Neo-Darwinism
I have seen several lectures by Dawkins and his fellow neo-Darwinists.
Do Dickens’ claims really hold water?
I get the impression that he has become a reflection of the thing he is fighting against.
He often sounds like an “atheist fundamentalist” if it’s even possible that he’s fighting religious fundamentalism (and religiosity in general).
I saw in one of his lectures that the conclusion he reached was that religion leads to ignorance and wars, but I can logically show that secular national movements, secular Marxist movements, etc. also lead to exactly the same result, not to mention that Marx’s supporters claimed that Marx’s claims were “scientific” socialism, and the Nazis said that the Jewish “race” was inferior and proved this by “scientific” means, all without God.
What do you think about the phenomenon in general and Dawkins in particular, and have people who place science above all else and try with all their might to humiliate religion actually created their own religion without even noticing?
It is not for nothing that I have dedicated an entire book, in my opinion, to Dawkins and his arguments, called in Israel: God Plays Dice.
He is indeed a fundamentalist and his arguments do not hold water. But that should not surprise you, and there is no need to put the phrase ‘fundamentalist atheist’ in double quotes. Atheists are usually more fundamentalists than the religious people they attack. In most cases they do not even have the sense of self-humor that many religious people have, and certainly not the willingness to examine their position. It is a cult in many ways.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
