An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins
Dr, Prof, Richard Dawkins,
I originally planned to post an article on News24 profiling you. I changed my mind because I realised that the rational thing to do is to post it as an open letter. This way, you can respond to the contents of this letter.
I would like to start with making reference to your “Out Campaign”. Below is a part of what the Out Campaign is all about.
“Atheists have always been at the forefront of rational thinking and beacons of enlightenment, and now you can share your idealism by being part of the OUT Campaign.”
Based on your campaign and the very first statement, it is expected that you be the example of rational thinking and you be one of the beacons of light that others can look up to.
I am going to state some actions, comments and deductions you have made and I ask you to demonstrate the rationality of these.
On the 23rd October 1996, you engaged in a debate with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. You subsequently denied that this ever happened. When you were provided with video footage of the event, you accused the Rabbi of speaking like Hitler.
I would not accuse you of lying but I do think that you owe an explanation to atheists regarding this incident. I must state that the intention here is not to determined whether you lied or not but for you to explain the rationality of your denial and how you came to the conclusion that the Rabbi spoke like Hitler in a debate you never had with him.
The next issue that begs a response from you is that on the 24th March 2012 at the Reason Rally, you said that atheists should not only challenge the Christian faith but also ridicule and show contempt for their faith and their sacraments. Please demonstrate to us how showing ridicule and contempt is a product or outcome of rational thinking. You owe this explanation to atheists. Remember that the integrity of the “Out Campaign” depends on you.
It is also common knowledge that you refused an invitation to debate with Prof. William Lane Craig. One of the reasons provided by you is that it would look good on his CV not yours. I would like you to explain how the contents in your CV contribute to you being a beacon of enlightenment. After all, you already know the contents of Lane’s position and you already know what he is going to say. Craig has done this so many times now because no-one has successfully torn down the argument he presented. Any rational atheist will want you to have this debate for the following reasons:
1. A destruction and replacement of Craig’s argument will further confirm that you are a beacon of enlightenment.
2. You will demonstrate that rational thinking can prevail against Craig’s argument.
You also mentioned that Prof. Craig parades himself as a philosopher. You went further to state that you checked with other philosophers and that they have not heard of him. I am certain that you would have followed the debates he had with Hitchins, Atkins and other prominent scientists. I am certain that you would have heard the introductions made about the debates and you would have heard where Craig acquired his qualifications. Wouldn’t the rational thing to do be is to contact those institutes to verify his qualifications?
Now let’s go to your book “The GOD Delusion”. You gave six reasons for the conclusion that GOD almost certainly does not exist. Please demonstrate rationally how these reasons brought you to this conclusion.
“[Genes] swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control. They are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence.”
The above quote is your words in your book called the “Selfish Gene” and below is a similar quote by Denis Noble. The underlined portion of Noble’s quote is the emphasis added by me to demonstrate the common potion in both statements/
[Genes] are trapped in huge colonies, locked inside highly Intelligent beings, moulded by the outside world, communicating with it by complex processes, through which, blindly as if by magic, function emerges. They are in you and me; we are the system that allows their code to be read; and their preservation is totally dependent on the joy that we experience in reproducing ourselves. We are the ultimate rationale for their existence.
Please explain how these differences occurred and also explain why your quote is right and Noble’s is wrong.
Dr. Dawkins, I know that there will be atheists that will respond on your behalf and I know that there will be atheists who will defend you. I would like you to analyze these defenses and responses made your behalf and test it to see if they demonstrate rational thinking and/ or if they represent “beacons of enlightenment”
I am sure that by now you understand the importance of your response to this letter. “Atheists are the forefront of rational thinking and beacons of enlightenment” depend on it.
Please note that if the statements made about you is false in anyway, please indicate so with evidence and I will gladly remove it and post another open letter apologizing to you.
Regards
Bobby Pandaram
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
