Print
The smallest signs of retreat
by Madeleine Bunting
Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/madeleine_bunting/2007/09/the_smallest_signs_of_retreat.html
Richard Dawkins' normal arrogance and contempt for religious belief faded briefly to conciliation today, when challenged by one of his critics.
It was tantalisingly brief, but welcome all the same: the scientist, Richard Dawkins, finally agreed to debate religion with one of his critics. He has repeatedly refused a head-to-head with protagonists such as his Oxford colleague, Professor Alister McGrath, but on the Today programme this morning, we got a snippet of a fascinating exchange between two very clever men. John Cornwell's book, Darwin's Angel published today, is a powerful riposte to the huge success of Dawkins' The God Delusion and draws on Cornwell's background as a philosopher, director of the science and human dimension project at Cambridge and his Catholicism.
Under challenge from Cornwell, Dawkins came over all conciliatory. It's not a tone we are familiar with from his book. But in the process he got very tangled up trying to justify his comments that bringing a child up with a religious faith is akin to a "milder form of sexual abuse". He got even more contradictory on Cornwell's main critique of the book developed in the Guardian last week. No, said Dawkins, I never said religion was a disease, only "a virus". It was a shame we didn't have time to establish the fine distinction Dawkins was trying to make.
But the conciliatory tone from Dawkins - "religious people have done plenty of good in human history, plenty of good people are religious, very few people are extremists" - is welcome. Is this a new departure for the New Atheists whose aggressive, shrill attacks on religious belief over the last year, is prompting increasing distaste? Magnus Linklater in the Times yesterday voiced sentiments one hears from many quarters. Isn't the aggression counter-productive? Doesn't it do more harm than good? As Cornwell sums up, the danger is that polemics such as The God Delusion are "liable to persuade religious fundamentalists that a pluralist secular society is every bit as hostile to the practice of faith as they ever thought it to be".
But there is another possibility: Dawkins has always had a gentler side - just look at the exchange with the Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries here. But of course, this was the bit cut out of the Channel Four documentary made by Dawkins in January 2006. What the media wants is polemic not reasonable exploration of complex issues - does Dawkins resist that tendency or play up to it? He clearly has a huge vested interest in doing the latter because it has made him a fortune out of booksales.
But does Dawkins' approach advance human understanding? Does polemic increase our capacity to understand people who are very different from ourselves? Because it seems to me that this is the most urgent challenge facing every public intellectual today. We live in a crowded planet and bump into diversity in a way that no previous generation have ever done to the same extent: we have to increase our imaginations to grasp the enormous variety of human experience. Narrow certainties - wherever they come from - have unprecedented capacity to generate destruction.
And this is why I think Dawkins is dangerous. He has spent enough time now thinking about religion and listening to thoughtful religious people such as the Harries, yet he persists with a parody, a childlike perception of God and religion. Of course there's no man with a beard crashing about in the sky. He persists in believing (note the verb) that belief is an intellectual assertion based on reasoning. But belief is a word derived from the old German "to love" as Diana Eck, Harvard professor of comparative faith, argues. Only in the last couple of centuries has belief become a matter of the intellect rather than an expression of commitment.
In common with our highly rationalised culture, Dawkins fails completely to understand how powerful myth is - not in terms of factual, historical truth - but in terms of emotional, spiritual truth. Human beings make and use myths and have always done so; the crucial issue is whether those myths are benign, sustaining or destructive. Dawkins insists on taking the most literal - and least sophisticated - reading of religious myth as factual truth; he calls for "evidence" for belief in his interview on the Today programme today.
This is a crazy reading of belief. He needs a crash course in the anthropology of religion. Meanwhile, he remains wilfully blind to the myths of his own time and age. Just because secular societies have junked religious mythology, doesn't mean they don't have myths - the ones they have developed to replace the religious can be deeply destructive - celebrity, consumerist aspirations that material wealth brings happiness, the winner takes all. These are myths which cause untold unhappiness in lives blighted by dissatisfaction, disappointment and frustration - and the impulse to deaden such emotions through alcohol or drugs.
There's a fascinating debate to be had between atheists and people of faith and, often, they can find the gulf between them is not nearly as wide or unbridgeable as is often suggested. Even when there is a gulf, both sides can find the process helpful in clarifying their positions - Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan's exchange for example. What I find hard to forgive of Dawkins is that he's led his huge army of admirers in the opposite direction, away from thoughtful engagement and towards a dangerous contemptuous arrogance.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/madeleine_bunting/2007/09/the_smallest_signs_of_retreat.html
Richard Dawkins' normal arrogance and contempt for religious belief faded briefly to conciliation today, when challenged by one of his critics.
It was tantalisingly brief, but welcome all the same: the scientist, Richard Dawkins, finally agreed to debate religion with one of his critics. He has repeatedly refused a head-to-head with protagonists such as his Oxford colleague, Professor Alister McGrath, but on the Today programme this morning, we got a snippet of a fascinating exchange between two very clever men. John Cornwell's book, Darwin's Angel published today, is a powerful riposte to the huge success of Dawkins' The God Delusion and draws on Cornwell's background as a philosopher, director of the science and human dimension project at Cambridge and his Catholicism.
Under challenge from Cornwell, Dawkins came over all conciliatory. It's not a tone we are familiar with from his book. But in the process he got very tangled up trying to justify his comments that bringing a child up with a religious faith is akin to a "milder form of sexual abuse". He got even more contradictory on Cornwell's main critique of the book developed in the Guardian last week. No, said Dawkins, I never said religion was a disease, only "a virus". It was a shame we didn't have time to establish the fine distinction Dawkins was trying to make.
But the conciliatory tone from Dawkins - "religious people have done plenty of good in human history, plenty of good people are religious, very few people are extremists" - is welcome. Is this a new departure for the New Atheists whose aggressive, shrill attacks on religious belief over the last year, is prompting increasing distaste? Magnus Linklater in the Times yesterday voiced sentiments one hears from many quarters. Isn't the aggression counter-productive? Doesn't it do more harm than good? As Cornwell sums up, the danger is that polemics such as The God Delusion are "liable to persuade religious fundamentalists that a pluralist secular society is every bit as hostile to the practice of faith as they ever thought it to be".
But there is another possibility: Dawkins has always had a gentler side - just look at the exchange with the Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries here. But of course, this was the bit cut out of the Channel Four documentary made by Dawkins in January 2006. What the media wants is polemic not reasonable exploration of complex issues - does Dawkins resist that tendency or play up to it? He clearly has a huge vested interest in doing the latter because it has made him a fortune out of booksales.
But does Dawkins' approach advance human understanding? Does polemic increase our capacity to understand people who are very different from ourselves? Because it seems to me that this is the most urgent challenge facing every public intellectual today. We live in a crowded planet and bump into diversity in a way that no previous generation have ever done to the same extent: we have to increase our imaginations to grasp the enormous variety of human experience. Narrow certainties - wherever they come from - have unprecedented capacity to generate destruction.
And this is why I think Dawkins is dangerous. He has spent enough time now thinking about religion and listening to thoughtful religious people such as the Harries, yet he persists with a parody, a childlike perception of God and religion. Of course there's no man with a beard crashing about in the sky. He persists in believing (note the verb) that belief is an intellectual assertion based on reasoning. But belief is a word derived from the old German "to love" as Diana Eck, Harvard professor of comparative faith, argues. Only in the last couple of centuries has belief become a matter of the intellect rather than an expression of commitment.
In common with our highly rationalised culture, Dawkins fails completely to understand how powerful myth is - not in terms of factual, historical truth - but in terms of emotional, spiritual truth. Human beings make and use myths and have always done so; the crucial issue is whether those myths are benign, sustaining or destructive. Dawkins insists on taking the most literal - and least sophisticated - reading of religious myth as factual truth; he calls for "evidence" for belief in his interview on the Today programme today.
This is a crazy reading of belief. He needs a crash course in the anthropology of religion. Meanwhile, he remains wilfully blind to the myths of his own time and age. Just because secular societies have junked religious mythology, doesn't mean they don't have myths - the ones they have developed to replace the religious can be deeply destructive - celebrity, consumerist aspirations that material wealth brings happiness, the winner takes all. These are myths which cause untold unhappiness in lives blighted by dissatisfaction, disappointment and frustration - and the impulse to deaden such emotions through alcohol or drugs.
There's a fascinating debate to be had between atheists and people of faith and, often, they can find the gulf between them is not nearly as wide or unbridgeable as is often suggested. Even when there is a gulf, both sides can find the process helpful in clarifying their positions - Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan's exchange for example. What I find hard to forgive of Dawkins is that he's led his huge army of admirers in the opposite direction, away from thoughtful engagement and towards a dangerous contemptuous arrogance.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, September 7, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 103 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #68423 by Jack Rawlinson on September 7, 2007 at 6:47 am
This tripe is getting a well-deserved kicking over on the comments page at The Guardian, not least from RD himself. Me and quite a few regulars from this site have also weighed in. It's pretty busy, and I recommend you join the melee - assuming you haven't already! Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
3. Comment #68424 by Lana on September 7, 2007 at 6:51 am
I truly don't understand what she's talking about. But I only read it once and I regret the time I wasted. Did you read the same book we read? Did she hear the same "debate" we heard? Talk about crazy reading.Other Comments by Lana
4. Comment #68425 by Linda on September 7, 2007 at 6:51 am
The overall responses to Ms Bunting's factless diatribe against Dawkins is that she is deluded & misinformed. She could be renamed Mis-Information.Many posters on CiF have suggested that Bunting check out
Dawkins copious debates & interviews with people like McGrath & others.
The 6 minute interview that Bunting describes as debate is one of those quickie CNN-FOX-news-tainment segments in which no speaker is given the microphone for more than 60 seconds.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1612,Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins-and-John-Cornwell,BBC-Radio-4-Today-Programme
Is it that everyone has a short attention span?
Other Comments by Linda
5. Comment #68427 by Russell Blackford on September 7, 2007 at 6:57 am
Wow, what a load of incomprehensible gobbledegook.Other Comments by Russell Blackford
6. Comment #68431 by Philip1978 on September 7, 2007 at 7:06 am
I will have to concur with the right honourable ladies and gentlemen of this post, Ms Bunting is talking the most almighty drivel known to humanity, all in favour of her case getting thrown out of court say aye!Judge Philip!
Other Comments by Philip1978
7. Comment #68433 by PeterK on September 7, 2007 at 7:09 am
Should we all be surprised anymore at the preposterous things someone says when defending someone else who says preposterous things who defends a faith which demands someone believe in preposterous things?Other Comments by PeterK
8. Comment #68440 by canatheist on September 7, 2007 at 7:33 am
Look up drivel in the dictionary and you'll see picture of Ms. Bunting, I am sure. Misses the point of everything. Only a relatively small portion of religious people are extremists, but a very high portion of extremist are religious. Other Comments by canatheist
9. Comment #68441 by aitchkay on September 7, 2007 at 7:39 am
Summary: "Please lower your voice Mr Dawkins. What you're saying may well be true, but it's dangerous."Richard Dawkins' normal arrogance...that's plain nasty
trying to justify his comments that bringing a child up with a religious faith is akin to a "milder form of sexual abuse".No, he said *labelling* children with the religion of their parents can be akin to a milder form of sexual abuse.
Narrow certainties - wherever they come from - have unprecedented capacity to generate destruction.which is precisely why we are right to challenge them.
Other Comments by aitchkay
10. Comment #68443 by matthijsln on September 7, 2007 at 7:44 am
In the second paragraph before the last she literally says religions are myths created by humanity and not based upon facts.Other Comments by matthijsln
11. Comment #68445 by felixandur on September 7, 2007 at 7:45 am
Hmm, as I have become more familiar with Ms Bunting's work, I have begun to suspect that she subscribes to the ascetic tradition and is seeking spritual growth and inner humility through the whip of righteous criticism. To this end she consciously writes drivel in order to invite us, the unwitting public, to undertake her "cleansing".Other Comments by felixandur
12. Comment #68447 by Russell Blackford on September 7, 2007 at 7:50 am
Let's say it yet again. Exposing children to some kinds of religious belief - those which involve subjecting kids to terror - is indeed seriously abusive. To say that the psychological torture often inflicted on children in the name of religion is just as bad as some of the milder kinds of sexual abuse is really an understatement. I get sick of the kneejerk reaction that if a sexual element is involved in something it must automatically be at the highest level of evil. Pedophilia is doubtless an evil; there are other evils which are even worse. As I said last time this came up, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_house.Other Comments by Russell Blackford
13. Comment #68448 by Prufrock on September 7, 2007 at 7:50 am
This Ms Bunting has a very articulate bottom! Either that or she talks through it a lot. I can't be bothered to say anything remotely thoughtful about this, because it is completely incomprehensible. I'd say it was all plain wrong but I don't understand any of it so I can't even say that."What the media wants is polemic not reasonable exploration of complex issues - does Dawkins resist that tendency or play up to it? He clearly has a huge vested interest in doing the latter because it has made him a fortune out of booksales."
I feel insulted by this and I really don't like the idea of someone reducing my need to know and understand to a cheap marketing gag.
I'm disappointed once again by the psuedo intelligent garbage dished out by these wholly inadequate commentators. I fear this will not be the last time I read inept twaddle on this subject.
Other Comments by Prufrock
14. Comment #68450 by Zaphod on September 7, 2007 at 7:53 am
Madeleine Bunting after one sentence I can tell you either read the God Delusion with your eyes shut or you have never read it. John Cornwell set up straw men against Richard Dawkins and at points I had the feeling he was just completely telling lies. If you had read the God Delusion you would have seen how inaccurate a portrayal of Cornwell made of Dawkins arguments. I find it amazing and ridiculous that John Cornwell has written a book long response to The God Delusion when he seems he hasn't read it and has perhaps just read 1 or 2 bad reviews of it.I think she should stick to writing her book about the countryside because unless she is going to actually read a book before criticising it she is going to keep looking foolish.
Other Comments by Zaphod
15. Comment #68452 by jimbob on September 7, 2007 at 7:55 am
Set fire to a strawman -- oops, there goes #9 again!Other Comments by jimbob
16. Comment #68453 by Nebularry on September 7, 2007 at 7:55 am
Haven't we seen this sort of argument before? Bunting states, "In common with our highly rationalised culture, Dawkins fails completely to understand how powerful myth is - not in terms of factual, historical truth - but in terms of emotional, spiritual truth. Human beings make and use myths and have always done so; the crucial issue is whether those myths are benign, sustaining or destructive. Dawkins insists on taking the most literal - and least sophisticated - reading of religious myth as factual truth; he calls for "evidence" for belief in his interview on the Today programme today."But it is EXACTLY the "least sophisticated" religious myth that polls show most Americans believe. We human beings seem to have emormous propensity for believing the most outrageous and least sophisticated nonsense.
Other Comments by Nebularry
17. Comment #68455 by Northern Bright on September 7, 2007 at 7:56 am
I've never posted to the Guardian before, but hey, life is nothing if not an adventure, so I have signed up and this is what I submitted:A remarkable book in so many ways, The God Delusion may well also hold the distinction of being the most misrepresented book ever written.
The chasm between Dawkins' views as clearly expressed in his book and as distorted by his critics is so enormous (and so common) that it is becoming increasingly difficult to see it as accidental. It's rather as if The Wind in the Willows had been reviewed by someone determined to find Frankenstein's Monster.
In yesterday's all too brief discussion on the Today programme, Dawkins simply took the opportunity to put the Radio 4 audience straight on some of the more outrageous distortions that Cornwell had indulged in. Even the most talented military strategist would find it hard to retreat from a position he had never taken.
STOP PRESS! GOOD NEWS FOR BOOK REVIEWERS! As an added incentive to get you to actually READ The God Delusion before you write your next review of it, Dawkins has gone to considerable trouble to ensure that it is chock full of views that he really DOES hold, all expressed with admirable clarity. The great thing about this is that it eliminates the need for you to make it all up. So do try reading it - you'll love it.
Other Comments by Northern Bright
18. Comment #68464 by Yorker on September 7, 2007 at 8:10 am
Well, I hope you look better than you sound, because I think what you need most is a good punting Ms Bunting! Other Comments by Yorker
19. Comment #68465 by Prufrock on September 7, 2007 at 8:10 am
#68423 Jack RawlinsonI've just had a quick look at the guardian message board and I have found only one message which supports Bunting's wholly mistaken article. If I wrote an article and found it offended virtually everyone that read it, I think I would keep my silly mouth shut in future or make sure I'm fully acquainted with my ignorances and prejudices before I attempt to insult someone speaking on behalf of, not leading, I don't need a leader, of a group of clear thinking, friendly and articulate people.
Other Comments by Prufrock
20. Comment #68467 by dubyamd on September 7, 2007 at 8:13 am
i always look forward to reading this criticisms of Dawkins, waiting for one that raises good, clear arguments... and I'm always disappointed. I feel like they totally are missing key points (and in some cases FACTS), so any 'arguments' they come up with are just pointless from the get-go.Or they just don't know what they're talking about. Good example:
"No, said Dawkins, I never said religion was a disease, only "a virus". It was a shame we didn't have time to establish the fine distinction Dawkins was trying to make."
Really? You need him to establish the distinction between a virus and a disease? Really?
Other Comments by dubyamd
21. Comment #68468 by bitbutter on September 7, 2007 at 8:14 am
repostedUtter drivel. So many mistakes and misrepresentations.
"Dawkins ....he persists with a parody, a childlike perception of God and religion."
So do the vast majority of believers--Dawkins has repeatedly made it abundantly clear this is the kind of belief that is the primary target of TGD. If you aren't aware that Dawkins has always acknowledged that there are many moderate believers then you haven't been paying attention.
Where do you get the idea that Dawkins is blind to modern myths? Is it because he didn't mention these topics in a book written about something entirely different? Maybe you think the professor is blind to the problem of global warming too, after all i don't recall a chapter in 'The God Delusion' dealing with this very serious issue.
Other Comments by bitbutter
22. Comment #68469 by the_assayer on September 7, 2007 at 8:20 am
I would not call this article "utter drivel". Surely there is a genuine lack in her understanding of Dawkin's position, like for instance the sense in which "virus" is used( as a meme),but she does bring up an important aspect about the new atheistic movement- the aspect of "policy". Politically atheism should merge with secularism, something that rarely gets mentioned by Richard et al. In other words, it is easy for a believer to interpret the movement as politically oppressive towards relgion. There should be an attempt to explain the difference between "criticising" religion and "oppressing" it."But in the process he got very tangled up trying to justify his comments that bringing a child up with a religious faith is akin to a "milder form of sexual abuse" "- Bunting
This is clearly a distorting Dawkins' views. His point is that Religious indoctrination is a "case" of "child abuse". In other words he is trying to say that we should treat such action as "abusive" to the child. The word abuse may have common sexual connotations, but as a literary person its not excusable that she overlooked such an obvious mis-interpretation. "...akin to a milder form of sexual abuse.." seems like a desparate attempt to frame Dawkins as saying, " Religious parents are like "mild" child molesters".
In my opinion, Dawkins should drop the "Religion is abusive" slogan. Politically it wont work. To reach beleiving parents and to convince them about the immorality of such indoctrination, we need to be more patient and communicative. Moreover, such political pleading should not be done through some twenty second sound-bite where it becomes all too confusing and provides easy fodder for such unresearched and reactionary reviews.
Other Comments by the_assayer
23. Comment #68476 by Prufrock on September 7, 2007 at 8:32 am
the assayer, #68469"but she does bring up an important aspect about the new atheistic movement- the aspect of "policy". Politically atheism should merge with secularism, something that rarely gets mentioned by Richard et al. In other words, it is easy for a believer to interpret the movement as politically oppressive towards relgion. There should be an attempt to explain the difference between "criticising" religion and "oppressing" it."
Begs a number of questions. Is atheism a movement? Are we interested in politics? Are we really responsible for a believer feeling 'oppressed' when in reality we are simply criticising his/her unsubstantiated claims, or are we just simply ensuring that the voice of reason is heard, because not only do we have plenty to say - most of it reasonable - but many wonderful things have been done in its name. Are we supposed to be nice about belief without foundation? I'm not so sure this is what atheism is all about. Professor is a marvellous focal point for the atheists, quite simply because he is urbane, charming, as well as supremely qualified and accurate in what he says. Atheism is not about playing a political game it is about simply telling the truth about the universe and our place in it. Well that's what it means to me. Politicise it and I'm off.
Other Comments by Prufrock
24. Comment #68479 by hungarianelephant on September 7, 2007 at 8:37 am
the_assayer (22) - If you're just talking about the slogan, I agree. RD doesn't in fact use it. That's the distorted reduction of his detractors. But IMO the general approach of naming certain behaviour as abusive is a good one, and I've found a number of (admittedly moderate) believers very receptive to the notion. While I don't think we'll convince many that sending your child to Sunday School is a form of abuse, most sensible people can grasp that threatening kids with torture in hell is not a good thing. That has to be a start.Wrt the "Christian child" issue, Marcus Brigstocke has the best line. "A 4-year-old child can no more be a Christian than a member of the Postal Workers' Union".
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
25. Comment #68486 by NJS on September 7, 2007 at 9:16 am
I'm still waiting for an answer to this question:If you don't believe in a "man with a beard crashing about in the sky" then what the hell do you believe in?
Other Comments by NJS
26. Comment #68489 by Erik on September 7, 2007 at 9:25 am
I particularly liked Bunting's reference to the exchange between Harris and Sullivan. It was a thorough thrashing of Sullivan's position by Harris, almost to the point of embarassment for Sullivan. But Harris was polite, no question about it. Perhaps Bunting is suggesting to Dawkins that this is the proper way to demolish a theist?Other Comments by Erik
27. Comment #68492 by Arcturus on September 7, 2007 at 9:52 am
Bunting accepts that religion is nothing but myth. That's what we are saying, too.Why doesn't she debate the fundies, and convince them about this issue?
Once she settles this, then we can talk about living our lives according to myths and which are good or bad.
Other Comments by Arcturus
28. Comment #68503 by jimmm33 on September 7, 2007 at 10:39 am
Seems like she's confused about what she believes.Other Comments by jimmm33
29. Comment #68506 by monoape on September 7, 2007 at 10:54 am
Rather than 'throw peanuts from the gallery', I've written to the editor and the eye-wateringly deceitful woman directly:letters@guardian.co.uk, madeleine.bunting@guardian.co.uk
Dear sirs,
Having read Madeleine Bunting's article, 'The smallest signs of retreat' (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/madeleine_bunting/2007/09/the_smallest_signs_of_retreat.html), I would like to express my deep displeasure that The Guardian is allowing such dreadful 'journalism' on to its pages.
As has been pointed out over and over in the comments to this article, Ms Bunting is guilty of some combination of laziness, incompetence and plain dishonesty.
Rather than repeat in detail the many arguments for that assertion, may I refer you to replies provided by Professor Dawkins:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/madeleine_bunting/2007/09/the_smallest_signs_of_retreat.html#comment-798710
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/madeleine_bunting/2007/09/the_smallest_signs_of_retreat.html#comment-798748
I sincerely hope that a correction and / or retraction is printed by The Guardian to redress the falsehoods made by Ms Bunting, and that in future she might consider researching her articles more carefully, or that someone be assigned to check them for her prior to publication.
Yours respectfully,
Other Comments by monoape
30. Comment #68507 by Bruno on September 7, 2007 at 11:01 am
"In common with our highly rationalised culture, Dawkins fails completely to understand how powerful myth is - not in terms of factual, historical truth - but in terms of emotional, spiritual truth. Human beings make and use myths and have always done so; the crucial issue is whether those myths are benign, sustaining or destructive. Dawkins insists on taking the most literal - and least sophisticated - reading of religious myth as factual truth; he calls for "evidence" for belief in his interview on the Today programme today."According to my American Heritage Dictionary, "Myth" is defined as: 1) A traditional story presenting supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serve as primordial types in a primitive view of the world. 2) Any fictitious or imaginary story, person, or thing. 3) A notion based more on tradition or convenience than of fact.
Joseph Campbell believed and made somewhat of a strong case that human beings NEED myths, including the ceremony and ritual that accompany them. But is it asking too much that we all (Christians included) just admit that our primordial myths are simply that -- MYTHS -- and not based on anything real?
Other Comments by Bruno
31. Comment #68518 by icanus on September 7, 2007 at 11:43 am
So, that's one serving of "The nasty atheist said mean things", with a side order of "Aha! but I don't believe god has a beard, so nothing you say applies to me!".How predicatble. I'm beginning to suspect that someone has written a "negative review of the God Delusion" generator, similar to the postmodern essay generator (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo)
I keep meaning to actually assign numbers to the non-arguments used by these apologists (or in this case the apologist for the apologist), so that we could just post the rebuttals them in shorthand.
Bunting uses Theist non-arguments 1,4 and 7. Please see responses A, F & H.
Other Comments by icanus
32. Comment #68519 by gcdavis on September 7, 2007 at 11:45 am
Hey guys I'm new to this forum. Is it ok for atheists to eat their children, I'm getting mighty hungry! Other Comments by gcdavis
33. Comment #68521 by gcdavis on September 7, 2007 at 11:54 am
Comment 68519This is just the sort of disgusting suggestion that we have come to expect from you atheist rabble. The holy.... explicity states that eating your children is forbidden. If you are hungry you should eat someone else's!
Other Comments by gcdavis
34. Comment #68522 by epeeist on September 7, 2007 at 11:57 am
Comment #68507 by Bruno
"In common with our highly rationalised culture, Dawkins fails completely to understand how powerful myth is - not in terms of factual, historical truth - but in terms of emotional, spiritual truth.
According to my American Heritage Dictionary, "Myth" is defined as:
Does your dictionary have an entry for "truth", she seems to be using the word in two different ways above.
Perhaps someone ought to send her a copy of this article - http://www.ditext.com/tarski/tarski.html
Other Comments by epeeist
35. Comment #68523 by Northern Bright on September 7, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Hey guys I'm new to this forum. Is it ok for atheists to eat their children, I'm getting mighty hungry!
Darling, it's practically compulsory.
Other Comments by Northern Bright
36. Comment #68525 by TheRationalist on September 7, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Good Evening EveryoneI posted in The Guardian on this topic last night. Bunting (along with Theo Hobson) is a frequent antagonist of reasoned debate when it comes to religion. They both believe that theological issues have a special place in the canon of current affairs: ie, they cannot be discussed openly.
Bunting and Hobson differ from the intellectual postmodernist defenders of mysticism in that they at least make themselves clear most of the time. One of the posters at The Guardian (called Longsword) is an outstanding example of the latter, more wriggly, type. He uses language to obscure reason and creates such utter confusion that his arguments cannot be focused upon and thus refuted.
Here is my post on The Guardian's website and Longsword's response. I think you'll see what I mean. I reprint this all in the spirit of a harmless diversion.
"Dawkins has a sharp tongue, but it is generally not used against individuals. If he debates with religious people he is polite and civil to a fault, just like Sam Harris. What Ms Bunting has identified this morning is Dawkins' normal tone: she has then matched this with his robust writing style and recognised an indiscrepancy. Thus her conclusion that Dawkins is moderating his approach.
"This is plainly not the case. Dawkins has no gripe with religious people unless they are using their religion for personal gain. He characterises most of them quite plausibly as genuine in their beliefs or as scared to reform. These people are not to be bullied, however risible their fantasies. Bunting acknowledges that we generally no longer believe in a bearded man in the sky. What she fails to understand is that this consensus has been won at the cost of the lives of countless heretics who spoke up against authoritarian stupidity. This is merely what Dawkins is doing now.
"Every single supernatural belief is as stupid and lacking in substance as the belief that there is a god and that men and women were made in his or her image. This does not mean that religious people are stupid per se. Dawkins has always understood this. It is hardly a complex concept.
"He is a polite man who is frustrated by collective stupidity. Who is to say that he shouldn't treat opponents with respect but point out in the most robust terms the idiocy of their arguments?
"And one more thing. Debating with religious people (I mean intellectual religious people) is generally impossible, and it must drive Dawkins mad. They object to their beliefs being discussed at all; they say that they don't believe what you've been led to think they believe and then they won't make their beliefs clear; they call you aggressive for speaking plainly; and worst of all, they argue that it's all too complex (cf Theo Hobson and Longsword) for those of no faith to understand.
"This last objection is most problematic. Somebody (I think it was Longsword) once explained that 'evidence', since it is based historically on the concept of sight, is a naive way for us to go about establishing the truth. Well, Longsword (and Bunting and Hobson), evidence has got us nearer to the truth of things than any of your fantasies. Your pipe dreams might by some bizarre fluke be proved right but if they are you'll be the first to use evidence to prove them so. In the meantime, you're welcome to your contempt for it; and I, and Dawkins et al, have a right to feel contempt for those who benefit so much from the fruits of scientific observation and then subserviently bow down to the superior power of religion and faith and mystery.
"Writers like Bunting object to plain speaking in this debate and yet welcome it in every other form of human discourse. We do not arrive at true understanding by pandering to each others' sensibilities. Can you imagine a world in which we had to worry about upsetting George Bush when we discussed US foreign policy? Would this be a world in which we could be happy and free? Why should religion be treated any differently?
"The emperor is not wearing any clothes. Dawkins says this repeatedly, compellingly and with great charm and clarity. That, of course, is his true crime."
And here is Longsword's response to all that.
"Odd that I should just pop in and find this near slander posted about my esteemed pseudonym.
"Well, theRationalist, more the fool you. Though you discount the truth of things unseen (and therefore must deny that myth has anything to do with truth at all) you seem to think that you were born like Athena, fully armoured, adult, and wise from out of the head of Zeus. You, like Dawkins, are amnesiacs and blindmen, wretchedly ignorant of your own roots in history and the authorities that you claim as your own. You are free today to call yourself a "man of reason" (of which I'm skeptical) because 400 years ago, "God" was reconceived under the name "Universal Reason" and as the Great Clockmaker and Architect in the sky, and thereafter "modern" society applied itself industriously to making men in the image of this God, after the fashion of "Universal Reason", and inevitably, also in the image of a predictable clockwork mechanism.
"You only know a quarter of reality (the "objective" part) because you discount the inner, but also the past and the future too as elements of our full reality. You use your eyes alone, but your other senses are just as much involved in the determination of the "real" as the eyes are, even if you choose to ignore these.
"That means, you must remain only "a quarter of a man" as the song goes. It is your contempt, not mine, that makes you willfully opaque. You live in a universe, but that universe is not yet a true cosmos."
Can you imagine reading this sort of thing at book length?
Other Comments by TheRationalist
37. Comment #68530 by the_assayer on September 7, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Religious belief, here, seems to be like the technologist dictum "never say never". It seems like there are quite a number of believers who beleive, because it seems so poetically rich to "believe". Maybe, for them, the fact that its "motivational" to believe alone makes it worth believing?Are we atheists barking up the wrong tree? Maybe its their "admiration for the possibility of God" and not their "belief in God" that we need to address. In my view it seems likely that many believers think of themselves as the on the side of "openness" and atheists on the side of "closedness", "rigidity" etc.
I'm reminded of Feynman's words- "All thats possible is not happening"...."Whats important is not possibility but ACTUALITY". If we try hard, we might be able to find evidence pointing in favour of a few or one of these so called "possibilities". Thats how we start to build a picture of whats actually happening.
This is what the scientific method is all about- ways to find out if something is "happening" or not. It is not a limiting force as one might think. Infact as we weed-out from the landscape of possibilities we reach an area more fertile with newer "possibilities"-possibilities that would not have been accessible to us had we not decided to be skeptical.
Would explaining how the scientific method works and how it is more empowering and envigorating help to win the hearts of this group of believers?
Other Comments by the_assayer
38. Comment #68537 by steve99 on September 7, 2007 at 1:12 pm
What a shameful piece. As others have noted it is a cut+paste re-hash of half-truths and untruths about what Dawkins writes. I really can't believe I am reading the "My God is not a bearded man in the sky" and "Dawkins is only dealing with stupid, literal religion" straw men yet again; that is a sign of sloppiness and laziness from someone who is supposed to be a reasonably respectable journalist. This is so bad it is almost a joke. A while back the superb satirist Craig Brown(*) used to write a column in the Guardian under the pseudonymn Bel Littlejohn. This column was a parody of achingly-politically-correct trendy liberal journalists like Bunting. We need Ms Littlejohn back, I feel.
[(*) Anyone with access to BBC Radio 4 should try and catch Brown's "1966 and all that" - simply superb.]
Other Comments by steve99
39. Comment #68538 by ergaster on September 7, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I usually refrain from posting here since I do not want to lower the the level of intelligent discussion. But after having read Bunting's rude and asinine article I feel confident that I can't possibly lower it, whatever I write. Even if my immediate aim is to acquaint her with my special bunch o' fives, I am well above her standard. After reading this as well as MacGrath, Cornwell, Hobson and their tactical and well-considered lies I fear that there is only so much nonsense that RD can put up with. He has spent so many years of his career teaching and enlighten people but when he publishes such a well-reasoned and polite book on religion he is repaid with contempt, personal attacks or the adversary's lack of other things to do. So, how long before he says to hell with this, it ain't worth it, and returns to the biology lab?
I must say that I admire how regulars on this site have the stomach to read the dung that many articles spout and yet have the endurance to keep on pointing out the fallacies and lies for the visiting reading. It is much appreciated, you shall know.
MONOAPE: A wonderful letter to the editor, please post if you get a response.
Other Comments by ergaster
40. Comment #68542 by scottishgeologist on September 7, 2007 at 1:48 pm
you know, the more I read this sort of article, the more I am convinced, you know, we might just be winning.... coz we've certainly got them rattled, that's for sure.SG
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
41. Comment #68549 by Major Bloodnok on September 7, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Yeesh. There's some sloppy thinking around over there. At times like this I resort to the "Easter Bunny" transform - simply replace references to "god" with "Easter Bunny" and see if the argument still hangs together. For example:Where is Dawkins' evidence that there is no god? As with every theory (whether it's atheism or religion) you need evidence to back it up and I haven't noticed Dawkins giving either of these. Why should a 'godbotherer' have to justify and explain his beliefs but an atheist doesn't? Simply saying "it's a ridiculous archaic belief system" is not an explanation - as Bunting said, it's a childish answer.
transformed, becomes:
Where is Dawkins' evidence that there is no Easter Bunny? As with every theory (whether it's abunnyism or bunnyism) you need evidence to back it up and I haven't noticed Dawkins giving either of these. Why should a 'bunnybotherer' have to justify and explain his beliefs but an abunnyist doesn't? Simply saying "it's a ridiculous archaic belief system" is not an explanation - as Bunting said, it's a childish answer.
Other Comments by Major Bloodnok
42. Comment #68550 by crazy4blues on September 7, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Bunting seems to have adopted the one tactic any loser in a debate ultimately resorts to: just lie. Look, we're so used to this in the US, it hardly seems remarkable. Conservatives have conflated politics and relgion (or is it the other way around?) so that, now, you have lies supported by other lies. Funny, there was that article in which RD exposed Cornwell's dishonesty, and Bunting cheerfully commits the same crime--as if knowing, like Cornwell, that an audience sympathetic to her simply cannot distinguish between fact and fiction! This is cynicism at its deepest.
Other Comments by crazy4blues
43. Comment #68553 by phasmagigas on September 7, 2007 at 3:10 pm
"quote We live in a crowded planet and bump into diversity in a way that no previous generation have ever done to the same extent: we have to increase our imaginations to grasp the enormous variety of human experience. Narrow certainties - wherever they come from - have unprecedented capacity to generate destruction."i'll agree, the people sat on the london bus that exploded got a rather rude 'bump into diversity'.
OK as small as that risk is I get sick of hearing these apologists remarks, the overall tone is something like 'dawkins just SHOULDNT be saying this stuff about religion'. Its almost like writing a book on atheism 'feels' like it should be criminal.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
44. Comment #68564 by ChrisMcL on September 7, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Nice. Dawkins is wrong because he is right. Wow. Bunting is an idiot.We in the West live farther away from a Hobbsean "state of nature" than ever before in human history. And, coincidently, Western Civilization is more secular than ever.
Bunting needs to back up her assertions with examples if she is going to make such ourageous claims as she does in this drivel.
Other Comments by ChrisMcL
45. Comment #68565 by Veronique on September 7, 2007 at 3:57 pm
OK, OK - I couldn't resist:-)Here is my comment to Madeleine's article:
I have noted before in my comments to articles written by Salley Vickers, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and others with regard to Dawkins' The God Delusion, that the 'shrillness' they perceive in Dawkins fades into insignificance against their own. Now we have Madeleine Bunting writing a very confused, shrill piece of polemic.
The words used by these three named women are very shrewish. They have lifted the tone of their articles to one of high screeching, as if their shouting will convince the rest of us to take them seriously. The aggression is all theirs. I have never seen aggression in Dawkins, Harris, Dennett or Onfray. Criticism and argument yes, and rightly so.
These religious apologists seem to want serious debate but are incapable of serving a considered opening round. I, like others, am starting to understand that instead of debate, they really want to highlight mendacious slander in an attempt to squash Dawkins' reasoned criticisms of religious dogma and its increasingly negative effect on education, foreign policy and critical thinking.
John Cornwell has proved the best at this tactic so far. He tells outright lies. Madeleine defends Cornwell and, in so doing, openly joins the ranks of those who tell lies for God.
I hope that what I see are the furious death throes of religious cant. I won't hold my breath, but my smile is getting wider by the minute.
There is no retreat from reason, Madeleine. Except, possibly, into a mental asylum.
Veronique
And now, back to gardening:-)
V
Other Comments by Veronique
46. Comment #68569 by Dr Benway on September 7, 2007 at 4:05 pm
My comment:I do not like:
- Honor killings
- Clitorectomies
- Gay bashing
- Theocracy
- Threats of hellfire
- "Of the Lord" verses "not of the Lord"
- Jihadis
- Reverence for authority
- Creationist science
- Anti-abortion vigilantes
- Religious bombings as performance art
- Anti-condom preachers
- Hypocritical televangelists
- Subjugation of women
- Fatwas on Rushdie
- Doctors on fire
Dawkins says we've been giving matters of faith a free ride for too long. If someone claims that God hates fags, for example, we ought to ask for evidence in support of that claim. By demanding evidence, we can set limits upon some of the irrationality promoted by believers. No evidence; no credibility.
I support Dawkins because I agree with him. My agreement doesn't make me a "follower" of Dawkins anymore than he might be a follower of me.
Is Dawkins arrogant, a womanizer, unable to carry a tune, bad at selecting wallpaper, or lazy about the washing up? I've no idea, and I don't see how personal jabs alter his point about faith. Faith, or belief without evidence, is not a sufficient justification for actions that harm people.
If the post-modernists feel this point about evidence is too pedestrian, I'm happy to hear what they might say to the fundamentalists instead.
BTW:
"Virus" is a metaphor for "meme."
Religious indoctrination of children before they're old enough to think critically violates their right of informed consent.
Dawkins would agree that religious stories are myths.
Strawmen make the baby Jesus cry.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
47. Comment #68574 by D'Arcy on September 7, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Is it really 10 years since Princess Diana died?Perhaps we should hang out the Bunting?
Other Comments by D'Arcy
48. Comment #68576 by nothing on September 7, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Is the human capacity for deception and self-deception endless?
Someone, please, tell me there's a good reason to be optimistic about the future of our species, 'cause I just can't find one.
Other Comments by nothing
49. Comment #68579 by Dr Benway on September 7, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Hehehe. How to get atheists to dogpile on someone: Say, "Look, the atheists are retreating!" There are, like, a gazillion responses to Ms. Bunting at the Guardian. I started to read 'em, but felt a headache coming on. There's only so much of the fray one can take.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
50. Comment #68584 by Theocrapcy on September 7, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I think Richard should consider changing tack when faced with such misrepresentations and remind his opponents and the audience exactly why they are there, and ask the antagonist thus:Ok, well we understand what you think of my ideas about god and religion, but let us stop for a minute and allow me to ask you this: what exactly do YOU believe?
It's about time we got some straight answers from faith-heads.
Other Comments by Theocrapcy
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:
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
God Is Not Great
Christopher Hitchens
Read the 1st Chapter!
Conciousness Explained
Daniel C. Dennett
God: The Failed Hypothesis
Victor J Stenger
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 #68422 by Konradius on September 7, 2007 at 6:47 am
First!And again a piece of complete and utter drivel. Apparently Bunting (what's in a name?) has never let any viewpoint challenge hers.
Other Comments by Konradius