Response to Dawkins Ironic Hypocrisy

Response to “Dawkins’ ironic Hypocrisy”
James Patrick Holding’s article talks about how “demagogues” like Dawkins find it hard to believe that creationists’ views are accepted and the double standard shown by them in accepting a thesis. The author seems to be offended as indicated by how he can mention “a lengthy list of the insulting rhetoric Dawkins has heaped upon the creationists”. Holding questions the credibility of the beliefs supported by Dawkins, who seems to be raising doubts on the view point of the creationists because the view belongs to a minority alone. Holding believes that people like Dawkins rarely put an effort in researching a particular idea, but they add those beliefs in their “agenda” only if it proves to be beneficial for them. The readers get the hint of irony that Holding tries to convey through his article that even though Dawkins supports the ‘Christ myth’ through his actions, he happens to give a statement of how there is a possibility of the existence of Jesus. The mockery in the article is pretty obvious as first Dawkins is said to have worked in a film called “The God Who Wasn’t There” – a film that supports the idea of how Jesus did not even exist at all. The author further mentions how the “Christ Myth” remains unsupported by any of the historians and the “leading proponent of Christ myth over the past century – is not a historian, but a professor of German”. The readers begin to doubt the credibility of Dawkins after reading this article and whether he and his “ideological cohorts” actually care to research a prevalent idea before they declare their endorsement of it. Even though people like Dawkins make sure their beliefs are free from any kind of doubts, most of the readers would definitely become cautious in believing the claims of these people after reading this