I have struck this article off as I think it is not factually correct and was a bit of a rant, however, there are points relevant to my overriding uncomfortableness with RD’s current PR approach.

Like Richard Dawkins, I am myself an atheist, that is, I do not believe that divine beings exist, let alone influence our lives. I have been fascinated to see the rise of Richard Dawkins over the years and have been a fan of his approach and work until the last couple of years. There is no doubt that this known but hardly celebrity level academic has suddenly exploded into the public eye through a number of TV programmes and of course through the controversial book ‘The God Delusion’. With the establishment of the Richard Dawkins Foundation of Reason and Science (RDF), he is now the figurehead of a movement to rid the world of the superstitious and ignorant views of religious zealots and lazy thinkers.

Richard has questioned representatives of most faiths and has exposed clairvoyants and spiritualist charlatans for what they are, and although his arguments are solid and completely rational, I wonder what his objectives really are? Let us not forget Richards background. He is from a privileged landed gentry background and certainly represents the intellectual elite in our country. From the lofty heights of academic supremacy there is no doubt he can look down upon the teeming masses, scrutinize their illogical actions and dissect them into a palatable example of how ignorant many people truly are. Ignorance is often the result of poor education/cultural influences and is also the result of choosing to be ignorant as a coping mechanism to deal with emotional trauma. An erudite and accomplished academic will find it incredibly easy to overturn most orthodox religious assumptions as well as dissect the fickle modern interpretations that seem to constantly evolve to cope with modern changes. Yet, within the madness are reasons however banal or poignant. The reasons why people choose irrationality over reason is often due to a survival or coping mechanism. Dealing with the death of close relative or adapting to a harsh theocratic dictatorship. This is obvious, but what may not be so obvious is that poverty plays a massive role in the establishment of the uneducated, traumatised and terrible life experiences that people have to deal with. The disparity between rich and poor is extreme and I will not venture to explain what most people know to be the truth.

This is where my admiration of Richard Dawkins starts to curdle as I watch him simply argue in a rather self-satisfied way that rationalism and scientific methodology can give wonder and hope to everyone in the same way that is does to him and no doubt as it does to myself. The truth is that atheism is a luxury, something to treasure and respect. It is predominately found in rich liberal western societies and has no doubt freed many people from the constrains of dogma and superstition. I argue as much as Dawkins against supposition and assumptions believing in a Socratic method to weed out untruths and delusion. Yet, like Socrates, I believe that personal development should over-ride financial aspirations, something I’m not convinced Richard Dawkins completely agrees with, especially with BUY NOW buttons plastered all over his website. As much as Dawkins seems to understand rationality he seems to be incapable of understanding the importance of self-delusion. There is no doubt that lying is fundamentally important to every-one’s sanity and forms a fundamental part of our creative and imaginative tapestry as a species. Embellishments, exaggerations, and lies are creative processes and no doubt form a hugely important part of every day lives. From fiction books to films, urban myths to legends their prevalence and importance cannot be understated. We all allow ourselves these escapes, yet it is most evident in areas where poverty stricken people live life in a way most westerners would find intolerable. It is here Dawkins fails to deliver a fair case for an idealised secular world through evangelised atheism. To truly enlighten the ignorant he needs to tackle its main cause, poverty. It is this irony that strikes at the heart of Dawkins argument. How can a man of so much privilege and obvious intelligence fail to recognise that the very wealth and liberality that allows him his freedom to study, scrutinize and communicate his ideas is formed directly from the capital which drives these people into poverty and ignorance. Dawkins is a perfect example of a bourgeois, intellectual bully boy.

To sustain my interest I would like to see him become a braver man and address the socio-political reasons why people turn to religion or fundamentalism. I know empirical data to Dawkins may just seem like filler in an already won argument but I think that Dawkins needs to challenge his own cultural inheritance and its contribution to keeping the plebians ignorant. Understanding and facing the reality of poverty and the inevitable poor educational standards this creates should be his priority now and would certainly give him far more credibility than slamming average Joes who never had the chances he had. Dawkins should be addressing why people turn to religion and supernatural beliefs rather than proceeding to duck shoot the ignorant.