I am still catching up with some of the stuff floating around the media in the last few days. The most absurd has to be the latest Richard Dawkins fundamentalist flounce about Christianity in the Times.
Does he not have an adviser or editor? Consider the language:
…hubristical.. petty moralistic purposes… milder-mannered faith-heads… hypocrisy… loathsome… those faux-anguished hypocrites… It is the obnoxious Pat Robertson who is the true Christian here… Dear modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated, gentle Christian, you cannot be serious… effrontery… the odious doctrine… a nasty human mind (Paul’s of course)… the Christian “atonement” would win a prize for pointless futility as well as moral depravity…
And he keeps going:
You nice, middle-of-the-road theologians and clergymen, be-frocked and bleating in your pulpits… Educated apologist, how dare you weep Christian tears, when your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering: suffering as payback for “sin” — or suffering as “atonement” for it? You may weep for Haiti where Pat Robertson does not, but at least, in his hick, sub-Palinesque ignorance, he holds up an honest mirror to the ugliness of Christian theology. You are nothing but a whited sepulchre.
Dawkins not only demonstrates that he is prone to the very charge he levels at Christians: making apologetic capital out of the suffering of Haitians. He does so in extreme language, but along the way demonstrates that he knows nothing about theology or philosophy, nothing about how to read literature (including the Bible) and, more oddly, seems to pride himself on his ignorance.
I don’t know anyone who would dream of speaking about biology with the degree of prejudiced ignorance with which he speaks of religion. Does he read poetry as if it were an engineering book? Moralising caricature simply prevents a sensible engagement and this is all that Dawkins ever offers us. Pity, really.
January 29, 2010 at 4:37 pm
“I don’t know anyone who would dream of speaking about biology with the degree of prejudiced ignorance with which he speaks of religion.”
See: Ray Comfort, Ben Stein, Pat Robertson, Dinesh D’Souza, Ken Hamm…etc.
The difference, I think, is that there’s only one science and thousands of different religions. So of course you’re not going to be talking about a lot of the religious when you talk on certain specifics.
January 29, 2010 at 4:49 pm
“Does he not have an adviser or editor?”
The good Professor has not I think ever been a man to take advice. It’s a large part of his problem.
January 29, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Might I recommend ‘Why there almost certainly is a God’ by Keith Ward, which has the sub-title Doubting Dawkins. It is a devastating critique.
Dawkins’ intemperance and rage against religion seems so intense and unbalanced that one has to wonder what has produced it. It is almost a back-handed compliment, the atheist who gets really cross with those who hold onto God, the person whose hatred of an opposing position seems to take become more important than what they actually believe.
Enjoy Israel
Duncna Swan
January 29, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Are you saying Dawkins is wrong because he uses “bad” words? I dont think he’s the first, and they are only words. Its not like he’s burning witches or murdering abortionists is it.
Are you saying Dawkins is wrong because he mentioned Haiti? Since he is responding to Pat Robertsons outrageous comments, I think it would be hard not to mention Haiti.
We dont speak about Biology in the same way as religion, that is true.
If there were a sect of biologists who were convinced that a broken leg could only be “cured” by replacing a large chunk of brain by a hive of bees, then I suspect Dick the Doc would have a whole lot to say.
January 29, 2010 at 5:57 pm
The point is that Dawkins caricatures without knowing the thing he is attacking. It would be like a Christian claiming that all atheists take their lead from Stalin and Mao. It seems impossible to have a reasonable argument with any sort of fundamentalist, religious or RD.
January 29, 2010 at 6:05 pm
“The point is that Dawkins caricatures without knowing the thing he is attacking.”
I think he knows, but chooses to label all of it ‘Christianity’ out of simplicity. I could, of course, be wrong.
Because there are so many kinds of you, and you’re all so different, I could say absolutely anything about Christians and have at least one group pop up and say “That’s not what Christians are!”.
January 29, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Morsecode, that’s a fair comment!
January 29, 2010 at 7:12 pm
I just hope that no one bothers to engage in apologetics with him anymore, why waste the pearls?
January 29, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Like Duncan, I do wonder what has made Dawkins so terribly anti-theist.
morsec0de, that’s one of the reasons why I don’t generally label myself Christian; it leads to people thinking I am all sorts of things that I hope I am not, and it could easily enough lead to people seeing my errors and attributing them to Christianity.
Humans do seem to be an awful lot more comfortable when we have names and labels for things. I see much of Dawkins’ error as one of not recognising the nuances of such labels; I have been guilty of this myself, though not, I think, to the extent that Dawkins does it.
I also label things to help me think about them. I try to verify whether my definitions match reality… sometimes, nay, often, there are adjustments to make.
I am very wary of people who cannot adjust their labels or definitions, especially if those involve value judgments.
I can’t help but think it’s telling that in Genesis it is Adam who names the creatures, not God. Perhaps God sees us as we really are without need for such labels.
January 29, 2010 at 10:58 pm
“I can’t help but think it’s telling that in Genesis it is Adam who names the creatures, not God. Perhaps God sees us as we really are without need for such labels.”
I love that! That is definitely my way of thinking and what my vicar teaches, but I had not noticed the poignancy of that bit in Genesis. Thanks!
January 29, 2010 at 11:09 pm
I strongly suspect that in person the Doc would use labels considerably less that he is going to do in a public forum.
January 30, 2010 at 7:57 am
Eggplantinspace, that is a generous suspicion, but, I’m afraid, not a right one.
January 30, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Eggplantinspace – or may I be familiar and call you Egg??! – I want to explore with you the shorthand way in which you grab and throw the witches and abortionist killings in much the way that Dawkins does.
What is not commonly understood is that whilst communities often scapegoated odd or unusual people of their own volition, the arrival of the Inquisition often resulted in Fransiscans and Dominicans – the intelligensia of their day, identifying harmless old women and herbalists for the innocents they were. You rarely hear of the majority acquittals from those times. I don’t justify but the facts do add perspective.
Similarly, I believe about 4 abortionists have been killed. They have tended to be those specialising in the most controversial late and partial birth abortions which are illegal over here. If you do understand the procedure I suggest you google it.
I do not condone. In a nation of over 200million Christians many of whom are genuinely outraged by what they regard as a modern day holocaust ( query whether there will ever be a “historic apology”) and who resent the fact that abortion was foisted on them not by democratic vote ( as here) but by a perverse reading of the Constitution by a handful of Supreme Court Justices. With two guns for every citizen, and with teh passions involved the rarity of such events is only surpassed by the patience of Christians.
In passing I contrast the condemnation of the latest man to be convicted of an abortionist murder with the secularists relative silence about the respect accorded to Bill Ayers who planned a bombing Campaign as the head of the Weathermen, who was acquitted on a technicality, had planned to kill policemen, has since said he “wished he had done more” and is now a professor of Education at Chicago University and a former associate of teh President.
It is, as Jimmy Greaves used to say ” A funny old world”.
The Dawkins folk with their morally relativist agenda have a real problem on such issues. it is difficult to differentiate right from wrong in these comparisons.
The commentator Ann Coulter offered a brilliantly subversive comment which flipped the Pro-Abortion argument as follows. ” I wouldn’t kill an abortionist myself but , hey – who am I to impose my morality on other people?… If you don’t like the killing of abortionists I say .. then don’t kill one”.
It is a shocking parody but very thought provoking because whilst there is an easy and clear faith based answer to why such killings are wrong, the secularists are on much less firm ground once we begin to weigh relative harms. Let us remember that based on her social circumstances and child bearing history, Mrs Beethoven Snr would have undoubtedly been advised to ” get rid”.
January 30, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Nick,
Im going to presume you have met him personally then. I have not and therefore will give him the benefit of doubt.
I suspect if I were he, and had a large group of christian fundamentalists all baying for my blood, I would either hide like a fiction author, or be twice as aggressive and bold as he appears to do in public.
January 30, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Egg, I think the problem is not Christians baying for his blood, but incomprehension by some of us Christians about why he caricatures religion, ridicules those who are not like him and bays for the blood of religious people. It is impossible to have a reasonable debate with him. As another blogger has pointed out, reducing the argument to whether or not we approve of Pat Robertson – as if they are the only options – is silly.
January 31, 2010 at 3:53 am
@ Martin
To suggest
We killed thousands of women with little or no proof because our religious doctrine allowed us to, but we let some go
is not in my mind a good argument. It is the we killed thousands, and its link to the religious doctrine that could have prevented it that strikes the chord.
Likewise, to suggest
We only killed the abortionists that were breaking the law
is not good either. We have a judicial system and people are allowed due process. You should never be allowed to kill someone just because you think they are breaking the law.
As for the lack of secular condemnation for a self-confessed terrorist. If he’s a terrorist then he’s a terrorist! Thats it. Terrorists should be put away. You dont need a secularist to tell you that. Its obvious. If he broke the law, he should go away.
The system has in place many guidelines. One of which is that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Is this a standard you would prefer we changed?
I think the secular argument to abortion is on very strong grounds however. I am wondering if you have ever read Steven Levitts paper on The Impact of Legalized Abortion on crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime
Its a well reasoned factual piece of empirical evidence.
@ Nick
I dont like to suggest bad things about anyone I dont know well. I can only say what I think.
I tend to separate, perhaps wrongly, on the basis of a system of theories that can be verified and repeated, compared to a system that cannot.
One I call science, and the other I call superstition.
When discussing superstition, I try to consider strange unanswerables such as the placebo effect, but I figure it is something that science will eventually have a damned good theory about eventually. That theory will get fine tuned over time and we will learn a lot on the way. I like the idea of things not being about the destination but about the Journey.
Thats not to say I dont respect religious figures.
There are many different sources that say Jesus, for example, was a man of notable consequence. That he spoke to the people and that he believed in Love and Peace. I believe this to be true.
There is only one book that refers to his miracles, that I’m aware of. So I put this to one side and figure maybe more information will come to light at a later date. I dont dismiss it, but I dont accept it as truth either.
If there was a “second coming”, and miracles were once again witnessed and reported on, I would re-assess this evidence. Some people tell me thats too late. I am prepared to take that chance. I refuse to spend my life persuing an unproven belief.
If I were questioned I would state what I know to be true according to the information I have, and I would question anyone who believes without the evidence.
January 31, 2010 at 7:45 am
Nick,
It is impossible to have a reasonable debate with him.
The context in which I’ve heard that phrase most is over fighting in the Middle East, and particularly Israel/Palestine. “You can’t negotiate with those people,” someone would say, and then justify some violence, some atrocity.
At what point is it important to have the debate anyway? How do we have a conversation with someone who doesn’t want to acknowledge any similarity in worldview?
I can imagine Dawkins changing his tune and saying something along the lines of, “Right, well, I still think there’s no God, I still think religion is bunk and dangerous, but if you must participate, do so with utmost respect for human life.” But I don’t know how to start a conversation that would lead there, and so I turn to other conversations as better use of my time and energy.
January 31, 2010 at 10:51 am
What I can’t understand is where anybody gets the idea that suffering is payback for sin. In Islamic and Hindu theology (as far as I can tell, but maybe my smattering of Muslim and Hindu friends and my single reading of the Qu’uran and halfway through the Rg Veda makes me as ignorant as Dawkins), yes.
In Christian theology absolutely not. I have no idea how you can read that from the entire book of Job, and certainly not the Jesus of the New Testament, who went round healing people and relieving suffering.
Whenever anybody asked Jesus what caused the suffering, he was at pains to point out that whatever the cause was, it wasn’t sin.
No wonder Dawkins and Robertson get along so well – they both have an equally, and blatantly odd version of Christian theology.
January 31, 2010 at 12:41 pm
From reading Dawkins article in the Times he is obviously very intelligent, educated, articulate etc. but he comes over as being “small-minded”.
Has he never experienced a sense of wonder, been surprised by joy, felt compassion, been over-whelmed by a feeling of love which comes from some-where outside of himself?
Perhaps not, or perhaps he refuses to acknowledge such things because they cannot be factually accounted for.
How sad!!
Anne.
January 31, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Egg,
First I think you have failed to take on board the first point I made about the witches. Scapegoating is not necessarily about religion, and folk practice is a part of the question. It may be dressed up in religious language – and that is no surprise – and the religion may enable a way of justifying the action but the impetus may be there regardless of what the religion says. The Nazi’s had “reasons” for hating the Jews but the hatred was not based upon reason or cause.
Secularists always go for part of the story as they too have their own narrative to construct ( based upon facts reasons or sometimes prejudice). In that they too have similarities to the witch burners. “These people insult the natural order – ostracise them!”
You have misread me also about the abortionist murders. I said I do not condone. It is a murder as contrary to the enacted law.
What I was saying is that the law came about in a specific judge led way and was never enacted ( as here) with the consent of the people or their representatives. It never would have passed. One of the less attractive aspects of “progressive thought” is its tendency to think ” we know best what is right for the people”. It left a major democratic deficit and a deep alienation between the people’s morality and the law which is never good for a Society.
With that answer I need not dwell on your suggestion that I compromise the resumption of innocence as plainly I do not.
Ayres escaped prosecution because of the technicality of an illegal wire tap. I accept that ( I am a lawyer); what I can say is that the murdered abortionists seem to linger longer in the memory of progressives than any sense of outrage that an un-repentant terrorist can make such progress in the Academic liberal establishment of America.
Finally, as I was trying to stress, the law is clear, however if you read me again carefully I was saying that the moral structure of Christianity has greater consistency than the moral relativism of Secularism.
The current argument for mercy killing makes it easier for the abortionist killer to say that he sacrificed one life for many.
I should add that if you have not looked at what partial birth abortion entails it is important to realise how close it comes to infanticide which is very contentious morally ( though Obama likes Peter Singer who champions it). Even a pro abortion politician like Hilary Clinton cannot stomach partial birth abortion so if you want to know why these guys get targeted you need to be up with the issue. You can find sites that explain without being too horrific.
February 1, 2010 at 1:31 am
@Nick
I would accept you dont mean to condone, but presenting this alternative with as much emphasis is to suggest that the morality is equal. That they should be in some way praised for saving some people whilist killing others.
They shouldn’t.
Thousands of innocent people died unnecessarily.
Religion could have done something, especially as it was done in its name.
The judge based way in which law comes about has been worked out over hundreds of years. I’m sorry you dont like the system, but I dont think defending vigilante groups strengthens your point.
The Will of the people has rarely been the most moral, and has very often not been the most Just.
I have no intention of defending the way the system runs, but to suggest we should only follow laws based on the will of the people would not be good for Blacks, Women, Homosexuals and many many other minority groups.
Finally your argument about the moral structure of Christianity having greater consistancy is subjective. You dont live in a country that has a secularist moral structure. No country does, every country has a religious history that affected its morality and set of laws. So you cannot say that the Christian Model is better than a secular one.
I am not even convinced that the Christian Model is the best compared to other religious models. Brazil is the most christian nation on the planet, and has an extremely high crime rate, high poverty and serious drugs problem. Perhaps if the benefit of a moral society is a good soccer team, then I could agree.
As for partial birth abortion. I do not need to investigate it. I say that partly because I dont want to, but mostly because I dont have to justify something that is illegal. If something is illegal, then it’s illegal. And the perpetrators should follow due process and presumably go to prison. They shouldnt be blown up by vigilante groups.
If you have a problem with our policing, or our laws, or our system of government then please start a campaign, but dont defend illegal vigilante groups, murderers, torturers and paedopohiles, because you feel they are morally right.
February 1, 2010 at 8:08 am
Egg, I think you meant to address this to Martin?
February 1, 2010 at 10:37 pm
[...] Dawkins digs in « Nick Baines's Blog [...]
February 1, 2010 at 11:29 pm
@ Nick
Yes, you’re right. erm… sorry
@Martin
Yeahhhhhh! So take that and stick it where the sun dont shine!