10) Links between genetic determinism and white supremacy remain strong.
9) The staunchest Dawkins followers got nothin’.
8) Wasps are brainless but extremely aggressive.
7) Opinions on Dawkins split down party lines as neatly as a Congressional vote.
6) Saying, “So, chill” is defensive.
5) When they like you, it’s good writing. When they don’t, it’s “rhetoric.”
4) Fundamentalist atheists HATE being called that. So do it early and often.
3) Incredibly, even an atheist with postgraduate work in ecology and evolution can still be a church-kissing, climate-change-denying reactionary one step to the left of Mike Huckabee.
2) Lay back and let your friends and your enemies duke it out.
1) It is important to log off Twitter with the same number of fucks you logged in with.
7 thoughts on “Top 10 Things I Learned From Reviewing Richard Dawkins”
What do you base #10 on?
Too much to put in a comment, but for starters: the fact that the first people to attack me for my review were the “human biodiversity” types. Dawkins plays it close to the vest; it’s hard to know what he thinks, one way or the other. But among his most vociferous minions are those who believe that some races are inherently smarter than others–and guess which ones!
You said that you got “Links between genetic determinism and white supremacy remain strong.” from reviewing *Dawkins*. Not his “minions”, as you put it.
So, where, in Dawkins’ work, did you get that from? Where does he say or write anything that makes you think that?
I’m guessing “Reviewing Dawkins” is shorthand for “Publishing a review/critique of Dawkins”; so not just the process of creating the review, but also the fallout from making it public.
See below comment; “reviewing Dawkins”=shorthand for entire experience of reviewing, including reaction and responding to readers, not just writing the review.
Dawkins, as I say, plays it close to the vest. I don’t know his exact feelings on race and don’t speculate either way. I was careful to write that the race realists find his writings very encouraging. And my emails and Twitter feed when the piece was published certainly confirmed that statement.
I *do* think, however, that the whole evangelical atheism project has a strong element of white privilege. Its leaders are all rich white guys with little or no experience in, say, inner cities. Visit the inner city of Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, or any other major city with a poor, violent, drug-riddled core on a Saturday night and a Sunday morning, and you’ll see that religion has a powerful, positive role in those communities.
Dawkins is a commercial atheist, and the BHA are his disciples.
Comments are closed.