, they don't even believe in Satan. The same is true for atheists and God. Hating a concept is not the same thing as agreeing that a concept physically exists.
I told my twitter pal that if he had questions about Dawkins' personal motivations that he would have to ask him, however I did say that for a lot of people in a lot of areas of the world - the US included - being an atheist openly was a great way to lose your job, lose the support of your family, or otherwise be treated badly. People like Dawkins are appreciated in the atheist community not because they're perceived as being hateful but because they give a lot of people hope and encouragements about themselves as human beings.
How many times have you heard from one source or another that atheists lack morality? That atheists are sub human, incapable of being parents, are inherently selfish, shouldn't be allowed in positions of influence, are untrustworthy, and on and on and on? Is it any suprise that there is an outpouring of support for authors like Dawkins and the like who are publishing books that say - "you're not a bad person for thinking this way. I think this way too, and here's why." Of course people who are atheists are going to look at the bible and say 'why does it contradict itself? If God is loving, why did he kill so many people? Why did he kill babies and tell men to stone their wives and sell their daughters?' When you reject the divinity of something, it's far easier to see all of the parts that comprise the whole.
Logically, this criticism is going to be offensive to the religious. Of course it will be. But I think it's unfair to say that people like Dawkins are wrong or destructive in their actions because they offer the kind of support that a lot of non-religious people need right now. Would it be fair to say that slaves in 1870 who distrusted the forces that oppressed them and worked to create support structures for their people were being unhelpful or hateful because they weren't trying to build bridges with the people who were in positions of influence and power over them? Of course not. Slavery and atheism are vastly different cicumstances, but the social repercussions of being an outsider in a society is the same regardless of who is being excluded. I don't think atheists are to a point yet where we have the political or social clout to build bridges - we're still convincing ourselves that we're not broken human beings for rejecting God despite a large, vocal, and powerful group of people who still have no qualms telling us we are!
So no, I don't think Dawkins is a bad guy for what he says or even how he says it. I think he's a reflection of how a lot of atheists feel around the world - we are good people with strong moral values and our lack of belief in God is not an excuse to marginalize us.
-
Comment by Thaddeus Dombrowski on February 4, 2010 at 11:23pm
-
I think what Christians hate most about Dawkins is that he is very blunt. He doesn't pull any punches. That said, I don't necessarily like Dawkins, for the same reason many Christians hate him. I think more tact could be more effective. However, there is a place for being blunt. I agree with Tyson in this clip.
-
Comment by Pinko Commie on February 5, 2010 at 12:01am -
I'm neutral on Dawkins. I appreciate his message and I respect his intelligence, but I do agree that his manner of communication is blunt and sometimes harsh. Maybe it's because I never was religious, but I can only attempt to empathize with how it must feel to truly believe in God and then come to the realization that God isn't real. It has to be very painful for some people and I can understand how that pain may manifest itself in blunt or harsh ways.
-
Comment by Maria Myrback on February 5, 2010 at 1:10am -
I agree that Dawkins could use a bit more tact on occasion. So can we all. But there are times when a battering ram like him is completely called for. At times like those I'm glad he's a freight train of subtlety. Sometimes you HAVE to beat people over the head with the message to get them to start understanding.
-
-
Maria, you're making a good point. I think what works best of all is for people to be exposed to tactful friends or family while at the same time being exposed to a battering ram from another quarter. Best of all are many of the comedians who can provoke laughter. Humor has a way of getting a point across, too.
-
Comment by Pinko Commie on February 5, 2010 at 1:29am
-
I agree with you - Dawkins is a breath of fresh air in a lot of respects and what I feel he's accomplished and why he's such a force for atheists in general is because his method of communication draw attention to atheism in a way I'm not sure has been done before. I feel empowered when I hear Dawkins and even Hitchens (who is FAR more blunt than Dawkins in my opinion) saying things that I agree with regarding atheism and religion because they're saying it to the world and people are listening and reacting.
I think maybe religious people may mistake atheists like Dawkins as the atheist's substitute for preacher. The religious follow their preacher's guidance because they believe these people have an insight to God. We don't have that devotion to Dawkins, but I can imagine it's easy for someone to mistake respect for unquestioning agreement.
-
Comment by Gordon Duffy on February 5, 2010 at 9:48am -
When you use tact with a certain type of christian they take it as a tacit acknowledgement that you know they are right. You have a god shaped hole in your heart. Whereas if you are honest in your assessment of their beliefs you are "hateful"
I think it is fair, as Dawkins and PZ Myers do, to treat ridiculous beliefs as ridiculous. Yes the die hard believers will be ofended, but how many of us non-believers have aboandoned our beliefs after being honestly and openly challenged? I know that was a big factor for me.
-
Comment by Kirk Holden on February 5, 2010 at 10:12am -
I would put it thusly. If I were a carpenter and many of my clients truly believed that houses and furniture were constructed by elves and faries and therefore refused to believe that they should pay me after my work was done based on the mistaken belief that I had done no work myself but depended on the little folk to do the work while I slept - I would have very little respect over time for these people who manifestly benefited from my labor but refused to pay for service.
A working biologist like Dawkins must have the same contempt for the free loaders who use science, the technology from science and bask therefore in modern comfort but refuse to acknowledge the dept they owe to truth.
-
Comment by Pinko Commie on February 5, 2010 at 10:45am
-
Like the whimsical YECer that bemoans the evils of technology with an HTML enriched post on an internet forum - the irony might be funny if those people weren't trying to pass laws and impose restrictions on others with their ridiculous delusions leading the way.
That brings up another point - not all christians are alike and I find that my response to christians seemingly like this guy - the kind of christian that wants to treat me like a brother because that's what christ would do - is critical, but far less harsh than how I react to creationists or fundamentalists. I've noticed Dawkins seems to make the same distinction, saving his most intensely terse comments for the more extremely religious.
Again, I do agree with Dawkins on this point - a distinction can be made but there is also something to be said for speaking up in your own town hall. This guy seemed quite comfortable asking me why someone who shares my belief is a shit, but when a fellow christian is acting a shit the reaction is invariably the 'no true Scotsman' response, which is an aggravatingly fallacious argument and seems to be just another way for christians to judge others while refusing to hold their own accountable.
So I suppose I ought to tell him that when the playing field is leveled and the goal posts are cemented in place, bridge building might begin to gain momentum.
-
Comment by Shawn on February 5, 2010 at 3:52pm -
I must admit, like Dawkins, I have very little tact or patience with those that believe in a god. Perhaps a failing of mine, but neither would I have the patience for someone trying to tell me of the existance of the tooth fairy.
-
Comment by Shasta McNasty on February 5, 2010 at 4:23pm -
i like Dawkins, as long as he keeps his nose clean.
What i mean is this, Dawkins is a representative of the atheist community whether anyone likes it or not. Just like how pedophile bishops and prostitute buying pastors represent the christian community, whether they like it or not. Like Pinko said, atheists are already seen as terrible by a pretty large group(who ironically have pedophile priests as representatives). If any of the vocal athiest "spokesmen"(Dawkins, Hitchens etc) get into any kind of trouble, the whole atheist community will feel the backlash.
Dawkins will usually get a pass from me for whatever he says that pisses people off, so long as he at least keeps the atheist community respectable.
What's new today
Forum
EMPOWERING WOMEN!!!!!!!!
Started by Belle Rose in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Cathy Cooper 9 minutes ago. 115 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Salty Water = Proof for Creationism?
Posted by Teri G on May 24, 2013 at 2:29am 6 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!
Join Think Atheist