Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Dawkins, marvelling at his own stark intelligence

"Mental masturbation: the act of engaging in intelligent and interesting conversation purely for the enjoyment of your own greatness and individuality." - UrbanDictionary.com

Dear Mr. Dawkins,

I'd like to spend the next few minutes patiently explaining why you're an idiot.

Excuse me a moment... (takes five)

My apologies, I had to grab a bite to eat. I've noticed that in that little space of time you've garnered up all your defenses of an Atheistic Worldview and various attacks on religion, presumably under the impression that anyone who thinks you're an idiot could only be a religious nut. Don't trouble yourself; I'm not, and decidedly so - I've lost more than one future wife over that very fact. It seems many women have, for better or worse, a greater loyalty to God than to man.

But that's neither here nor there. What irks me in particular, sir, is your confidence, particularly where you shouldn't have any at all - I'm thinking specifically of historical knowledge, where "historical" may be replaced with "knowledge," and "knowledge" with "of recorded history, insofar as human beings have been the active recorders." History that you might learn were you to major in, say, history.

To sum up, you don't know jack. But I will be happy to make your acquaintance.

On the 28th of April, 2005, you spoke the following:

"...an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States. Not in Europe, not in Britain, but in the United States.

My American friends tell me that you are slipping towards a theocratic Dark Age."

Well, Mr. Dawkins, I'd like you to meet the Dark Age. Don't be afraid of holding out your hand in greeting; though Mr. D.A. doesn't speak English, he does fluently speak three other languages (Latin and Occitan are the only two I can recall), which puts his linguistic agility considerably above yours. You'll find that he also knows the reason for his nickname (his real name is, in this case, High Middle Age), that being that he has lost the tradition of classical learning that once thrived in ancient Rome. He's done his best to find it again, even going so far as having whole speeches of Cicero memorized and analyzed. He knows Quintillian, Horace, Juvenal, Ovid, a great deal about astronomy, physics (mostly for the purposes of war), chemistry (again, for the purposes of war), architecture, geography - including a knowledge of the earth's spherical shape, and his hygeine leaves nothing to be desired.

To be honest, he was quite flattered that you compared a group of scholars to himself. I didn't tell him that that wasn't your meaning, that in fact you were insulting a group of scholars because of the sheer scope of their ignorance. He might get mad, and he knows a good deal more about beating people up than you do. You'd be well-advised to refrain from making analogies using portions of history that you don't even marginally understand.

I have a few more introductions to make, but I'm running short on time, so I must make this quick.

I quote:
"It's often said that because evolution happened in the past, and we didn't see it happen, there is no direct evidence for it.."

Mr. Dawkins, I'd like you to meet the group of people that disagree with you and that also make this argument...wait, they...oh, I'm sorry, that's right. They don't exist. You'd be well-advised to refrain from attaching dumbass arguments to your opponents under the assumption that they're...well, dumbasses.

I quote:
"For a long time it seemed clear to just about everybody that the beauty and elegance of the world seemed to be prima facie evidence for a divine creator. But the philosopher David Hume already realized three centuries ago that this was a bad argument. It leads to an infinite regression."

Mr. Dawkins, I'd like you to meet all philosophers that precede Hume and Hume's time-period, the less-so-than-it-assumes-about-itself Age of Enlightenment. I don't have to make your acquaintance with the latter; I'm sure you've already met, or if not, would get along quite well, since you both have the same irksome habit of drawing vast and impertinent conclusions about your opponents with little to no actual knowledge about the way they think. As for your acquaintance with the former, you will quickly discover that each one of them - from Plato to Maimonides - has a different argument for or against the existence of God, and they are all a tad pissed that you've grouped them together into a straw man to be knocked over by Hume. Most of them can put up a good fight against Hume (although a select few can kick his ass), and none of them use an infinite regression.

(Really, for the love of god...how the hell can you summarize all of philosophy prior to Hume that concerned Origins as a "bad argument" and not feel even a twinge of scholarly guilt? It's guys like you that take Philosophy 101 and go out and make the two Matrix sequels. Get a real job.)

I quote:
"There is just no evidence for the existence of God."

I'm glad someone's finally catalogued all the available evidence.

I quote:
"People brought up to believe in faith and private revelation cannot be persuaded by evidence to change their minds. No wonder religious zealots throughout history have resorted to torture and execution, to crusades and jihads, to holy wars and purges and pogroms, to the Inquisition and the burning of witches."

Mr. Dawkins, I'd like to introduce you to the following groups of people, in no particular order:

-that enormous crowd of infant children over there, saved by Roman Christians who couldn't bear to see unwanted infants dying in the woods, thrown out by their pagan countrymen;

-that crowd of Holocaust survivors who were smuggled out of Germany by Christians;

-the small group of Middle Age Irish children who have been saved from a lifetime of slavery in a foreign land;

-the skinny scarred-up group of...oh, I'm sorry, those are religious zealots. Most of them have been eaten by lions;

-every Roman woman who was affoarded a greater status in her household (although I suppose "babymaker" leaves a lot of room for improvement) because of the arrival of Christianity;

-every one of the millions of hungry fed by the tithes of the Hebrews (it's way before Hume, so you may have to look it up);

-hell, every one of the millions fed today by organizations that are run under a religious auspice (World Vision, Compassion, etc.);

-Mr. T.

You'll note that all of these people, with one possible exception (not the martyrs...but nice try), have been impacted in a positive way by religion. In most cases, it's saved their lives. You'd be well-advised to remember that history is a messy business, and that nothing is so cut-and-dry - especially where religion is concerned - as to warrant a a caricature (eeeeevil religion!) that can't be legitimately supported (holy crap! it's done some good, too?). That's the troubling thing about blanket characterizations: most of them, while having a basis of some kind, aren't actually, in the technical sense of the word, true.

You'd be well-advised to stick to talking about things about which you know a great deal. That leaves, at the very least, evolution open to you. But it also closes off religion completely. Please, if it isn't too much trouble, refrain from making impossible statements about subjects that I've spent a great deal of time studying and trying to understand. I just might have to call you an idiot.

(I guess I already did.)

Shut the hell up.