Print
Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion
by Salley Vickers
Reposted from:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article2361294.ece
A Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion by John Cornwell
THIS BOOK IS A PIECE of sheer heaven. It kicks Richard Dawkins's self-aggrandising polemic, The God Delusion, into touch with featherlight footwork and is deliciously wise, witty and intellectually sharp into the bargain.
John Cornwell's mouthpiece is a likeable seraph, who follows the dictum of G. K. Chesterton that angels fly "because they take themselves lightly". Cornwell clearly believes, as I do, that angels are not wispy, winged beings in ethereal nightgowns, but something far more subtle and profound: archetypal images that dramatise the invisible realities. As such, they can act as symbols for the formless elements of physics; but also for the creative imagination.
The seraph begins by politely nailing Dawkins's first sleight of hand which, as loads of people have now pointed out, dishonestly bundles all religious belief and practice into one crude bag that supposedly equals fanaticism.
This is rather like suggesting that all science is dangerous because it has brought nuclear weapons; or that all education is mistaken because children have been whipped by so-called educators.
It is child's play to denounce a subject by pointing to the myriad ways in which it may be misapplied; misuse and misapplication are rife in all areas of human understanding: politics, science, education, medicine, religion. But it is faulty logic to conclude that this is necessarily the fault of the set of ideas being traduced. I attended a primary school where the strap was still applied. Does it follow that I should not have attended primary school? Is psychiatry a bad thing because schizophrenics were once made to take bromide?
Next the seraph gently takes Dawkins to task for his breezy disregard for some might say ignorance of serious theology. You cannot criticise a theory until you have made some proper attempt to come to grips with it, and Dawkins hasn't; or doesn't show us that he has tried. He overlooks the big theologians altogether in favour of some pretty low-key, unknown figures.
His account of the Bible is equally undiscriminating. For a start, only religious nutcases take the Creation story literally; it is not a new or radical supposition that even the first readers of Genesis would have been aware of its symbolic nature or rather, would have distinguished between the fact of fact and the fact of fiction, a distinction that escapes Dawkins, who appears to have no concept of the "reality" of a thought, and only a very immature concept of the "reality" of a play, novel or poem. (As I used to ask students, is Hamlet real?)
Nor is the Bible "a book" but, as the affable seraph points out, a miscellany of stories, letters, polemic, histories, fables and certainly some great moral teachings, as well as some outmoded and unacceptable social prejudices.
Therefore, it is perfectly respectable to "pick and choose" when reading the Bible, something that Dawkins takes Christians to task for. As for the pseudo-history of the Gospels: "history" wasn't invented when they were written. "History", as we know it, is a wholly modern concept. For the ancients, a history would be a mixture of reportage, received wisdom, narrative and story.
The life of Jesus is told in a series of stories to convey the essence of a life that, however you look at it, was demonstrably an influential one and continues to be so. (Where would Dawkins be without Jesus's extraordinary impact on the Western world? Quite a bit poorer, for one thing.)
Just as Jesus told stories to get across his points, the Gospellers told stories about him. It doesn't follow that they are false because they are stories any more than a history is true because it is a history. (The allegedly objective relaying of a series of "facts" is often far more partial than the creation of fictive truths. Stalin was considered a great historian in his time.)
But what is most worrying in the Dawkins ideology, as the gracefully admonishing seraph points out, is the violently biased language in a book that claims to reveal the deleterious effects of bias. Dawkins uses the image of a virus and employs a Darwinian model to explain how cultural ideas spread. It is far from clear that the spread of ideas has much in common with biological evolution; but that ideas do travel, and fast, is undoubtedly the case. Hence it especially behoves the professional spreader of ideas to watch his or her language.
Religion as disease, and more pertinently, the religiously inclined as disease-carriers, this is dangerous talk. Dawkins might try substituting "Jews" or "blacks" for "religiously inclined" and he would see why.
Not that any of this is likely to alter the minds of the antiGod squad. They "know" they are right that least scientific of attitudes since it precludes changes of heart or openness of mind. If only Professor Dawkins and Co would remember that Socrates was deemed the wisest of men because he "knew that he didn't know". Those who think that not knowing is safer and more attractive than its opposite should treat themselves to this elegant little book.
DARWIN'S ANGEL An Angelic Riposte to the God Delusion by John Cornwell
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article2361294.ece
A Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion by John Cornwell
THIS BOOK IS A PIECE of sheer heaven. It kicks Richard Dawkins's self-aggrandising polemic, The God Delusion, into touch with featherlight footwork and is deliciously wise, witty and intellectually sharp into the bargain.
John Cornwell's mouthpiece is a likeable seraph, who follows the dictum of G. K. Chesterton that angels fly "because they take themselves lightly". Cornwell clearly believes, as I do, that angels are not wispy, winged beings in ethereal nightgowns, but something far more subtle and profound: archetypal images that dramatise the invisible realities. As such, they can act as symbols for the formless elements of physics; but also for the creative imagination.
The seraph begins by politely nailing Dawkins's first sleight of hand which, as loads of people have now pointed out, dishonestly bundles all religious belief and practice into one crude bag that supposedly equals fanaticism.
This is rather like suggesting that all science is dangerous because it has brought nuclear weapons; or that all education is mistaken because children have been whipped by so-called educators.
It is child's play to denounce a subject by pointing to the myriad ways in which it may be misapplied; misuse and misapplication are rife in all areas of human understanding: politics, science, education, medicine, religion. But it is faulty logic to conclude that this is necessarily the fault of the set of ideas being traduced. I attended a primary school where the strap was still applied. Does it follow that I should not have attended primary school? Is psychiatry a bad thing because schizophrenics were once made to take bromide?
Next the seraph gently takes Dawkins to task for his breezy disregard for some might say ignorance of serious theology. You cannot criticise a theory until you have made some proper attempt to come to grips with it, and Dawkins hasn't; or doesn't show us that he has tried. He overlooks the big theologians altogether in favour of some pretty low-key, unknown figures.
His account of the Bible is equally undiscriminating. For a start, only religious nutcases take the Creation story literally; it is not a new or radical supposition that even the first readers of Genesis would have been aware of its symbolic nature or rather, would have distinguished between the fact of fact and the fact of fiction, a distinction that escapes Dawkins, who appears to have no concept of the "reality" of a thought, and only a very immature concept of the "reality" of a play, novel or poem. (As I used to ask students, is Hamlet real?)
Nor is the Bible "a book" but, as the affable seraph points out, a miscellany of stories, letters, polemic, histories, fables and certainly some great moral teachings, as well as some outmoded and unacceptable social prejudices.
Therefore, it is perfectly respectable to "pick and choose" when reading the Bible, something that Dawkins takes Christians to task for. As for the pseudo-history of the Gospels: "history" wasn't invented when they were written. "History", as we know it, is a wholly modern concept. For the ancients, a history would be a mixture of reportage, received wisdom, narrative and story.
The life of Jesus is told in a series of stories to convey the essence of a life that, however you look at it, was demonstrably an influential one and continues to be so. (Where would Dawkins be without Jesus's extraordinary impact on the Western world? Quite a bit poorer, for one thing.)
Just as Jesus told stories to get across his points, the Gospellers told stories about him. It doesn't follow that they are false because they are stories any more than a history is true because it is a history. (The allegedly objective relaying of a series of "facts" is often far more partial than the creation of fictive truths. Stalin was considered a great historian in his time.)
But what is most worrying in the Dawkins ideology, as the gracefully admonishing seraph points out, is the violently biased language in a book that claims to reveal the deleterious effects of bias. Dawkins uses the image of a virus and employs a Darwinian model to explain how cultural ideas spread. It is far from clear that the spread of ideas has much in common with biological evolution; but that ideas do travel, and fast, is undoubtedly the case. Hence it especially behoves the professional spreader of ideas to watch his or her language.
Religion as disease, and more pertinently, the religiously inclined as disease-carriers, this is dangerous talk. Dawkins might try substituting "Jews" or "blacks" for "religiously inclined" and he would see why.
Not that any of this is likely to alter the minds of the antiGod squad. They "know" they are right that least scientific of attitudes since it precludes changes of heart or openness of mind. If only Professor Dawkins and Co would remember that Socrates was deemed the wisest of men because he "knew that he didn't know". Those who think that not knowing is safer and more attractive than its opposite should treat themselves to this elegant little book.
DARWIN'S ANGEL An Angelic Riposte to the God Delusion by John Cornwell
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, August 31, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 234 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #66865 by Teapot_Believer on August 31, 2007 at 9:56 pm
"He overlooks the big theologians altogether in favour of some pretty low-key, unknown figures."Sorry ma'am, but are Anselm and Aquinas low-key, unknown figures today?
Other Comments by Teapot_Believer
3. Comment #66869 by Sittingduck on August 31, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Yikes!It kicks Richard Dawkins's self-aggrandising polemic, The God Delusion,...
I read the God Delusion, but I must of missed the self-aggrandising part. Could someone clue me in?
Other Comments by Sittingduck
4. Comment #66870 by Dr Benway on August 31, 2007 at 10:10 pm
I've been reading these reviews for months now, and I've developed some sort of condition, manifest by overwhelming fatigue in the face of arguments like "lumped together all religion," "can't judge all by a few bad apples," nobody believes in the OT God," "science doesn't know everything." Might be an allergy to hay or something.I've lost the will to respond. I feel only deep sympathy for Dawkins. Teachers don't enjoy patiently explaining ideas to rocks refusing to understand.
How do I send a bottle of something tasty to Dawkins? I'm not going to the thing in DC, but maybe there's a hotel that could receive and hold a small gift?
Other Comments by Dr Benway
5. Comment #66871 by Disumbrationist on August 31, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Therefore, it is perfectly respectable to "pick and choose" when reading the Bible
Fine, as long as you then admit that the Bible was neither written by God nor divinely inspired, the Bible is not the source of morality (since it is your innate morality that is doing the "picking and choosing"), and that a majority of Christians (at least in America) would disagree with you.
You cannot criticise a theory until you have made some proper attempt to come to grips with it, and Dawkins hasn't; or doesn't show us that he has tried. He overlooks the big theologians altogether in favour of some pretty low-key, unknown figures.
You don't need to major in fashion to know that the Emperor has no clothes.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,463,The-Courtiers-Reply,PZ-Myers
Other Comments by Disumbrationist
6. Comment #66872 by Sittingduck on August 31, 2007 at 10:15 pm
"For a start, only religious nutcases take the Creation story literally"Obviously the reviewer hasn't been to the US where a huge majority of the population takes the story literally - including a lot of our presidential candidates. They may all be nutcases, but there sure are a lot of 'em
Other Comments by Sittingduck
7. Comment #66874 by Quine on August 31, 2007 at 10:25 pm
In the time of Socrates, theologians studied Zeus and Athena. Today the difference between a professor of theology and a professor of mythology is that the professor of mythology understands his/her subject is a branch of fiction. Other Comments by Quine
8. Comment #66876 by Veronique on August 31, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Isn't she supposed to be reviewing Cornwell's book? Why then have a vitriolic go at Dawkins.Oh, Benway. I doubt that I have read as much as you have, but I haven't got the stomach for this continued onslaught. If you can find a way of commissioning a tasty gift, I'll join with you. Poor RD.
I feel as though I should add a comment to TimesOnLine, but sigh, I don't think I can drag up the energy.
How RD does it, I'll never know.
On the other hand I have just finished watching Flemming's The God who wasn't there and frightened myself all over again at the irrationality that is out there. I never wanted to watch Gibson's The Passion of the Christ but had to suffer through the excerpts that Flemming put into his movie. Frightened the shit out of me. Gratuitous violence, blood and guts. It has grossed $330M so far (2005) and according to Flemming is the jesus movie of choice amongst Christians. Horrifying.
Sam Harris is right when he says that humanity has had a long fascination with blood sacrifice and they haven't given it up yet. And it seems always to be associated with superstitious religious belief.
Back to silly Salley. Maybe I ought to make a comment after all.
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
9. Comment #66877 by Friend Giskard on August 31, 2007 at 11:18 pm
angels are not wispy, winged beings in ethereal nightgowns, but something far more subtle and profound: archetypal images that dramatise the invisible realities. As such, they can act as symbols for the formless elements of physics; but also for the creative imagination.
What on earth is this insane woman wittering on about here?
Not that any of this is likely to alter the minds of the antiGod squad. They "know" they are right that least scientific of attitudes since it precludes changes of heart or openness of mind. If only Professor Dawkins and Co would remember that Socrates was deemed the wisest of men because he "knew that he didn't know".
Are there two people called Richard Dawkins who have written a book called the God Delusion? Because I don't recognise the character painted in this review. Our Richard Dawkins presents his conclusions in terms of probabilities, and has taken pains on numerous occasions to stress that he is open the possibility of changing his opinions in the light of new evidence.
Salley Vickers, like most of Dawkins' critics, is just a strawmandering nitwit.
Other Comments by Friend Giskard
10. Comment #66880 by Tyrant007 on August 31, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Holy shit. Did she miss the first half of The God Delusion? The chapters "The God Hypothesis", "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God"? Her attack on Dawkins is the strawman of strawmen."Ha! Dawkins thinks there's no god because some people think God told them to do bad things. But MY nebulous conception of god doesn't!" Dang. She caught ya there, Dawkins. Gotta work on that logic, prof.
I'm starting to think that these reviews intentionally misrepresent Dawkins for selfish political reasons. This is just blatant dishonesty. I'm considering writing a letter to the editor calling for her resignation.
Other Comments by Tyrant007
11. Comment #66881 by Beachbum on August 31, 2007 at 11:47 pm
5. Comment #66870 by Dr Benway" Might be an allergy to hay or something.
Could you be focusing on the wrong end of the Bull?
One of the books I have been reading lately is Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg.
By Googling everything she writes about, I have found some very disturbing things on the web. But, because of circumstances beyond their control (the godbotherers don't have control, Hehe... sorry), the Religious-right, Moral majority (actually hurts to type that), and the Evangelicals are losing ground. They keep getting caught with their pants down, literally.
It is my humble opinion that our "Neo-cons" may be shooting for Neo-Nazi, in the same way the National Socialist were in pre-Hitler Germany of the 1930's.
So, we better not cut even this type of regurgitated fluff any slack.
Also, I do not care at all for the likes of these people knocking Prof. Dawkins eloquent approach to the fallacies of the bible and religion in general, or for that matter, Christopher Hitchens' "bitch-slap with a book" (my quotes) considering the revisionist Christian literalism and revisionist history being published in the US by the likes of David Barton, D. James Kennedy and many others.
Like Canaries to coalminers, frogs to the environment, when the teachers throughout history have had a problem with teaching "someones truth" bad things are going on.
Other Comments by Beachbum
12. Comment #66882 by DavidMarsh on August 31, 2007 at 11:48 pm
...who appears to have no concept of the "reality" of a thought
This said about the man that coined the term "meme"? I think RD has a very good idea about how real a thought can be.
Other Comments by DavidMarsh
13. Comment #66883 by windweaver on August 31, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Here's Vickers on religion:"I believe that higher dimensions unquestionably exist and make thmeselves felt, both within and without human consciousness and that our psyche includes a crucial "spiritual' (though I dislike the way that word has been highjacked) dimension, though that can - and often does - take the form of an anti God humanism. I often quote Christopher Isherwood's remark that he beleievd in God but hated the sort of people who did. Well, I don't "hate" the sort of people who who do but I often hate what they do in the name of their so-called "gods", which are usually just a projection of their own sense of moral righteousness - and, moral righteousness, as Mr Golightly will attest to, is a very dodgy thing indeed, most ungodly, in my view. That, i.e.the desire to avoid moral righteousness has influenced my writing"
Other Comments by windweaver
14. Comment #66884 by DavidMarsh on August 31, 2007 at 11:55 pm
The life of Jesus is told in a series of stories to convey the essence of a life that, however you look at it, was demonstrably an influential one and continues to be so. (Where would Dawkins be without Jesus's extraordinary impact on the Western world? Quite a bit poorer, for one thing.)
Just because "Jesus" (or the idea of jesus?) has had an influence on western society doesn't mean he was (the son of) god, George W has had an influence as well and he certainly isn't, or any other famous person.
Just because someone claims to be a god and others share that belief does not make him so.
Edit: Without proof etc etc.
Other Comments by DavidMarsh
15. Comment #66885 by Tyrant007 on August 31, 2007 at 11:56 pm
I'd also like to ask just what the hell she's talking about here."Cornwell clearly believes, as I do, that angels are not wispy, winged beings in ethereal nightgowns, but something far more subtle and profound: archetypal images that dramatise the invisible realities. As such, they can act as symbols for the formless elements of physics; but also for the creative imagination."
Okay, I thought she was trying to say that her conception of 'angels' is more abstract than that of the average layperson. Typical theological snobbery. But wait--"archetypal images that dramatise the invisible realities"? What does this mean? What invisible realities is she talking about?
Other Comments by Tyrant007
16. Comment #66886 by BicycleRepairMan on September 1, 2007 at 12:02 am
Well, atleast this flea has a slightly more inventive and original title than the previous fleas, maybe I'll have a go at it, but it sounds as the same pseudo-abstract nonsense that basically defines god all but out of existence and explains that God is just everything we feel when we're standing on a mountaintop and voila, the two testaments are both true, but only half the time, of course, and only in the metaphorical, symbolic sense, of course. Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan
17. Comment #66887 by atp on September 1, 2007 at 12:04 am
If only Professor Dawkins and Co would remember that Socrates was deemed the wisest of men because he "knew that he didn't know".
Personally I think it is people who know there is a God who should think more about what Socrates was saying here.
Science is never (idealy any way) claiming to know what cannot be known. Religion, on the other hand, knows a lot about what is supposed to be outside our universe, who created it, what comes after death and so forth. And this "knowledge" is not based on facts at all.
I think if people really took Socrates to heart on this, they would see the illogical of believing in religious "knowledge".
Other Comments by atp
18. Comment #66888 by Richard Dawkins on September 1, 2007 at 12:15 am
I have just posted as follows to The Times website. There seems to be a delay before such postings go up, perhaps so that they can be censored?http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article2361294.ece
Richard
'If anybody finds this review remotely persuasive, I am entirely content for them to read The God Delusion for themselves (as Salley Vickers very obviously has not) and make up their own minds. They will find that every single one of her allegations about it is either false or comprehensively dealt with in The God Delusion itself. Her statement that "only religious nutcases take the Creation story literally" may be true, but she must then write off as nutcases nearly half the population of the most powerful nation on earth, and most of the Islamic world.'
Other Comments by Richard Dawkins
19. Comment #66889 by nothing on September 1, 2007 at 12:19 am
I've lost the will to respond. I feel only deep sympathy for Dawkins.
Two words: me too.
Other Comments by nothing
20. Comment #66890 by Tyrant007 on September 1, 2007 at 12:24 am
I posted a comment as well and spent about fifteen minutes trying to figure out how to access the comments section. Maybe it's just a data-eating form that doesn't actually make comments public.I'll be writing a letter to the editor in any case. This is either the work of a fraud or a total buffoon. Or perhaps both. We'll see.
Other Comments by Tyrant007
21. Comment #66891 by Veronique on September 1, 2007 at 12:26 am
OK Benway and RD. I may be somewhat less than rational but this is what I posted onto the TimesOnLine site (took three posts to get it all up there).RD I don't think the moderators check for censorship, they just have a process to go through:-). I am so glad this site is un-moderated. I say some silly things but, at least, I am able to say them:-) Thank you and Josh immensely. Please don't be too cross with my post to silly Salley.
So Salley, you think Dawkins is self-aggrandising eh? Just where did you pick that up from? Certainly not from the book I read. Have you actually read The God Delusion? I started reading Dawkins in the early '80s. His name and views are not new to me. You sound as though you are the first (together with Cornwell) to write scathingly of Dawkins.
I thought you were reviewing Cornwell's book. Seems not. Instead you write a cheap piece that takes pot shots at Dawkins. I can tell you he has far more stamina that you have my little dear. He will still be around when you have run out of steam and words.
Call yourself a reviewer? You are not even a reviewer's bootlace. Since my interest in religion was piqued last year, I have learnt a lot. My religious friends tell me I now know more about their holy book than they do.
" nailing Dawkins's first sleight of hand which, as loads of people have now pointed out, dishonestly bundles all religious belief and practice into one crude bag that supposedly equals fanaticism."
Wrong and cowardly. Dawkins points to the fact that every religion is delusional because each one is based on unevidenced superstition and none of them has produced any evidence for any of their tenets. He thesis is that 'moderate religion' acts as a springboard for religious fanaticism. Be honest Salley. I hate to see people who write publicly lying through their teeth in an attempt to substantiate their own particular polemic.
"Does it follow that I should not have attended primary school? Is psychiatry a bad thing because schizophrenics were once made to take bromide?"
Don't be so precious and ridiculous.
"Next the seraph gently takes Dawkins to task for his breezy disregard for some might say ignorance of serious theology."
He wasn't writing a serious theological book. As I intimated above, most believers know virtually nothing about theology; they just believe because they were indoctrinated as children. Pretty much like you, I would guess.
"Hence it especially behoves the professional spreader of ideas to watch his or her language."
Pity that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't watch their language and neither did Paul who started the whole thing some forty years after no one had noticed that Jesus lived and died.
"They "know" they are right that least scientific of attitudes since it precludes changes of heart or openness of mind"
Wrong again. If you were to come up with proper, testable evidence for the existence of your sky god and his other personas, we would welcome it. All we don't do is keep such an open mind that our brains fall out. We operate on probabilities and the probability of your sky god existing is very, very small indeed.
Angelic Ripostes? Angels? You have to be taking the mickey. If not, then I fear for both your and Cornwell's sanity. See, I can cherry-pick as well. And you 'review' leaves you so open to cherry-picking.
V
Other Comments by Veronique
22. Comment #66892 by Tyrant007 on September 1, 2007 at 12:32 am
Careful, Veronique--'tis not a sky god that our Sally believes in, but rather a mysterious higher force of dramatic invisible realities that counts amongst its abilities the power to transform in order to evade any criticism. Wouldn't want to lump all gods together now, would you?Other Comments by Tyrant007
23. Comment #66893 by epeeist on September 1, 2007 at 12:33 am
My response:The standard response "Ah, but the god that Dawkins describes isn't my god". Here we seem to have a god created by picking the bits we like out of the bible and discarding the nastier bits. In other words, a god created by man.
I am not sure what the theists are getting all a twitter about. For the last 1500 years that have preached their message in the UK, the last 500 with the help from the state. They have centres and personnel in every town to accomplish their indoctrination, their schools are largely stated funded. They get prime spots in the media and their views are treated with uncritical deference.
When a few people publish books questioning the veracity of their beliefs and pointing out some of their consequences they take this as a personal affront.
To repudiate the atheist position (which is both testable and falsifiable) all they need to do is produce some concrete evidence of the existence of their god, that is all we are asking.
Other Comments by epeeist
24. Comment #66896 by BicycleRepairMan on September 1, 2007 at 12:41 am
perhaps so that they can be censored?
Yes, mainstream sites get hundreds of spam messages, poker/casino/porn viral advertisers etc. just look at the comments at the more popular YouTube videos. As much as I want your campaign and this site to succeed, lets secretly hope it doesnt come to that over here as well.
Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan
25. Comment #66897 by Janus on September 1, 2007 at 12:42 am
angels are not wispy, winged beings in ethereal nightgowns, but something far more subtle and profound: archetypal images that dramatise the invisible realities. As such, they can act as symbols for the formless elements of physics; but also for the creative imagination.
I must say I like "wispy, winged beings in ethereal nightgowns" better. At least it means something. Something ridiculous, yes, but _something_ nevertheless.
The seraph begins by politely nailing
Dawkins's first sleight of hand which, as loads of people have now pointed out, dishonestly bundles all religious belief and practice into one crude bag that supposedly equals fanaticism.
Strawman, Dawkins does not do this.
Next the seraph gently takes Dawkins to task for his breezy disregard for some might say ignorance of serious theology. You cannot criticise a theory until you have made some proper attempt to come to grips with it, and Dawkins hasn't; or doesn't show us that he has tried. He overlooks the big theologians altogether in favour of some pretty low-key, unknown figures.
In science, it is silly to come to grips with the theories of laymen on a subject instead of coming to grips with the theories of scientists working in that field. Why? Because they're experts: They know more about the evidence and the theories based on the evidence than other people do.
But in theology, the theories of laymen are worth exactly as much as the theories of theologians. They call themselves experts, but in what sense can a theologian be an expert? They cannot know anything about the evidence for God, because there is none. And whatever they know about theological "theories" is worthless, because these "theories" are not based on evidence. Without evidence, how does one differentiate true claims from false ones? In other words, without evidence, what is it that makes the claims of theologians better than the claims of the most theologically-inept layman?
Why, nothing.
So why does Dawkins focus on the claims of laymen? I've demonstrated that he shouldn't focus on the claims of theologians, but shouldn't he give the claims of laymen and those of theologians equal attention, at least?
No, because while the claims coming from both groups are equally worthless, they are not equally important from a societal point of view. One of the reasons Dawkins is so worried by religion is that it has an immense impact on society and on the lives of the individuals it's composed of. But religion, in and of itself, is just an idea, it can only make an impact through those who believe in it, and that impact will only be significant if the believers are numerous. Theologians are a tiny, tiny elite living in their ivory towers, and their writings, with a few extremely rare exceptions, are seldom read by the majority of laymen. The claims of laymen are significant because they make up the overwhelming majority of believers. The claims of theologians, however, are utterly insignificant.
As I used to ask students, is Hamlet real?
No, he isn't.
Is the Judeo-Christian God real?
Is Heaven real?
Is Jesus real?
Nor is the Bible "a book" but, as the affable seraph points out, a miscellany of stories, letters, polemic, histories, fables and certainly some great moral teachings, as well as some outmoded and unacceptable social prejudices.
Therefore, it is perfectly respectable to "pick and choose" when reading the Bible
How do you know which parts are fables, and which parts are histories?
How do you know which parts are outmoded and unacceptable social prejudices, and which parts are great moral teachings?
It doesn't follow that they are false because they are stories
Why do you dismiss angels as winged human-like beings? Because there's no evidence for them, and because it's obviously a silly superstition. Why do we dismiss the stories about Jesus? Because there's no evidence for them, and because they're full of claims which are obviously silly superstitions.
Religion as disease, and more pertinently, the religiously inclined as disease-carriers, this is dangerous talk. Dawkins might try substituting "Jews" or "blacks" for "religiously inclined" and he would see why.
If Jews and blacks, as groups, did carry a mental virus, I'm sure Dawkins would say so. But they don't.
Religious people, on the other hand, do carry a mental virus, which is why Dawkins says they do.
See how evidence-based thinking works? If there's evidence for something, you believe it and act on it; if there isn't, you don't.
Not that any of this is likely to alter the minds of the antiGod squad. They "know" they are right that least scientific of attitudes since it precludes changes of heart or openness of mind.
I wonder where it comes from, this dogma that being certain about something is a sign of close-mindedness.
Do you think physicists are showing "that least scientific of attitudes" when they say they "know" electrons exist?
Do you think biologists are being close-minded when they say they "know" humans and monkeys share a common ancestor?
Do you think that because they "know" these things, they would not change their minds if contradictory evidence was presented?
Being certain about something is only a bad thing if your certainty is not proportional to the quantity and quality of the evidence... or the lack of it.
You claim to know your God exists, you claim to know he has created this universe, you claim to know he is at least somewhat accurately described by Christian scripture and dogma and not by, say, ancient Babylonian mythology, you claim to know that he and listens to our thoughts and answers prayers and countless other things.
There isn't a shred of evidence to support your claims, and yet you haven't stopped believing in them.
Why is that?
Because you're close-minded, dogmatic, and irrational.
Other Comments by Janus
26. Comment #66898 by Veronique on September 1, 2007 at 12:44 am
Wow, you guys are quick!! I am impressed. I am only an accountant and a two finger typist.Tyrant I had only just posted that and there you are. Golly!!
My best:-)
V
Other Comments by Veronique
27. Comment #66900 by Pythagoras on September 1, 2007 at 12:49 am
I agree totally with the review.Religious people are crazy if they really believe anything that the Bible actually says. It's only the fanatical ones that actually believe in God and what the Bible says (e.g. like at least 40% of the US population) that Dawkins disagrees with, so Dawkins is completely misleading everyone by criticizing a minority view.
Just because people wrote stories, doesn't make them true or false. That makes sense. Dawkins obviously doesn't understand this. I mean Shakespeare's plays are real, and so must have described real events. Dawkins probably believes that Shakespeare was just making things up too. What a fool!
I feel sorry for those scientific types like Dawkins who know they are right. It's such a pity they are so confused. Scientists base their theories on careful observation of what is really going on in the world. How silly they are. Serious theologians who understand the reality of ideas aren't foolish enough to be misled by facts and logical arguments.
Other Comments by Pythagoras
28. Comment #66901 by Tyrant007 on September 1, 2007 at 12:52 am
Well said, Janus. I'd recommend that you post what you said as a comment on Sally's review, but it would probably take at least ten separate comments due to the character limit.Veronique- yes, I've been refreshing this page every few minutes to see how it develops. But it's almost 4 AM here, so I ought to go. I look forward to reading the comments on Sally's review in the morning.
Other Comments by Tyrant007
29. Comment #66902 by mdowe on September 1, 2007 at 1:02 am
The one thing that just blows me away when it comes to these so-called 'Christian' reviewers -- even more than their gullibility and irrationality -- is their astonishing lack of personal integrity. They generally just skip any attempt at real rebuttal or reasoned argument, and just advance immediately to out-and-out dishonestly and thinly veiled personal attacks. What a revolting bunch of hypocrites... Other Comments by mdowe
30. Comment #66903 by Janus on September 1, 2007 at 1:02 am
I posted the last part of my comment, and even then I had to cut it down some.Ah well, most of my points were made by the Prof. in TGD, so his own comment is pretty much all that needs to be said anyway.
- J
Other Comments by Janus
31. Comment #66904 by Veronique on September 1, 2007 at 1:09 am
Oh fuck, can someone here please tell me what Pythagorus is talking about? Is he being satirical or ridiculous?I don't understand what he is posting. Is he another twit or not?
More wine
V
Other Comments by Veronique
32. Comment #66905 by Janus on September 1, 2007 at 1:12 am
Satire, pretty good too. Other Comments by Janus
33. Comment #66907 by scottishgeologist on September 1, 2007 at 1:20 am
The comment about "wispy, winged beings in ethereal nightgowns," raises an interesting question, and one that goes back to my faith-head days.The popular image of "angels" is of androgynous creatures with wings and nightgowns who flit about and so on.
This image is common held by a lot of "bible believers" BUT,
At NO POINT WHATSOEVER in the Bible, where angels interact with humans are they ever described as having wings, or flying. Yes, there are "angelic order" creatures called cherubs and seraphs, but they are different. What I am talking about is where angels and men directly interact. These "messengers of god"
There are numerous references but the best one is in Hebrews, where there is "entertaining angels unawares" Ahem. If they had wings and nightgowns, I dont think they would be "unaware " of the fact.
OK, I hear y'all say this is BS anyway. True. But what it shows is that a lot of these so called bible believers dont actually understand or properly read their own BS. They are conditioned by popular mediaeval imagery in this particular example.
There are many other examples of this confused thinking - the entire popular nativity story is a mixture of unrelated events all strung together. There is no way that the events depictee in Luke and Matthew ever happened at the smae time.
(And of course there is the Quirinius problem, but lets not kick them when they're down...
Actually, what I reckon is that ideas about angels and fairies are getting mixed up. They have a lot in common in popular imagery. And what is the thing at the top of the Christmas Tree? Angel? Fairy? Can you tell the difference?
Of course not, they are both myths.
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
34. Comment #66908 by mdowe on September 1, 2007 at 1:21 am
Re: Comment #66904 by Veronique
Is he another twit or not?
Yes, he is just another twit ... or maybe not. My head hurts...
Other Comments by mdowe
35. Comment #66909 by Russell Blackford on September 1, 2007 at 1:24 am
How much idiocy can you take in one day?So, I now have to read this rubbish after having already watched Val Noone, this morning at the Melbourne Writers' Festival, claiming that the "New Atheism", or at least the publicity surrounding it, is all a smokescreen to conceal the evils perpetrated by the West. Yeah, right. Got it.
There was even worse than that from Noone, who was extremely emotional in his attack on Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling, who was on the panel with him. Fortunately, Grayling stayed calm and unruffled, and made Mr Noone look, by comparison, exactly like the loudmouthed irrationalist that I now take him to be.
As for this piece by Vickers ... well, whatever. It seems that we will keep being told, over and over until our days run out, that religious folk are all highly sophisticated individuals who don't literally believe in the words of the bible (how jejune!) and desire only to assist the suffering and needy.
Fine, I actually know some people a bit like that. Very nice people, too, and I'm happy to have them as friends. Unfortunately, they are a small minority.
Contrary to what Vickers imagines, the real world is actually crawling with Apocalypse-minded evangelicals and hardline Vatican apparatchiki, many of whom crave - and often exert - political influence and power. These people will quite happily violate the liberties of everyone else. Wake up, Ms Vickers, and smell the hellfire burning.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
36. Comment #66910 by stevencarrwork on September 1, 2007 at 1:25 am
'As for the pseudo-history of the Gospels: "history" wasn't invented when they were written.'Herodotus? Thucydidies?
Other Comments by stevencarrwork
37. Comment #66911 by Friend Giskard on September 1, 2007 at 1:28 am
Pythagoras, you would be well advised not to attempt irony in this forum. There are all too many people who will take you at face value, as numerous contributors have already learned to their cost. Other Comments by Friend Giskard
38. Comment #66912 by Veronique on September 1, 2007 at 1:32 am
29. Comment #66901 by Tyrant007I haven't been able to access any of the comments on TimesOnLine. What do you refresh? All I get is 'Have your say', not a list of already made comments. Tell me, I am eager to learn!!
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
39. Comment #66913 by Corylus on September 1, 2007 at 1:37 am
Some telling words and phrases in here:
archetypal images that dramatise the invisible realities
"History", as we know it, is a wholly modern concept. For the ancients, a history would be a mixture of reportage, received wisdom, narrative and story.
the fact of fact and the fact of fiction,
Those who think that not knowing is safer and more attractive than its opposite
What we have here is someone who has drunk deeply from the postmodernist tankard and can't stop belching.
Other Comments by Corylus
40. Comment #66915 by steve99 on September 1, 2007 at 1:48 am
I've lost the will to respond.
I know how you feel. This almost makes one believe that there is some widely distributed alternate version of The God Delusion - so many who criticise it seem to have read an entirely different book from the version I have at home.
Other Comments by steve99
41. Comment #66916 by Northern Bright on September 1, 2007 at 1:58 am
I, too, have posted a comment at TimesOnLine:Tell me, is it no longer a requirement for book reviewers to actually read the books that they plan to write off publicly as disingenuous, uninformed, dangerous rubbish?
Reading The God Delusion came as one of the more pleasant surprises I've had recently, on the basis that it didn't even remotely resemble the hysterical, arrogant, bigoted rant portrayed by reviewers such as Ms Vickers.
Cornwell's book may well be a "piece of sheer heaven", as claimed in this review. Unfortunately, since Ms Vickers clearly doesn't complicate her opinions through familiarity with the books she's reviewing, I can see little reason why her assessment of Cornwell's book should be any more reliable than that of The God Delusion.
Other Comments by Northern Bright
42. Comment #66917 by wolf mechanics on September 1, 2007 at 2:02 am
Ah, yet another gruesome case of attempting to shoehorn the word "physics" onto a hideously misshapen appendage that it will never fit. Other Comments by wolf mechanics
43. Comment #66918 by Flagellant on September 1, 2007 at 2:02 am
The argument that you have to be an expert in theology to be able to comment authoritatively on it is best dealt with by analogy:Do you have to be a pederast to comment on paedophilia?
Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
Other Comments by Flagellant
44. Comment #66919 by bean on September 1, 2007 at 2:06 am
I think the phrase 'archetypal images that dramatise the invisible realities' means 'I believe in silly things but if I make my language impenetrable you will not be able to tell'.It reminds me of something that drives me crazy - 'Energy'. No, not energy, but 'Energy'. It's a great term, can mean anything at all, and New Age shops make a packet out of it.
Scottish Geologist - that comment about the Christmas tree angel/fairy - did you happen to see the Derren Brown programme when he got two people to draw angels by stimulating the parts of their brains that come up with religious feeling? And the girl's angel had a magic wand?
Other Comments by bean
45. Comment #66920 by dvespertilio on September 1, 2007 at 2:09 am
I agree with the comment that "angels are not wispy, winged beings in ethereal nightgowns," All my angels have been a whole lot more material than that, and I prefer them totally in the nude, keep the "ethereal nightgowns", why don't ya? If you can't get to "know" an angel in the biblical sense of the word "know" (like "knowing" your wife and the like, or your neighbor's wife if yours is unavailable for "knowing") then what the fuck is the point......oh, dear, there I've gone again, and given it all away...... clearly Vickers is truly in need of a good...........Other Comments by dvespertilio
46. Comment #66921 by Northern Bright on September 1, 2007 at 2:13 am
Veronique:Oh fuck, can someone here please tell me what Pythagorus is talking about? Is he being satirical or ridiculous?
I don't understand what he is posting. Is he another twit or not?
Of COURSE he's being satirical. Just beause Sally Vickers has lost the power of reading unhysterically, there's no need for us to follow suit!
Other Comments by Northern Bright
47. Comment #66922 by Northern Bright on September 1, 2007 at 2:16 am
What we have here is someone who has drunk deeply from the postmodernist tankard and can't stop belching.
Corylus - what a wonderful turn of phrase. I openly announce here and now that I am going to plagiarise it shamelessly!
Other Comments by Northern Bright
48. Comment #66923 by dvespertilio on September 1, 2007 at 2:19 am
RE: Comment #66919 by bean on September 1, 2007 at 2:06 am "And the girl's angel had a magic wand?"Yeah, all the male angels have "magic wands" Have one myself, I do.......ah,.....the middle of the night.....in the middle of the bible belt.....must go now and play w/the little baptist angels next door. I think I hear Pan's pipes.........ah, that chevrain smell of that ole tyme rerligione.........SLAP ME someone, I need to come to from this slightly past mid summer night's dream......no, honey, I said SLAP, not pinch, well, if you INSIST you CAN do it again please, but a little lower..........
Other Comments by dvespertilio
49. Comment #66924 by Quetzalcoatl on September 1, 2007 at 2:28 am
I know everyone above has commented on the review far better than I am about to.What a load of rubbish.
That about sums it up, as far as I'm concerned.
Veronique-
Pythagoras is being ironic, and doing it rather well!
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
50. Comment #66925 by Flagellant on September 1, 2007 at 2:32 am
There are so many ways the bloody Brits 'do' irony. Beware!Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
Other Comments by Flagellant
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend"
Richard Jeni
Other Recommended Reading
Intelligent Thought
John Brockman (Editor)
The End of Faith
Sam Harris
The Demon-Haunted World
Carl Sagan
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #66864 by Quine on August 31, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Other Comments by Quine