The revelation that Richard Dawkins was sexually abused as a child suddenly brings his entire philosophy into sharp focus. Harmed by authority, he's out to destroy the concept of authority, starting with that biggest authority of all, God.
But the problem is, authority is a necessary part of the scientific method. Without a trust in authority, certain forms of evidence can't exist. This damages the ability to look at any topic objectively- it creates an invincible bias that destroys truth.
I'm Outside the Autistic Asylum!
RSS Feed link
The crazy stuff I can't post anyplace else
Introduction to Wonko the Sane and Outside the Asylum, which this blog is named after.
12 comments:
That would be a good theory if he were wrong about what he says about the delusion. But, it is real and his exposing it has absolutely no connection with a minor incident that apparently occurred during his childhood.
Sexual abuse is never minor- and it has EVERYTHING to do with why he calls belief in God a delusion.
So, you honestly believe that Dawkins' atheism can be attributed to his being molested as a child. Ok. I will accept that as coming from you and typical of your worldview.
I honestly believe it because at one time in my life, similar problems pushed my faith off course. I was more the abuser than the abused, but the effect was the same: In an effort to minimize the abuse, I questioned the concept of authority.
You questioned the concept of authority to minimize the frequency or the adverse effects of the abuse?
I questioned the concept of authority to even be able to label the incidents in question, and indeed any incident, as sexual abuse. I questioned the idea of rape as being anything other than love. And of course, those questions led directly to nihilism and atheism, and eventually, to solipsism.
I was wrong, and so is Dawkins. What he experienced at a young age was sexual abuse- and that experience is very, very mind warping. It divorces the soul from contact with the divine, to such an extent that it is extremely hard to get that connection back. Took me 20 years.
I don't think they need anyone's pity. They are good.
The very fact that they try to teach evil means that they aren't good.
Not believing is not evil. It can be wrong but that doesn't make it evil.
It isn't merely the not believing, it is the consequences of not believing- such as teaching that evil doesn't exist.
Everyone knows that we all should strive to do right and avoid doing wrong. The word "evil" is thrown around so much by people like you that it has lost it's true meaning. Even so, I don't know many atheists who believe that there is no such thing as evil. Maybe you mean the Catholic concept of "sin".
"Everyone knows that we all should strive to do right and avoid doing wrong. "
Even a superficial study of the last 100 years of human history shows that not everybody knows this.
Evil, sin, and wrong are all the same thing. Richard Dawkins for instance, doesn't seem to know that having sex with random people is wrong. You don't seem to know that homosexuality is wrong. Enough people don't know that abortion is wrong that a genocide of 55 million people has been the result.
Secularists teach evil, because their primary philosophy is that evil doesn't exist.
Post a Comment