Abstract: The main condition for thinking in our post-truth era is to delight in debating and challenging everything written, said and thought, regardless of the authority and power of those who wrote it, said it, or thought it. Richard Dawkins is one of the most respected thinkers of our time, but he is neither above nor beyond the psychopathy of One. Under the science/religion distinction, he has binarised all his arguments against religion. His self-righteous rationalisation of a future that can only ‘oppose religion’ is a big ‘NO’ founded on a big ‘YES’ to science and dependent on it. His science-based atheism is narrow-minded, limited and crass. I briefly explain how, without psychotic binarisation, there is no conflict between religion and science; a more subtle notion of atheism can be developed. I also give a couple of examples of atheistic positions that are not dependent on ‘science’ as the binary opposite of ‘religion’. My contention is that most cutting-edge philosophers and scientists, those whose pioneering work brings them face to face with the limits of human understanding, are God-dependent or, at least, God-curious.
Keywords: Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Theory of Everything, Big Bang, Brad Stone, Jeff Bezos, democracy, Huntington, religion, sacraments, ritual, science, atheism, multiformity, multi-interpretability, Giacomo Leopardi, Llewelyn Powys, Usuk, Catholic Church, democratization, Cato, Cicero, Caesar, Catiline, psychosis, the psychotic, mental patterning, binarisation, binary oppositions.
Title: The Dawkins Delusion
Author: Fred Perez
International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research
ISSN 2348-3156 (Print), ISSN 2348-3164 (online)
Research Publish Journals
