Self-Appointed Champion of Secularism

I learned something today.

And so the stellar casting in Doctor Who continues with the news that Professor Richard Dawkins, biologist and bestselling author of The God Delusion, is to appear in the current series as himself. On Outpost Gallifrey, the definitive Doctor Who website, I read that Russell T Davies, the show’s executive producer, and all the crew were delighted to see Dawkins. “People were falling at his feet,” says Davies. “We’ve had Kylie Minogue on that set, but it was Dawkins that people were worshipping.”

It’s a great tribute to our age that a scientist can still be greeted with more adulation than a pop princess. But I can’t help noting the irony of the imagery that Dawkins’ reception has conjured up. Falling at his feet? Worshipping? It all seems oddly reminiscent of the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem in the days before his Passion; a strange resonance for the scientist who has declared himself the champion of secularism in a world where, he claims, the delusions of faith are gaining an increasing stranglehold.

From: The Guardian

All this time, I was bragging about once having dinner with Richard Dawkins when I actually had dinner with the self-appointed champion of secularism!

Christianity is a myth. But it’s a myth that has helped us – and continues to help us – ask searching moral and philosophical questions.

Searching philosophical questions? Like what? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? When I was in pre-school and I was introduced to the concept of the Judeo-Christian God, the first question I remember asking about the Judeo-Christian God was why he let bad things happen. When you really ask searching philosophical questions about religion and you get unsatisfactory answers, I find that it’s the searching philosophical questions that makes the concept of a supreme-being quickly seems to be a load of rubbish.

But most laughably, the article makes the case that Dawkins’ Secular Army should be stopped because you can’t appreciate literature without the Bible.

Hell, I agree that I appreciate literature more than my fellow classmates because I have more biblical knowledge than they do, but so does Dawkins.

Now, can we all agree to stop reading books by title only? Actually, no. Keep reading stuff by title only. It makes it much easier to tell you why you’re wrong when you do that, and it gives me people to laugh at.

I’ve heard loads of people are angry about this. I suppose that if I had gotten a little less sleep last night, I’d be angry to about the article’s misrepresentations of the book and ignunce it spreads to the public but really, I think it’s all a good laugh. If… well, I don’t even care who wrote it that much… If the guy who wrote this article wants to make an ignunt fool of himself, that’s perfectly fine.

Just tell him why he’s wrong…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: