On Being a "Flea"

The running joke at the atheist website RichardDawkins.net is now to call all responses to recent atheist books “fleas” as if they were nothing more than parasites on the atheists’ successes. Apparently, I am one of these fleas.

As best I can tell, it seems to have started with a biting (forgive me) reference Dawkins himself made toward the highly accomplished Oxford scholar Alister McGrath. After McGrath published two books refuting Dawkins’ publications, Dawkins ignorantly accused him of “building a career riding upon my back.” Despite the fact that McGrath’s career was long since established before Dawkins’s own current job at Oxford was bought and funded for him by zillionaire Charles Simonyi, the atheist just can’t talk eye-to-eye with an intellectual peer who happens to be both a scientist and – gasp! – a theologian. So, Dawkins insulted his fellow Oxford professor with a quote from the poet W. B. Yeats, “Was there ever a dog who praised his fleas?"

Well, since Dawkins’s followers are capable of doing little except blindly following their leader, the “flea” label has been flung at all of us apologists, myself included.

The latest effort, collecting all of us “fleas” together is here.

So, what can I say to being called a parasite?

Well, I am a big believer in the old adage “Sticks and stones . . . but words will never hurt me,” so I will be happy to exchange rhetorical barks all night, all in good humor. Maybe that’s their way of avoiding the real issues. But at some point the name-callers must realize the implications of such metaphor-mongering. If I’m a flea, then what does that make my host?

I am reminded at this point of one of the great exchanges in the movie Rob Roy (paraphrasing somewhat):

Duke of Argyle: I hear that you’re putting my name about Court as a Jacobite . . .

Marquis of Montrose: Great men such as yourself draw rumors as shite draws flies.

Duke of Argyle: You are the shite, Montrose! And the flies upon it! For all the flowers in your great gardens, I know you in my nose. Keep your stink off my name, for by God, I will clip you as close as one of your gelded trees . . .

Now, I would like to thank the litter at the RichardDawkins.net kennel for publicizing my book. It’s hard to see us fleas with the naked eye – we are very small, indeed. So thanks to Dawkins for holding up the magnifying glass.

And, of course, anyone who cares to actually look through will see us all cozy and smiling. We sit comfortable and confident beneath the fur of atheistdom, and gladly feel the breeze when Dawkins’ whiffing hind-leg scratches-strains-scratches, but just can’t quite reach the itch.

And boy, do they strain often. Reading the several comments made by Dawkins’s underdogs on these posts makes me laugh and cry. Coming from a group that constantly boasts “open-mindedness,” “reason,” “tolerance,” “critical thinking,” and the like, the total bullheaded ignorance often displayed as confidence is a tragedy.

For example, the very first comment, coming from a user under the name of “heathen2,” exhibits their open-mindedness, use of evidence, and razor-sharp reasoning skills thusly: I will not buy a single flea book. Maybe peruse them if available at the library, but that's all. The same old worthless counter arguments are just boring and I don't have that kind of time to waste anymore.”

Excuse me? Don’t buy my book if you like, fine. Don’t read it either, OK. But then to pretend you already know what’s in it, and that it must be the “same old worthless” refuted arguments is to prove nothing but your own dogmatism. Please don’t pretend to be on the side of reason when you talk like that.

Besides, I have shown – in my long article “Darwin’s Bulldog and Russell’s Terriers” – just who exactly are the ones using the old, worn-out arguments. Some of these atheists rehash old stuff to the point of plagiarism – a practice that recalls the “dog returning to its vomit” (Prov. 26:11).

Examples like these from the modern atheist world are abundant. One of my favorites comes from my book’s listing on amazon.com . One reviewer posted a favorable review, and then another – naming himself “secularman” – criticized his review with another display of “new atheist” influence:

You claim this book bebunks the atheist viewpoint, and yet that is immposible if using facts, logic and reason. [. . .] There is no doubt that every argument in this book has already been shown to be a fallacy or a lie. [. . .] Anybody who believes in supernatural myths is insane and unable to compete against the infallable logic of atheists. Period.”

Aside from the atrocious spelling, secularman confirms for us what we apologists have been saying all along – today’s militant atheists are as dogmatic and close-minded a lot as any Holiness Pentecostal or Fundy Baptist ever thought about being. We are told that to refute atheism is “impossible,” and that the logic of atheists is “infallible,” and anyone who dissents is “insane.”

Scratch-scratch-scratch-scratch . . . Woof-woof . . . Hoowwwuuu!!!

BTW - What kind of world is it where people spend their time commenting on other people’s comments on other people’s books about other people’s books, within the small-folds of the publishing world?)

Enough.

So, perhaps, these days, Dawkins’s pack would love to find a flea-collar, but that would make them look too much like Anglican priests – so that’s out of the picture. But there remains one permanent solution for the atheists’ flea problem: get a dip. That is, get baptized, and end the froth-mouthed pit-fight for good.

Until then, Dawkins and company will continue their dogged attacks. There is hope, but as along as the leader of the pack is spreading the mange of atheism, fleas of all sorts will continue to spring up as well. It’s their choice.