Richard Dawkins doesn’t like it when the fleas bite:
Sir: Peter Stanford (“Doubts about Dawkins”,14 September) writes that the recent books by Christopher Hitchens and me “deserve a decent response. But how to fashion it?” A decent start would be to read them.
This from a guy who refuses to read or respond to critiques of his own work but doesn’t hesitate to whine and cry about them before they are even published? Because, you know, the book covers are “plagiarism” after all. Or, the titles are, or something. Whatever it is, it’s plagiarism and everyone is just in it for the money!
I believe that’s a lovely example of what the psychologists call “projection”.
And then Dawkins has the unbelievable nerve to complain about someone not living up to “a Christian standard of decency”? But it’s all just a delusion, Richard, it very probably doesn’t exist, don’t you remember? What can you expect from a standard based on magical thinking, smoke and mirrors? You know, come to think of it, there really isn’t any reason why Christians shouldn’t cut your head off, is there?
Speaking of standards of decency that reminds me… I henceforth christen this whining little dog “my other bitch”.
UPDATE – In fairness to Dr. Dawkins, he reports that he has read “Darwin’s Angel” in preparation for a radio discussion with its author. I note that the reasons he gives for suspecting John Cornwell’s active dishonesty are microscopic in comparison with the reasons that exist for suspecting Sam Harris’s intellectual shadiness.