How Dare You Call Me a Fundamentalist

Review of Richard Dawkins’s How Dare You Call Me a Fundamentalist

           For my midterm report, Raine and I covered an essay written by Richard Dawkins in 2001 in response to the 9/11 terror attacks, which was titled Time to Stand Up. After giving this report, I found myself very interested in what else Richard Dawkins had to say, and especially in criticisms of him and his works. After reading his 2006 bestseller The God Delusion, I was very curious of the immediate response that it generated.

I was not surprised to find that it was met with an enormous amount of criticism, from both religious and non-religious readers alike. Some claimed that Dawkins’s approach toward religion in The God Delusion was too focused on fundamentalists’ view of religion. To name an example, Peter Higgs, a theoretical physicist who has been nominated for multiple Nobel Prizes, and a self-proclaimed ‘non-believer,’ stated in an interview, "what Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind," (Higgs). This is just one example of the many responses Dawkins received from readers of The God Delusion.

In response to these criticisms, Dawkins published a very short essay in 2007 titled, Don’t You Dare Call Me A Fundamentalist in the “Times” magazine, and in some paperback version of The God Delusion. Though it is not on the website any longer, I found an archived version of it, which I will provide below. Throughout the short essay, Dawkins gives his responses to some of the most common criticisms of his book. “Several critics began with the ominous phrase, ‘I’m an atheist, BUT . . .’ So here is my brief rebuttal to criticisms originating from this ‘belief in belief’ school,” (Dawkins). Dawkins is referring to criticisms he received from other non-religious people, such as Peter Higgs, about his relentlessly unapologetic stance on religion as a delusion. He then provides six of the responses that he received, and answers them accordingly. I will briefly cover a few of those responses in this essay, and will cover the rest in my second installment.

“I’m an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant, ranting language,” (Dawkins). This is the response that many non-religious readers had after reading The God Delusion, perhaps for the sake of distancing themselves from a man who has been termed a ‘militant atheist.’ Dawkins’s response to this criticism is that unlike almost every other thing that would be discussed in a public forum, religion is given a special privilege. “The illusion of intemperance flows from the unspoken convention that faith is uniquely privileged: off limits to attack. In a criticism of religion, even clarity ceases to be a virtue and begins to sound like aggressive hostility,”(Dawkins). He contends, perhaps in seemingly harsh words, that religion should not be given this special privilege, because it negates any real chance to civilly discuss the topic.

I think it is ironic that, given his harsh stance against religion, he is more-or-less asking for those that are religious to reconsider their apparent fundamentalism towards religion, or more specifically, set aside their beliefs that they hold so closely for the sake of discourse on the subject. In some ways, many could say (like the example of Higgs) that Dawkins’s own harsh, unapologetic stance against religion could be viewed in this same light that he is viewing the religious; that his harsh, seemingly unrelenting stance against religion adopts the very same fundamentalism that he wishes to dispose of within the religious world. I do think, however, that his point about religion having ‘special privilege’ is one that needs to be made. Too often is religion given this privilege, and that privilege impedes the amount of discussion and scrutiny the topic may receive. If these topics are viewed as ‘too sacred’ to discuss, like many religious fundamentalists may claim, then we cannot every truly understand these topics in the way we understand other aspects of the world.

 “You’re as much a fundamentalist as those you criticize,” (Dawkins). Though this particular criticism may have garnered the name of this essay for Dawkins, his actual response to this claim is much shorter than the others. Dawkins says, “No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may ‘believe’, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will,” (Dawkins). Dawkins makes the distinction between passion and fundamentalism for a reason, and that reason is that many religious people will not alter their beliefs in the face of evidence that insists their beliefs may be partially or entirely wrong.

I think this distinction is of the upmost importance here. Perhaps his label of ‘militant atheist’ refers to this passion that he claims to have. And if this passion is real, it is a passion for the truth, and a passion to help others achieve this truth (or, at least, help them come closer to knowing the truth). I would go as far as to say that every person has, to some degree, a passion for knowing truth; that is most likely why many religious appear ‘fundamentalist’ in their beliefs. If they have viewed their beliefs as ‘the truth’ for their entire lives, then it is easy to understand why attempting to disprove something that has been cornerstone to their lives and identities may come with some resistance.

This distinction is made clear in the last quote I listed from Dawkins. As he says, he may share the same passion for his beliefs that a religious leader may have for their own beliefs. The difference, however, is that, being an advocate of science, he is willing and ready to change his beliefs in the light of new evidence, whereas many religious fundamentalists may not. Perhaps that is the main point of this essay; not to mistake passion with fundamentalism.

So, should his view be considered a fundamentalist view of atheism? I think not. Though his rhetoric can be harsh, and even condescending, I do believe his aim is not to exclude those religious people who are not willing to even consider that their beliefs may be wrong, but to convince those people to step out of their comfort zone and just try. I do think, however, that the harshness that he used within The God Delusion may have backfired on his message slightly; perhaps more people would have received the message he wished to convey with the book, (in the broadest terms) that religion may be viewed in the same light as delusion.  If the book had been written with slightly more sensitivity, it would most likely have not received most of the criticism it did, and probably would not have prompted Dawkins to write this essay at all. If that were the case, though, the book may not have done nearly as well as it did, and, perhaps more importantly, would not have conveyed Dawkins intended message in the way in which he would have preferred.

In this respect, I agree with Dawkins distinction between passion and fundamentalism. I do not consider him an ‘atheist fundamentalist.’ I personally think that his messages, albeit harsh, are derived from his passion for truth and his passion to help others achieve this truth. Maybe he should just choose some nicer rhetoric.

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

Peter Higgs scrutiny of Dawkins - https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism

         Overview of The God Delusion (for anyone not familiar with the book) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion#Critical_reception

Speech on The God Delusion: