How Dare You Call Me a Fundamentalist Part II

Review of How Dare You Call Me a Fundamentalist Part II

(Link to part I: https://athphil.blogspot.com/2018/04/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html)

            Continuing from where I left off on the first installment, I was reviewing some of Dawkins’s responses found within his essay How Dare You Call Me a Fundamentalist. In my last post, I provided a review and analysis of this essay. I will finish that review in this post, as well as defend Dawkins’s stance found within this essay, and in The God Delusion.

            “You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . ‘you attack crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than facing up to sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury,’” (Dawkins). In response to The God Delusion, many religious and non-religious readers accused Dawkins of focusing on religious fundamentalists, while not acknowledging those quieter religious people who do not feel the need to publicly defend (or profess) their beliefs. Even though the point of the book is to make a case against fundamentalism, these readers have a point; focusing on the fundamentalists of religion is quite similar to the religious focusing on the ‘fundamentalists’ of atheism. His response, however, is this; “If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible,” (Dawkins). The point he is trying to make here is that his book was written to contest the views of those who are much louder about their religious beliefs, because those are the ones who spread this ‘fundamentalist’ ideas, and because this particular group publicly outnumbers the quieter group.

            This can be found in much of the United States. In a country founded over two hundred years ago on the belief that, among other things, individuals should have the right to choose their own beliefs without having someone impress beliefs on them, such as the government, we still see many citizens advocating for a merge of church and state. To name an example that we discussed in class, our forty-first president George H. W. Bush is quoted in saying, “No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God,” (Bush), at a press conference regarding religion in America that took place in 1987 at the O’Hare airport in Chicago. People such as this example are the fundamentalists that Dawkins refers to.

            “You’re preaching to the choir. What’s the point?” (Dawkins). Another response Dawkins received from other non-believers is that many advocates of his book are ones who have already adopted his stance, or a similar stance, regarding religion. Given its harsh name, and harsh tone, many people who hold opposing views to this book probably would not give it a chance. Because of this harshness, many non-believers contend that he did not reach his intended audience, which would be those with strong religious beliefs.

            Dawkins’s response to this shows that he did not merely intend to criticize and condemn those who oppose his beliefs; he also wrote this to help encourage those who already share his beliefs to be more vocal and open about them. “The nonbelieving choir is much bigger than people think, and it desperately needs encouragement to come out,” (Dawkins). When you live in a country that most people perceive as a “religious state,” as many believe the US to be, it may be hard to express an opposing belief that you may hold. In this sense, The God Delusion serves as an invitation to other non-religious people to be more vocal about their beliefs, if by no other way than by showing them that they are not alone.

            To conclude, I will provide my response to The God Delusion. Personally, I found the book to be very inspiring. As a self-proclaimed non-believer, I find his writings to be reinforcing of my own beliefs (or perhaps lack thereof), for the simple fact that it is a reminder that I am not alone. I have no personal problems with religion, or with people who subscribe to any religion. And I would go as far as to claim that Dawkins did not intend to personally attack any person who holds beliefs that oppose his own. Rather, his intentions were to aid fellow non-believers in their approach against religiosity, as well providing an alternate view of the idea of religion for those who have subscribed to those beliefs. However harsh and relentlessly unapologetic his tone was, his point is one that desperately needed to be made. If he had chosen to write in ‘nicer rhetoric,’ as I stated in the previous installment, his message may have fallen short, or not reached as many people as it has.

Link to the essay:

http://sith.phy.bg.ac.rs/arhiva/BIBLIOteka/270ScienceBooks/Richard%20Dawkins%20Collection/Other%20Articles/Richard%20Dawkins,%20How%20dare%20you%20call%20me%20a%20fundamentalist.pdf

George H. W. Bush quote:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:George_H._W._Bush