Now it is an interesting thing I have come to think about reading the recent crop of blogs. I am a fan of Dawkins’ work and find his books on evolution very readable while still being good quality educational material.

His book The God Delusion is an excellent read and he makes a multitude of valid, mostly reasonable, points. Dawkins is a staunch atheist – to the extent that he is the “example” given on the BBC religion website, where he is described as one of the most famous scientists in Britain (!!) and called a “pro-humanist.”

Now, you may be wondering “so what” about all this. None of it is news.

Reading some recent blogs about a furore kicked up over Dawkins apparently signing a petition which reads:

In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought.

Apparently, the wording of the above has got Americans into a major tizzy over the implied impact on “constitutional rights” and the implication it requires the Government to interfere with private individuals and private thoughts. Blimey. I honestly never came to that conclusion when I read it.

Now, that alone would be fair enough. Despite the similarities there are massive differences in collective mindsets between the UK and the US, so it is understandable. What I do find unusual is that the debate over what Dawkins meant by this and the potential impact this has on anti-ID/anti-creationism/Atheist movements (etc) is approaching religious.

The “Religious Right” in the US appear to have demonised Dawkins as an anti-libertarian or some such nonsense. Now this is understandable. They are theists who believe in a person representing a supernatural power. They arguments invariably hinge on ad hominem attacks against high profile individuals because they have no valid arguments of their own. They specialise in building an individual into a representation of an idea.

What I cant understand is why rational atheists have responded to this in a pseudo-religious manner. Debates over what “Dawkins meant” are, when viewed in this light, quite entertaining. Dawkins does not speak for all atheists, he does not speak for all biologists in fact he speaks for no one but himself. His writings are not a doctrinal Atheist Bible and like all people there will be things he says which I (or you or anyone) will agree with and things I (we) don’t.

Now, if you are wondering what debate I am talking about, there are two very good blogs which provide all the information you need – Despatches from the Culture Wars and The Panda’s Thumb. Take a look, follow the links and more interestingly read the comments posted.

Just remember, Dawkins is neither a God nor a Prophet of one.