For the last decade or so, there has been a brand of atheist which some have called, the “new atheists.” They're a peculiar breed who have adopted a different strategy in combating religion. Rather than simply argue about the (supposed) lack of evidence for God, they seek to demonize religion. To them, religion isn't just simply untrue, it's evil and so shouldn't exist. To that end, they lie, malign, demean, and demonize religion in general and Christianity in particular. As is always the case with godless apologetics, such a tactic is rife with contradictions and inconsistencies.
People on the ideological left seem to think the greatest sin is hypocrisy. Considering their lifestyles, hypocrisy may be the only thing they think is a sin. For example, leftist ideologies often seem to embrace sexual depravity. Things like premarital sex, polygamous relationships, or gay “marriage” are called, “lifestyles,” while conservative Christians consider these activities to be sin. What happens, then, when a high-profile pastor is caught having an affair? Invariably, he’s called a hypocrite.
By calling their critics, hypocrites, lefties are really engaging in a type of type of ad hominem. They want us to believe that, since the pastor engaged in sexual sin, then anything he or the Bible says about sexual sin must be false. The same people who engage in promiscuous sex, will often use the pastor’s moral failings as a justification for their own illicit behavior!
I look at hypocrisy in a more philosophical sense. In logic, contradictory statements cannot be true. There is a rule in logic known as the law of non-contradiction. In a nutshell, something cannot be “A” and “not-A” at the same time in the same sense. So, when I talk about hypocrisy, I'm not necessarily concerned about the hypocrite's character. The usual reason that I point out hypocrisy is to show the contradictory nature, and thus the invalidity, of an argument. If a critic contradicts himself, then his argument cannot be true; one premise or the other (or both) must be false. In this sense, hypocrisy is very relevant to a debate.
A chief proponent of the new atheist movement is Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is not only an archetype of the new atheist, he is also a very gifted speaker. His is an especially venomous approach and he has a way with words that makes his arguments sound compelling - that is, if you can overlook the contempt he holds while he speaks them. I'm not trying to question his motives, mind you; if his arguments are sound, it doesn't matter why he makes them. Even so, he is so malicious that he often sounds as though he is simply ranting. It's hard to take someone seriously who does nothing but whine.
Now, because Dawkins is such a prolific author and speaker, there are plenty of his quotes I have at my disposal with which I can expose the fallacies that plague the arguments of new atheism. Let's look at a few.
A typical approach by folks of this stripe is to highlight examples of “immoral” passages from the Bible. Typically, critics use loaded words when describing these passages. For example, 1 Samuel 15:2-3 is described as “genocide” and Proverbs 23:13 is described as “child abuse.” This type of argument is sometimes called the argument of outrage. It's not really evidence of anything. Instead, it's merely using highly charged wording to make the subject sound bad.
Besides being an argument of outrage, it’s also non sequitur – that is, the conclusion doesn’t follow the premise. When atheists make arguments like this, they are saying something like, “Evil exists, therefore there is no God.” How does that make any sense? That would be like saying, “Crimes happen, therefore there are no police.” Obviously, such a statement is absurd on its face. The morality of something (or lack of morality) is not necessarily evidence of its truthfulness.
Keeping all this in mind, look at this quote made by Dawkins in his book, River Out Of Eden: A Darwinian View Of Life.
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
So, according to Dawkins, there's no evil, no good, and no purpose. Some people get hurt and some people get lucky and that's just the way it is. Everything is just nature being nature and whatever fortune befalls us only comes from nature's “pitiless indifference.” But in typical, irrational fashion, Dawkins doesn't apply his worldview consistently. Consider the following quote:
“Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.”
The God Delusion
Note his use of the word, “wrong.” On what grounds does he consider it wrong? By his own words, there is nothing but “pitiless indifference.” He might as well say that an apple falling from a tree is “wrong.” The only way Dawkins could call anything wrong is if he were first to concede that there is right and wrong. Yet these do not exist in the godless universe he described so in order to say it's "wrong" to teach a child religion, Dawkins must first assume the biblical idea that there is an absolute standard of morality. Ironic, huh?
Let me give you another quote by Dawkins.
“Unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop being true.”
The Selfish Gene
He’s made this point more than once. In his book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, he also said the following:
“Even if it were true that evolution, or the teaching of evolution, encouraged immorality that would not imply that the theory of evolution was false.”
If Dawkins truly feels this way, why does he devote the entire book, The God Delusion, to describing how deplorable he thinks religion is? From this book we read:
“Yahweh: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
How strange. It seems that when Dawkins presents his own points of view, the moral consequences of his positions aren't relevant. However, when attacking religion, Dawkins thinks that its alleged immorality is a fine reason to reject it. Dawkins is correct in the first point: evolution is not false because it is an amoral theory (it's false for a lot of other reasons). But by that same token, neither is Christianity proven false on the sophomoric grounds that some people find certain passages objectionable. Even if every word in his libelous characterization of God were true, he hasn't spoken anything against His existence.
Dawkins’ statements contradict each other. In one case, Dawkins says there is “no justice,... no purpose, no evil, [and] no good.” In another, Dawkins says it is a “grievous wrong” for parents to impart their religion to their children. Both statements cannot be true, therefore I seek to examine which premise is false. If the first is true, then Dawkins has no grounds to say Christians are wrong to do anything. If the latter is true, then Dawkins cannot say the universe is void of good and evil. Either way, Dawkins' arguments are undermined.
I find Dawkins' gross hypocrisy and total lack of coherence to be abominable. Is that evidence that Dawkins doesn't exist? Oh, if it were only that easy! I never cease to be amazed at the self-defeating arguments used by atheists. In one breath Dawkins says that evolution is true no matter its morality; then in the next breath he says religion is false because of its morality. Such is the way of the irrational.
