Richard Dawkins: a Quick Rant

Richard Dawkins. I think he’s an important modern cultural force and yet he infuriates me, sometimes almost as much as his detractors do. Dawkins gets a lot of emotional satisfaction from knowing and spreading the truth — the truth that God doesn’t exist. That’s his meaning to life and he gets a full rich life from doing it. But the people he is preaching to get emotional satisfaction from their (wrong) beliefs in God and the Afterlife, etc.

So Dawkins gets his emotional satisfaction from depriving (or trying to deprive) others of their emotional satisfaction. This seems a little bit vampiric to me. Of course he cites the authority of “The Truth” to justify his behaviour. He is just a messenger of “The Truth”. But is “The Truth” really such a great ideal? And is living while sincerely mindful of “The Truth” even feasible? Does Dawkins live that way, as if he is a transient speck upon a speck orbiting a speck that’s a speck in a small corner of the universe? No, because if he did he would be crushed by the weight of meaninglessness. He’s human like everyone else, an emotional creature, just like the people he talks down to. He isn’t the pure “rational” being he wants to be seen as. Nobody is. He still wants status, power, success; he still has all the old atavistic urges, even though technically these urges are futile and stupid. He isn’t superior to any other human in this regard. And “homo rational” is still a pipedream, thank goodness.

I am just wondering if “The Truth” is really a good excuse for being cruel…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s