It Couldn’t Have Happened to a Nicer Guy

Sometimes the most “scientific” people can be the most unscientific.  And intolerant.  An example would be the American Humanist Association.  By its name, you would think that these people would be committed to rationalism and perhaps, act humanely.  (As opposed to believers.) 

One would think so.  But one would be mistaken.

Recently, Richard Dawkins, perhaps the world’s most famous atheist, got taken to the woodshed by the American Humanist Association because he questioned their orthodoxy.  Specifically about what they now believe about race and “gender” (which is not a scientific term but a linguistic one). 

Shades of Galileo!  I thought only Christians were intolerant!

You see, Dawkins, whatever his faults, at least tries to be scientific.  True, his moralism is often disingenuous; he hates genocide for example.  This begs a question, however, doesn’t it? What, from a Darwinian point of view, is actually wrong with genocide?  The poor fellow cannot see that without God, morality –good and evil specifically–are merely philosophical constructs.  This is something Dostoevsky settled once and for all.  Leaving all moralism aside, as a committed Darwinist, he is willing to go wherever science leads him. I’ll give him that.  And science has led him to believe that race is an immutable characteristic and can’t be “appropriated” a la Rachel Dolezal. 

Darwin believed that as well.  So did every other serious* evolutionist for that matter.  The scientific basis for race was never in doubt.  He also doesn’t believe that there’s any scientific basis for any of this transgendered nonsense.  And you know what?  He’s right on both counts!

Anyway, the AHA gave him some high falutin’ “Humanist of the Year” award back in 1996.  That was then however, this is now.  So because this is [the current year] and we’re so much more enlightened, they’ve rescinded it.   Because of reasons.  Or because of Hitler.  Or because shut-up. 

Their formal writ of anathema is as follows:

“Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values.  His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender [sic] individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black [sic] identity as one that can be assumed when convenient.  His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity  nor sincerity.  Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.”  

The levels of irony, inanity, and unreality in this statement rival anything that Orwell could have come up with in Nineteen Eighty-Four.  Seriously, you organized materialists out there owe organized religion a huge apology.

That being said, as someone like myself who is committed to science, rationality, and open discourse, I should come to Dawkins’ defense.  My commitment to free speech demands it.  I should, but I won’t.  Because Dawkins doesn’t deserve it.  Nor do leftists in general.  Not anymore.  While I spent the better part of my life being a chump, upholding universalist values, like free and open inquiry, the Left was busy degrading society from within.  They didn’t play by the rules (except when they were losing).  So why should I?

Anyway, atheism doesn’t lead to scientific truth but to a wretched, materialistic orthodoxy.  One that fails on its own merits.  (Like the anathema hurled at Dawkins above.)  It always does.  And even though Dawkins doesn’t see the internal contradictions of scientific materialism, he should have seen this ex-communication coming for him like a freight train a mile away. Especially given how unscientific and utterly irrational our society has become.  

Dawkins has done tremendous damage to belief over the years.  And has received many kudos and emoluments for doing so. Regardless, further degradations no doubt await him.  (Just ask James Watson, the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule.)  And so, as he holds out his hand for help, he won’t receive any.  Not from me anyway.

As I said, it couldn’t have happened to a better guy.  

*The late Stephen Jay Gould was the furthest thing from a serious scientist one could find.

About GShep


  1. “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”

    Atheism is not a rational response to reality. It is an emotional reaction to theism. It may be the problem of evil, or some authority issues, or excessively stringent nuns . . . it varies from atheist to atheist.

    “For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring.”

    The notion that Reality is alive is completely rational. It is the notion that life originates somehow ultimately from death (“dead” matter/energy) and to that all things return – that is negative and pessimistic. It is inventing an ogre on the other side of a closed door. Why not an angel? Each pays from his own store. Atheism is simply projection.

    Perhaps ostracism from his fellow demons will illuminate the errant Dawkins.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Perhaps. The Left is definitely eating its own.

      • Ecclesiastes 1:9
        The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be;
        and that which is done is that which shall be done:
        and there is no new thing under the sun.


  2. I see an asterisked footnote at the end of the article referring to the well known science writer Stephen Jay Gould.

    But where in the article is there any reference to Gould?

    • George Michalopulos says

      Puzzled, I threw this in as a gratuitous swipe at the late, not-so-great scientific poseur (Gould). He dominated the field of evolutionary thought but was so intellectually dishonest that only those more eminent in that field called him out. As a leftist, he commanded the high ground of our culture and like Dawkins did much damage. Dawkins, Dennett and Harris were more honest, at least hewing to their wheelhouse whereas Gould pulled stuff out of thin air. He always came down on the side of the Left regardless of where the science took him.

      Dawkins on the other hand has come down hard on the side of political correctness. He’s been fearless in going after those who say math is a product of white supremacy for instance. I can’t remember where I read this but he said something to this effect: “I want to fly in a plane in which the strictest adherence to math and physics was followed, if that’s ‘white supremacy’ then so be it.”

      For that matter, I hope that there are no airplane manufacturing plants in Virginia, whose Assembly voted to do away with advanced placement in math.

  3. Austin Martin says

    Live by the sword, die by the sword. Dawkins did a lot to create this world. He built a career on cheap insults and sensationalist moralizing.

    My only problem with the Dr Seuss banning is that he didn’t live long enough to see it.

    “That being said, as someone like myself who is committed to science, rationality and open discourse, I should come to Dawkins’ defense. My commitment to free speech demands it. I should, but I won’t. Because Dawkins doesn’t deserve it. Nor do leftists in general. Not anymore. While I spent the better part of my life being a chump, upholding universalist values, like free and open inquiry, the Left was busy degrading society from within. They didn’t play by the rules (except when they were losing). So why should I?”

    Correct. These “universalist values” were never intended to be a fair playing field. They were always a tool to crush opposition.

  4. Anonymous II says

    : NATO conducts massive war games aimed at Russia:

    As tensions with Russia simmer, thousands of NATO troops, several warships and dozens of aircraft are taking part in military exercises stretching across the Atlantic, through Europe and into the Black Sea region.

    The war games, dubbed Steadfast Defender 21, are aimed at simulating the 30-nation military organization’s response to an attack on any one of its members. It will test NATO’s ability to deploy troops from America and keep supply lines open.

    Already in recent years, the United States and its allies have deployed troops and equipment in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland to try to reassure those members neighboring Russia that their partners will ride to the rescue should they come under attack.

    Russia’s decision last month to send thousands of troops to the border area with Ukraine has raised concern at the military alliance, which launched one of its biggest ever defense spending initiatives after Russian troops annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014.

    Top NATO brass insist that the military exercises, involving some 9,000 troops from 20 nations, are not aimed at Russia specifically, but they focus on the Black Sea region, where Russia stands accused of blocking the free navigation of ships.

    NATO Secretary-General Jens STOLTENBERG says the exercises send an important message to any potential adversary: “NATO is ready.”

    “NATO is there to defend all our allies, and this exercise sends a message about our ability to transport a large number of troops, equipment across the Atlantic, across Europe and also to project maritime power,” Stoltenberg told The Associated Press aboard a British aircraft carrier off the coast of Portugal.

    The ship, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, is the pride of the British Navy. It’s making its maiden voyage and carrying 18 F-35 jets: the first ever deployment of so many of the 5th generation planes aboard an aircraft carrier.

    The ship’s presence, part of a 6-7 month deployment that will take it south past India, through Southeast Asia to the Philippines Sea, is aimed in part at restoring Britain’s tarnished image as a major global power since it left the European Union.

    Adorned with high-tech U.S. jets and flanked by warships from other NATO countries, the carrier strike force also stands as an important symbol of unity as the world’s biggest security organization tries to recover from four tumultuous years under the Trump administration.

    Stoltenberg will chair a NATO summit in Brussels on June 14 with current U.S. President Joe Biden and his counterparts keen to usher in a new era of trans-Atlantic cooperation, as troops leave its longest-ever mission in Afghanistan while tensions with Russia, and increasingly China, mount.

    The war games tie in two new NATO command centers, one in Norfolk, Virginia; the other in Ulm, Germany. Part of the focus of its first phase was to protect the undersea cables that carry masses of commercial and communications data between the U.S. and Europe.

    NATO says Russia is mapping the cables’ routing and might have darker intentions.

    “We all lulled ourselves into thinking that the Atlantic was a benign region in which there was not anything bad going on, and we could just use it as a free highway,” Norfolk’s commander, U.S. Navy Vice-Admiral Andrew Lewis said.

    “There are nations are out there mapping those cables. They may be doing something else bad. We have to be aware of that and answer that,” he told reporters.

    NATO says its policy toward Russia is based on two pillars: strong military deterrence and dialogue. But high-level meetings between the two historic foes are rare, and European officials insist that President Vladimir Putin is turning increasingly authoritarian and distancing himself from the West.

    “We’re ready to sit down with Russia, because we think it’s important to talk, especially when times are difficult,” Stoltenberg said. “The main challenge now is that Russia has not responded positively to our invitation, or our initiative, for a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council,” their top consultative forum.


    • “Russia’s decision last month to send thousands of troops
      to the border area with Ukraine” was stimulated by Ukraine’s decision to send thousands of troops to the border area with the Donbass.

      “Top NATO brass insist that the military exercises…are not aimed at Russia specifically, but they focus on the Black Sea region, where Russia stands accused of blocking the free navigation of ships”; except Russia does not control shipping access to the Black Sea. Turkey does. It should not take two minutes looking at a map to make that clear.

  5. George Michalopulos says

    Oh oh, it looks like someone else’s statue is going to have to come down: