Sermons and straw men
From Nature Magazine, Vol. 443, 26 October 20062. Comment #3141 by Jonathan Dore on October 25, 2006 at 10:27 pm
What's puzzling about reviews such as this, and Andrew Brown's in Prospect -- both presumably well-informed people sympathetic, as Krausse says here, to Dawkins's basic position -- is their complete absence of any sense of urgency about the rise of religious fanaticism and the steps that might be needed to combat it. They both seem wilfully to misunderstand who the book is aimed at, and give no hint that they recognize the rising tide of supernaturalism and increasing attacks on science to be real phenomena, with real political and social outcomes that demand real actions in response.3. Comment #3148 by Martin on October 26, 2006 at 12:39 am
I have to agree with Krauss on a lot of points.5. Comment #3163 by Clive Bradley on October 26, 2006 at 3:38 am
johnc6. Comment #3165 by Greywizard on October 26, 2006 at 3:44 am
I think Comment #3141 by Jonathan Dore is not only insightful, but crucial. The rise of religious fanaticisms, even at the heart of liberal Christian traditions (see 'A Loss of Faith', by Michael Hampson -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1923244,00.html) is cause for enormous concern. Reviewers address Dawkins book thinks that this whole debate is being carried out in a benign and polite way, when the issue is becoming one of global concern and indeed strife. This urgency is reflected in Dawkins' style and approach. It should not be considered a flaw.7. Comment #3166 by Greywizard on October 26, 2006 at 3:46 am
Or, correcting my own style. I think Comment #3141 by Jonathan Dore is not only insightful, but crucial. The rise of religious fanaticisms, even at the heart of liberal Christian traditions (see 'A Loss of Faith', by Michael Hampson -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1923244,00.html) is cause for enormous concern. Reviewers addressing Dawkins book seem to think that this whole debate is being carried out in a benign and polite way, when the issue is becoming one of global concern and indeed strife. This urgency is reflected in Dawkins' style and approach. It should not be considered a flaw.8. Comment #3203 by Diplo on October 26, 2006 at 10:21 am
"I don’t believe in Santa Claus, but I am not particularly proud of it. Indeed, I am rarely, if ever, proud of not believing in things."9. Comment #3216 by Michael on October 26, 2006 at 2:04 pm
I would also like to add that the consciousness raising that the reviewer was unaware of was emphatically not one of extolling the virtues of science to the public. But instead that sometimes you need a sledgehammer to do it.11. Comment #3219 by Anonymous on October 26, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Dr Krauss,12. Comment #3253 by Rieux on October 27, 2006 at 12:32 am
johnc wrote:13. Comment #3267 by maryhelena on October 27, 2006 at 3:57 am
“In the end, we should be fighting for a secular and humane society; if we achieve that the secular minds will follow. Dawkins is right in one sense, but he has process the wrong way around.”14. Comment #3269 by Martin on October 27, 2006 at 4:38 am
maryhelena,15. Comment #3271 by maryhelena on October 27, 2006 at 5:28 am
Before anyone decides that I’m writing nonsense…..16. Comment #3279 by William on October 27, 2006 at 6:28 am
Hi MaryHelena! I've read many of your posts in here - and I'm certain you believe in God. Good for you. I don't. I'll explain why:17. Comment #3282 by maryhelena on October 27, 2006 at 6:51 am
Hi, Martin18. Comment #3283 by maryhelena on October 27, 2006 at 6:55 am
Hi MaryHelena! I've read many of your posts in here - and I'm certain you believe in God. Good for you. I don't. I'll explain why:19. Comment #3302 by maryhelena on October 27, 2006 at 9:13 am
“You say that logic and reason has its place. I'd say that its place is ABOVE Religion, because Religious ideas/ doctrines/ texts are no way to live one's life in the 21st Century.20. Comment #3311 by Jonathan Dore on October 27, 2006 at 10:17 am
johnc writes:21. Comment #3316 by Widgetmaker on October 27, 2006 at 11:09 am
William,22. Comment #3321 by maryhelena on October 27, 2006 at 11:24 am
Jonathan wrote:23. Comment #3323 by maryhelena on October 27, 2006 at 11:27 am
William, no problem - things are not always what they seem to be......24. Comment #16827 by scooternyc on January 9, 2007 at 3:05 am
25. Comment #16832 by JohnC on January 9, 2007 at 4:27 am
Having worked as a therapist with the substance abuse/addiction community, I can tell you that the 'constant questioning of intelligence' of those who are addicted in order to support their breakdown of denial is quite useful.
1. Comment #3125 by Nebularry on October 25, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Mr. Krauss makes an interesting observation. He says:"I wish that Dawkins, who has a gift for making science — in particular, evolutionary biology — both exciting and understandable to a broad audience, had continued to play to his strengths, which are desperately needed now more than ever as we confront growing attacks on the teaching of evolution, not just in the United States but in the UK and Europe."
There is no doubt that Dawkins is widely respected for his science writing. As I see it, in "The God Delusion" he has turned the coin to the other side, so to speak, and written about things which may not be his strength. Nevertheless, they are things about which he is genuinely concerned and which should concern us all.
Perhaps it is high time that more scientists thought about God and religion and the gross damage arrogant religious certitude does in the world.