Richard Dawkins opened his book, The God Delusion, with a creative reinterpretation of John Lennon’s famous song, Imagine. Essentially, Dawkins pined, “Just imagine how great this world would be if we got rid of religion!” Well, after 21 posts, I hope you feel I’ve shed some light on exactly what kind of world Dawkins’ atheistic utopia would be like.
It would be a world where historical facts wouldn’t really matter—they would be simply misrepresented to push Dawkins’ own agendas. Historical revisionism would rule the day.
It would be a world where people were so illiterate that they wouldn’t know how to even read and interpret ancient texts like the Bible correctly.
It would be a world where people couldn’t tell the difference between Mother Teresa and Fred Phelps.
It would be a world where teaching the Bible would be considered a form of child abuse worse than rape and molestation.
I could go on…but mind you, I did not make up any of what I just said. All of that, and more, can be found in Dawkins’ own words. There are only a few more points I’d like to make about The God Delusion…a few more things that Dawkins helps us, “imagine.”
Well, I’m Not Saying We Actually Need to Get Rid of Religion!
Surprisingly, near the end of his book in which he railed against the evils of religion on every page, Dawkins tries to make nice. He writes:
“…an atheistic worldview provides no justification for cutting the Bible, and other sacred books, out of our education. And of course we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions of, say, Judaism, Anglicanism or Islam, and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals, without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions. We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage.” (387)
That might sound really nice, but in light of his clear vendetta against religion, such comments not only ring hollow…they are downright nonsensical. Think about it, Dawkins has said, that even though religion is evil, the root of all atrocities in human history, and the number one child abuser in the world, that doesn’t mean we can’t be sentimental about religious rituals and religious heritage! Just don’t believe all that evil, barbaric, anti-intellectual crap!
I’m sorry, but if “all religion” truly is as insidious and evil as Dawkins makes it out to be, how could anyone in their right mind “retain a sentimental loyalty” to religious traditions? The answer? It’s impossible. That would be like saying, “Oh yeah, the KKK is a horribly racist organization, but that doesn’t mean we should give up cross-burnings!” Any person who says, “All religion is evil, but let’s keep our religious traditions and be sentimental about it,” is an utter fool.
It turns out that person just so happened to write a book entitled, The God Delusion.
In any case, I leave you with three other insights Richard Dawkins gives regarding that kind of world he could only “imagine.”
Words of Wisdom Regarding Euthanasia
“When I am dying, I should like my life to be taken out under a general anesthetic, exactly as if it were a diseased appendix. But I shall not be allowed that privilege, because I have the ill-luck to be born a member of Homo sapiens rather than, for example, Canis familiaris or Felis catus. …But, it might be said, isn’t there an important difference between having your appendix removed and having your life removed? No, not really…” (400)
Yes, that’s right. Richard Dawkins laments the fact that he was born a human being, because that means that he won’t have the opportunity to take out his own “diseased appendix” of a life. Now, the issue of the “right to die” in regards to patients that are terminally ill or in un-ending pain is a serious issue. But the cavalier way Dawkins argues for the right to die is utterly shocking. His argument is basically that a human life is no different than a diseased appendix.
It seems that Dawkins is testimony to the charge that with atheism, human life is ultimately worthless.
Words of Wisdom Regarding Enlightened Thinking
“At least, that will be the case unless I move to a more enlightened place like Switzerland, the Netherlands or Oregon. Why are such enlightened places so rare? Mostly because of the influence of religion.” (400)
Yes, that’s right. Richard Dawkins rationale for considering Switzerland, the Netherlands and Oregon to be “enlightened places” is based on the fact that they allow you to put your aged loved one down…much like you would your family pet.
Furthermore, Dawkins actually criticizes places that don’t let human beings kill one another, and blames this high regard for the sanctity of human line on that bad and evil, life-affirming religion.
Ah, that Life-Affirming Atheism!
“The atheist view is correspondingly life-affirming and life-enhancing, while at the same time never being tainted with self-delusion, wishful thinking, or the whingeing self-pity of those who feel that life owes them something. If the demise of God will leave a gap, different people will fill it in different ways. My way includes a good dose of science, the honest and systematic endeavor to find out the truth about the real world.” (405)
It should strike anyone as utterly amazing that in a mere five pages after he criticizes religion for not allowing people to euthanize the elderly, Dawkins proudly claims that atheism is life-affirming and life-enhancing.
In Conclusion…
So there it is. I ask you, do you believe Richard Dawkins when he claims that God is just a delusional, hate-mongering, suicide-bombing, circumcised-crazed, jealous, pedophiliac child-abuser who won’t let you take out your own diseased appendix of a life? Or do you think that Richard Dawkins is just an inflammatory propagandist?
If you really want to imagine a world without the influence of religion, trying to imagine a world without the contributions of Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Chaucer, Flannery O’Connor, Thomas Merton, Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, charitable hospitals…the list could go on and on.
For all the faults of Christians throughout history, Christianity has been the single more positive force for good in the history of the world. In addition, there a millions of people in other religions who have also done a tremendous amount of good in this world. For Dawkins to completely…and I mean completely…ignore all that, and instead continue to trot out the most extreme examples of fanaticism and claim that people like Fred Phelps represents Christianity is worse than ignorant. It is dishonest and diabolical.
The arguments Dawkins makes against religion and religious people are the same ones made by the only atheistic regimes in history, most notably Communist Russia and China. What kind of world would that be? We don’t have to imagine—we already know. Dawkins might protest comparing his arguments to those of Communist ideology, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…it’s a duck…and he’s coming to arrest you if you read Bible stories to your children at night.
