John Howard haters - a natural Richard Dawkins constituency

There is hardly a clearer manifestation of the downward trajectory Australian society has taken during the last fifty years than the vitriol and vituperation that flow from the mouths of the tribe of Howard-haters who on the slightest cue fling themselves in a frenzy of abuse. Yesterday Melbourne's Herald-Sun reported some modest criticism (originally appearing in The Australian) by former Prime Minister John Howard of Labor Prime Minister Kevin Ruud. Understandably Howard was defending his four-term government and the solid economic foundation he had gifted to the incoming Labor government, something Ruud's government colleagues are desperately trying to wriggle around.

Instead of responding coherently to Howard's claims, which we must despair of ever witnessing, the usual crowd reflexively regurgitated the nastiness and abuse that had been hurled at the former prime minister during his eleven years in government.

I admit I was a little surprised at the extent of the abuse because The Herald-Sun on whole reflects a conservative readership. This sort of reflex nastiness is to be found most often in Melbourne's Age. Perhaps it was the coincidental presence in Melbourne of the atheist high priest of political abuse, Richard Dawkins, that was spiritually inspiring his constituency to range further from the comfort of the usual forums where they mindlessly reinforce each other in spewing their barely literate intolerance and hatred of people of religious faith. Of course, we know that Howard's Christian belief and adherence to traditional morality are what infuriates his detractors most.

Dawkins, surrounded by idolatrous supporters, was certainly reinforcing the atheistic template of hatred and intolerance at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention held this last weekend in Melbourne. The Herald-Sun and the Fairfax's Sydney Morning Herald and Age reported on the convention, the Sydney Morning Herald giving more space to Dawkins' mocking comments. If Dawkins' crudity of thought and expression were not enough, his Australian acolytes could not control their soaring emotions. The Sydney Morning Herald:

Dr Dawkins's comments about Senator Fielding [on ABC's Q&Q] were reported by the ABC broadcaster Robyn Williams, who also addressed the convention yesterday.

"I can give you a devastating argument against religion in two words," Williams said in his introduction.

"Senator Fielding. Richard Dawkins said his IQ is lower than an earthworm, but I think earthworms are useful."

What clever wit! Naturally what we expect from an ABC journalist reporting on science matters. Then there was Ian Robinson, President of the Rationalist Society of Australia:

...the president of the Rationalist Society of Australia, Ian Robinson, asked if there were any converts in the audience, a solitary hand went up. "Don't worry, I'll speak really slowly," he said.

Really, the sharpness of Robinson's wit surely knows no equal. How slowly would he have to speak if he attempted to explain Kant's Transcendental Deduction to his drooling audience - if he knew how to explain it at all? On the evidence, most of his audience would have probably thought he was talking about Eastern mysticism and booed him from the stage. And this is just it: the appalling ignorance most of these militant atheists show of European history, philosophy, philosophical method, elementary logic, and their eager applause for dopey sixth grade mockery marks them as a very stupid lot, indeed.

They clearly just repeat chapter and verse of the dogma Dawkins and Co feed them, not understanding the philosophical background or the objections. Dawkins himself does not seem aware that his debunking of religious belief rests on the crudest of fallacies, one that a first year philosophy student should be aware of after his first term: scientism.

I cannot understand how anyone who feels confident of their reasoning powers and stock of knowledge, philosophical and historical, could turn up at a gathering that has the appearance of swaying and clamouring drunks in a football stadium. Indeed, one of the attendees could not help expressing his disappointment.

Tamas Pataki, an honorary senior fellow in philosophy at Melbourne University, was one of the few who criticised the atheist movement. "It's begun taking on the conventions of a religion with its priests and apostles and followers, and that is the worst thing that can happen to it," he said.

Indeed it is. Barney Zwartz, the Age's religious reporter who, as one could imagine, at best has no love for Catholic orthodoxy and orthodox Catholics and at worst should be called the Age's anti-religious reporter, was so embarrassed that he had to give the convention and its speakers a scolding, in the sense of 'come on, people, don't let the side down.' Atheists won't win friends and influence people

Finally, to show just how genuinely contemptible Dawkins can be, he referred to Pope Benedict as 'Pope Nazi'. Not only has this bloke no idea of basic decency or civility, he is at the level of a babbling child when compared with the breadth of Benedict's historical and philosophical knowledge, and his subtlety of thought. Dawkins' mentality would have been snugly at home in Stalin's inner circle.

Comment: gerard@gerardcharleswilson.com