Samuel Morris
I loved Richard Dawkins. I would sit at my computer, whooping like a cheerleader at his atheistic speeches. Science for the win! Now, however, I wonder if Mr Dawkins is actually a robot. I say this because recently his internal processor seems to have malfunctioned and categorized twitter as a personal thoughts notepad, not a trafficked social media site. I talk of his tweetings on the aborting of Down’s syndrome babies: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice” [1].
Now, that’s treading the line. Whether you believe there’s a point in there or not, it’s lost in an ignorance of wider public reception and a genuine bewilderment of the notion of emotion (a trait commonly linked with robots). At the very least it must be acknowledged that 140 characters is not the restriction in which to bring up such a sensitive issue. Cracks were showing in my opinions on this ‘figure head’ of atheism.
It’s difficult because I very much agree with a lot that he says, in particular the process of scientific thinking. Science is great! It’s humanity’s greatest collective attempt to understanding the universe. I marvel at its ability to predict, to baffle whilst inspire and the benefits it has bought to the world. But it’s not a constant set of beliefs, it’s a malleable system, and I think Richard Dawkins may have forgotten this.
Watching his speeches and interviews, he talks with such certainty it appears arrogant. He may say “It would be irrational to say that I’m absolutely positive there’s no God”, but it’s delivered in such a dismissive tone and when preceded by: “I’m a kind of 99% against [there being a God]” it hardly comes across as open minded [2]. Dawkins’ assuredness often sounds arrogant. This certainly jars with some of the public, and may be why to some he comes across as a closed-minded arse.
He also ‘hearts’ Charles Darwin [3]. When Dawkins speaks of the theory of evolution he treats it as the reality of the universe, bestowed on Darwin in a moment of God-like enlightenment [4] [5]*. But it’s just a theory: the best explanation for evolution we have. Theories constantly change and there are so many questions still to be answered. Science has not cracked the code of life!
If Richard Dawkins knows this, then he needs to show it: his views are not the be all and end all. If he demonstrated science’s fallibility, he could be a great spokesperson for it. Why not inspire with the wonder of science instead of putting it on a pedestal. Show the world it’s a human process, not a mechanical, dispassionate way of thinking. If he did this (and stopped tweeting) people who think Richard Dawkins is closed minded would see that he is actually open, even if they still think he’s a robot.
*1st minute of link [5]
