The Logical Inconsistency of the New Atheism

Dawkins on Kentucky

One wonders why I am so suspicious of reason as the ultimate arbiter--and my reason is precisely this--reason is almost never pursued objectively--the argument is rarely followed to the end of the line--the agenda of the thinker is always influencing the evidence accepted and rejected.  Those who stand in favor of sole rationes seldom acknowledge the flaw--those who have a broader perspective tend to note these problems.  Mr. Dawkins has an agenda (well, duh!) and an agenda usually center not around a rational point, but around a belief system.  Mr. Dawkins is willing to surrender all to this agenda.  Another religion built up around nothing.

I have no brief, nor any real interest in Mr. Dawkins's belief system.  That is between him and his lack of a God (or rather, the new Me-theism that transform some human attribute into a god-like entity worthy of worship.  Ecclesiastes lamented that "there is nothing new under the sun."  And this philosophy of the New Atheists and their contempt for their fellow humans stemming from it, is nothing new.  It just goes to further the point that if "God is NOT Good," (to quote one of the New Atheists) well, then neither is a lack thereof.  I don't see compassion, humanity, comprehesion, or love stemming from this tide of vitriol and diatribe.  I don't see acceptance, I don't see all of those vaunted things that abandoning a belief in God is supposed to grant us.  So, I don't really see the appeal of the system.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Another Queen of Night

Lewis Carroll and James Joyce