Richard Dawkins is such a dolt. It’s amazing that some people consider him enlightened. Listen to this:
So, Richard Dawkins has promised – no, that’s too strong – intimated that he might set up an atheist school, as he would presumably have the right to under new government “free school” plans. During a chat on mumsnet he responded to a few suggestions that he start “an atheist free school” by saying he liked the idea very much.
This might seem odd coming from someone who has said (indeed said in the same discussion) that “faith schools … are divisive… [and] encourage children to segregate into tribes”.
Yes, religious schools that teach kids that all men are brothers, and that they should not lie cheat or steal are very divisive. If you ever want to see extreme divisiveness, just go read the comments on his website. The atheists are filled with hatred for the religious, and they delight in calling them “deluded” and other such names. If you want to see pure raving tribalism, read Dawkins site. In addition, they often pretend that fundamentalism IS religion, as a way to take easy shots at something they don’t even want to try to understand. Hardly scientific. You don’t set up straw men and knock them down if you are serious. But most neo-atheists are not serious at all.
So, how would this free-thinking school be different? It would, Dawkins explained, “teach comparative religion, and teach it properly without bias”. In case you were wondering, “without bias” means “as a branch of anthropology”. What about religious texts? How exactly do you teach them “without bias”? Quite simply, you teach that they are untrue. “The Bible should be taught, but emphatically not as reality”, Dawkins explained. “It is fiction, myth, poetry, anything but reality.”
This is a legitimate opinion – although one from which millions would dissent – but to imagine it is neutral, objective or self-evidently correct is absurd. To arrive at (and teach) such ideas is to take a whole series of contestable positions on a range of theological, philosophical and scientific questions.
To claim that an atheist school would “teach comparative religion, and teach it properly without any bias towards particular religions” is so naive as to beggar belief. Does it mean you should dedicate equal time to Zoroastrianism as to Christianity, take the claims of Judaism as seriously as those of Jedis?
You see, the basic problem with neo-atheism is that it is a political movement, founded to oppose the growing re-establishment of religion as a force in politics. Religion always had been a powerful force in politics; then liberals tried to expunge it in the liberal revolution of the last 40 years. The results were tremendously unsatisfying, and led to lives of emptiness for most people. So people started reclaiming their religious heritage. The religious started having an effect in politics again, and this was capped off by the fact that George Bush was elected by those concerned about moral issues in 2004. Suddenly there arose the Silly-Sally neo-atheists, trying to make us give up religion. Their rhetorical hook was 9/11. After 9/11, they were able to make the rather thoughtless claim that it was religion – not Islam or Islamists – that was the problem. No other religions were going around the world killing people. Yet the neo-atheists had a bumper sticker talking point – that it was religion that caused these Islamists to do what they did. Therefore religion must be eliminated.
So, it’s really a political movement. And an anti-intellectual movement. They don’t face facts, they don’t take their opponents strongest case; they construct a weak one they can rail against.
But there is a big problem. We’ve tried the atheist route, and it wasn’t pretty. The result was “scientific” communism. And 100 million people died. Now, these atheists seem to be the same people who stood by with a dumb look on their face as the Communists killed 100 million, saying not a word. Even worse, they make the howling claim that atheistic communism was in fact a religion. How nice. As soon as atheists do something they don’t like, it becomes a religion. How do they look themselves in the mirror when they say such obvious rubbish?
The problem, you see, is that atheists can’t have a unified set of beliefs. As soon as they do, it becomes a dogma. But that was what they were fighting against.
And true to form, atheists impose their dogma much more brutally and harshly than religion was ever imposed. Off to the Gulag, bring in the Stasi and the KGB to spy on every citizen to make sure they are not breaking the atheist law. Ritual denunciations become commonplace.