Monday, April 14, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Religious education as a part of literary culture

by Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

(This excerpt was posted as a reference for those reading the recent article from the Guardian by Mark Ravenhill)

Buy it in paperback on Amazon.com

(From Chapter 9 of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins)

I must admit that even I am a little taken aback at the biblical ignorance commonly displayed by people educated in more recent decades than I was. Or maybe it isn't a decade thing. As long ago as 1954, according to Robert Hinde in his thoughtful book, Why Gods Persist, a Gallup Poll in the United States of America found the following. Three quarters of Catholics and Protestants could not name a single Old Testament prophet. More than two thirds didn't know who preached the Sermon on the Mount. A substantial number thought that Moses was one of Jesus's twelve apostles. That, to repeat, was in the United States, which is notoriously more religious than other parts of the developed world.

The King James Authorized English translation includes passages of outstanding literary merit in its own right, for example the Song of Songs and the sublime Ecclesiastes. But the main reason the Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source book for literary culture. The same applies to the legends of the Greek and Roman gods, and we learn about them without being asked to believe in them. Here is a quick list of biblical, or bible-inspired phrases or sentences which occur commonly in literary or conversational English, from great poetry to hackneyed cliché, from proverb to table talk.

Be fruitful and multiply � East of Eden � Adam's Rib � Am I my brother's keeper? � The mark of Cain � As old as Methuselah � A mess of potage � Sold his birthright � Jacob's ladder � Coat of many colours � Amid the alien corn � Eyeless in Gaza � The fat of the land � The fatted calf � Stranger in a strange land � Burning bush � A land flowing with milk and honey � Let my people go � Flesh pots � An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth � Be sure your sin will find you out � The apple of his eye � The stars in their courses � Butter in a lordly dish � The hosts of Midian � Shibboleth � Out of the strong came forth sweetness � He smote them hip and thigh � Philistine � A man after his own heart � Like David and Jonathan � Passing the love of women � How are the mighty fallen? � Ewe lamb � Man of Belial � Jezebel � Queen of Sheba � Wisdom of Solomon � The half was not told me � Girded up his loins � Drew a bow at a venture � Job's comforters � The patience of Job � I am escaped with the skin of my teeth � The price of wisdom is above rubies � Leviathan � Go to the ant thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. � Spare the rod and spoil the child � A word in season � Vanity of vanities � To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose � The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong � Of making many books there is no end � I am the rose of Sharon � A garden inclosed � The little foxes � Many waters cannot quench love � Beat their swords into plowshares � Grind the faces of the poor � The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid � Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we shall die � Set thine house in order � A voice crying in the wilderness � No peace for the wicked � See eye to eye � Cut off out of the land of the living � Balm in Gilead � Can the leopard change his spots? � The parting of the ways � A Daniel in the lions' den � They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind � Sodom and Gomorrah � Man shall not live by bread alone � Get thee behind me Satan � The salt of the earth � Hide your light under a bushel � Turn the other cheek � Go the extra mile � Moth and rust doth corrupt � Cast your pearls before swine � Wolf in sheeps' clothing � Weeping and gnashing of teeth � Gadarene swine � New wine in old bottles � Shake off the dust of your feet � He that is not with me is against me � Judgment of Solomon � Fell upon stony ground � A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country � The crumbs from the table � Sign of the times � Den of thieves � Pharisee � Whited sepulchre � Wars and rumours of wars � Good and faithful servant � Separate the sheep from the goats � I wash my hands of it � The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath � Suffer the little children � The widow's mite � Physician heal thyself � Good Samaritan �Passed by on the other side � Grapes of wrath � Lost sheep � Prodigal son � A great gulf fixed � Whose shoe latchet I am not worthy to unloose � Cast the first stone � Jesus wept � Greater love hath no man than this � Doubting Thomas � Road to Damascus � A law unto himself � Through a glass darkly � Death, where is thy sting? � A thorn in the flesh � Fallen from grace � Filthy lucre � The root of all evil � Fight the good fight � All flesh is as grass � The weaker vessel � I am Alpha and Omega � Armageddon � De profundis � Quo vadis � Rain on the just and on the unjust

All of these idioms, phrases or clichés come directly from the King James Authorized translation of the Bible. Surely unfamiliarity with the Bible is bound to impoverish one's appreciation of English literature. And not just solemn and serious literature. The following rhyme by Lord Justice Bowen is ingeniously witty:

The rain it raineth on the just,

And also on the unjust fella.

But chiefly on the just, because

The unjust hath the just's umbrella.

But the enjoyment is muffled if you can't take the allusion to Matthew 5: 45 ("For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust"). Or, from My Fair Lady, the fine point of Eliza Dolittle's fantasy would escape anybody ignorant of John the Baptist's end:

"Thanks a lot, King," says I in a manner well bred,

"But all I want is 'Enry 'Iggins' 'ead."

P G Wodehouse is, for my money, the greatest writer of light comedy in the language, and I bet fully half my list of biblical phrases will be found as allusions within his pages. (A Google search will not find all of them, however. It will miss the derivation of the short story title, 'The Aunt and the Sluggard' from Proverbs 6: 6.) The Wodehouse canon is rich in other biblical phrases, not in my list above and not incorporated into the language as idioms or proverbs. Listen to Bertie Wooster's evocation of what it is like to wake up with a bad hangover:

I had been dreaming that some bounder was driving spikes through my head — not just ordinary spikes, as used by Jael the wife of Heber, but red-hot ones.

Bertie himself was immensely proud of his only scholastic achievement, the prize he once earned for scripture knowledge.

What is true of comic writing in English is more obviously true of serious literature. Naseeb Shaheen's tally of more than 1300 biblical references in Shakespeare's works is widely cited and very believable. The Bible Literacy Report published in Fairfax, Virginia (admittedly financed by the infamous Templeton Foundation) provides many examples, and cites overwhelming agreement by teachers of English literature that biblical literacy is essential to full appreciation of their subject. Doubtless the same is true of French, German, Russian, and other great European literatures. And, for speakers of Arabic and Indian languages, knowledge of the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita are presumably just as essential for full appreciation of their literary heritage. Finally, to round off the list, you can't appreciate Wagner (whose music, as has been wittily said, is better than it sounds) without knowing your way around the Norse gods.

Let me not labour the point. I have probably said enough to convince at least my older readers that an atheistic world view provides no justification for cutting the bible, and other sacred books, out of our education. I think the important thing to learn is that we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions of, say, Judaism, Anglicanism or Islam, and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals, without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions. We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage.

Read the first chapter of The God Delusion

Buy it in paperback on Amazon.com

Posted: Monday, April 14, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 126 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #160656 by AshtonBlack on April 14, 2008 at 8:59 am

Ah yes, I assume this is in response to the "piece" in the Guardian?

If only he'd read this chapter before laying into the prof.

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

2. Comment #160680 by Incredulous on April 14, 2008 at 9:18 am

Now I wish everyone would just shut up about atheism and its supposed drive to derive the world of its literary or artistic heritage. This just aint so!

As a lover of the classics and the arts generally myself, I find it a real insult for someone to infer I'm some kind of destructive philistine because I expect evidence for my beliefs.

Oh please, give it a rest.

Other Comments by Incredulous

3. Comment #160700 by Linda on April 14, 2008 at 9:45 am

Richard Dawkins should from now forward be deemed the 'World's #1 Conscientious Objector to the spread of religious superstition'. Modifying the descriptor aids in raising the status of the cause and will be beneficial. Labeling Dawkins' work as that of a 'militant atheist' has negative connotations and should be discouraged. The thread that suggests that imaginary gods are the muses for artists offers a dated view of creativity. Back in earlier centuries working for clerics meant bread on the table for artists. Some clever creators used trickery to fool the priests but alas not everyone has Leonardo's intelligence. We should note that contemporary 20th Century art is almost entirely devoid of feigned or otherwise devotion to gods thanks to our hard fought for rights of free speech.

As to the references to the bible in 'Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art' I would strongly urge parents to not read bible stories to children as those narratives are rife with patriarchal misogyny, cruelty, slavery, murder and incest. That kind of material is best left for consumption by consenting adults.

Other Comments by Linda

4. Comment #160704 by Godless on April 14, 2008 at 9:56 am

Yet even so... even with an ideal education teaching an 'objective' view of religious facts and their influence on arts and literature.

Is there not a danger of 'delusionary seepage'?

Meaning that, too much focus on 'religious' facts, coupled with creative forms of 'thinking' as is often the case in the arts, without the appropriate amount of critical thought, could encourage, rather than dissuade, the faith-based susceptibility of our natures - or some peoples natures at any rate. At least many who would be curious to take the leap into conversion for the sake of understanding perhaps. Thinking in the arts is a different form of thinking than in the sciences after all. If it can accurately be described as thinking.

We are human. Some more susceptible to faith-headedness than others. Often human beings are not aware of the affect such concepts and ideas can have on us over time with great exposure. Most people tend to revel in the arts at the expense of other critical subjects. This hypothetical specialized curriculum may be more trouble, meaning faith inducing and inadvertantly supporting, than what its worth. Certainly a well rounded education with plenty of critical/skeptical bolstering is just as necessary, and I'm sure Richard would agree, assumed.

When was religious many a year ago, I derived much of my spiritual sustanance from arts and literature.

Other Comments by Godless

5. Comment #160706 by lozzer on April 14, 2008 at 9:57 am

I love religious literature and art.And personally i find there nothing more beautiful than Gothic spire churches and Cathedrals in England.
Sadly i can't say the same for Mosques.Ugly things they are.

Other Comments by lozzer

6. Comment #160707 by Star Spangled Eagle on April 14, 2008 at 10:00 am

I'm glad Richard is always on his game because people constantly seem to miss the point. Richard has made this clear time and time again, just about every event I've heard or seen him speak in, when he advocates dropping the supernatural aspects of religion(s) yet still embracing cultural and literary elements. Nobody believes in Zeus or Thor, but we still read the stories about them; we treasure those moments in history- we don't embrace the belief in them, yet, we don't forget them! Why does this get dropped when people attack? If you're a journalist, you should read the material before writing your attack. It's only a suggestion, it's not my competency in question.

Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle

7. Comment #160716 by Teratornis on April 14, 2008 at 10:09 am

P G Wodehouse is, for my money, the greatest writer of light comedy in the language, and I bet fully half my list of biblical phrases will be found as allusions within his pages. (A Google search will not find all of them, however. It will miss the derivation of the short story title, 'The Aunt and the Sluggard' from Proverbs 6: 6.)

The parenthetical remark may be slightly incorrect now, as someone put up a Web page explaining that very allusion, which Google finds as the top result with these presumably reasonable search keywords (using the literal "ant" rather than the punnish "aunt"):

ant sluggard wodehouse
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ant sluggard wodehouse&btnG=Search

A Google search on only a raw corpus of Wodehouse's work might have trouble finding allusions containing puns rather than strictly literal Bible quotations, but the Web also contains growing numbers of commentary pages.

Of course the results one finds depend on how one searches, because Google is only a syntactical search engine so far; it has no semantic understanding, i.e., it doesn't know how to determine what one is really searching for, the way a smart human researcher could.

However, Google has lots of money and lots of smart people working very hard to write programs which can search as well as smart human researcher. The online search market is extremely lucrative, thanks to Google's ingenious scheme for unobtrusively monetizing it with advertisements. The resulting intense competition has made online search the field for practical innovation. Build a better search engine, and eyeballs will come. Where the eyeballs go, so goes the money. Lots of money.

User-editable sites such as Wikipedia encourage users to dream up ways to make lists of any sort of information that might be useful to collate. Such as, for example, a list of all Biblical allusions by P.G. Wodehouse.

A glance at the Wikipedia article on Wodehouse shows no such list on Wikipedia itself (yet), but there is a link to an external site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._G._Wodehouse

http://wodehouse-bible.com/
Biblia Wodehousiana: biblical quotations and allusions inventory

Humor does tend to lose its punch when one has to rely on commentaries and have all the jokes highlighted and explained. This is an inescapable occupational hazard for the humorist. I'd say the burden is on the writer to pick the most durable subset of shared cultural background, assuming the writer cares about being remembered long after death.

We can expect science to hang around longer than the Bible, so the humorist aspiring for immortality might do better to write in the vein of the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

http://www.jir.com/

Other Comments by Teratornis

8. Comment #160720 by ~manic-depressive on April 14, 2008 at 10:15 am

Thank you Professor.

I wonder when we can expect an apology from Mark Ravenhill.

Or can we safely assume that the Guardian no longer considers knowledge a prerequisite for journalists writing for their paper?

Other Comments by ~manic-depressive

9. Comment #160727 by Cartomancer on April 14, 2008 at 10:23 am

Hear hear! Without some knowledge of bible stories (and, admittedly, the reputations of particular Oxford colleges) nobody would understand my regular Tuesday night pub quiz team's name either...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

10. Comment #160731 by toddaa on April 14, 2008 at 10:29 am

Your confusion is due to the fact that there are two versions of the God Delusion. One can be found in many fine bookstores everywhere, and the other can be found in the poor imagination of people who with reading comprehension problems. Sadly, it's that second one that appears to be the more popular version.

For your next book, I recommend a how to guide on the proper operation of a book.

Other Comments by toddaa

11. Comment #160736 by robotaholic on April 14, 2008 at 10:35 am

what about people like myself who DON'T think that christian'art' is so great- I don't like seeing fat naked or half naked women- everytime I see the work of some 'great' painter I think oh great another fat naked woman or another jesus - just my two cents

oh and

The Bible - as literature, if nothing else - should be an essential part of every child's experience.

I think it shouldn't. As long as people keep saying "oh it's part of the historical culture...and you must know about the bible and what it says to appreciate the context of alot of our history" then it will be true that you must... We should just drop it like the plague if you ask me.

Other Comments by robotaholic

12. Comment #160747 by thyrsis1971 on April 14, 2008 at 11:01 am

*Sigh*. As ever, Professor Dawkins' rebuttal is better than http://skiingmountimprobable.blogspot.com/2008/04/mark-ravenscroft-doesnt-understand.html">mine - largely because he'd already written it in TGD. Thanks for the reminder - time to go back and re-read.

I must wholeheartedly agree about liking Wodehouse - scriptural allusions and all - too. I'm sure that Bertie Wooster's only genuine effort at anything in life was the work it took to win that Prize in Scripture Knowledge.

Other Comments by thyrsis1971

13. Comment #160760 by Tumara Baap on April 14, 2008 at 11:22 am

All very well. But the Guardian article seemed to go a step beyond advocating appreciation of religious works for their literary value; that religion itself is a wellspring for the inspiration of art.

I'm curious what the author of Shalimar the Clown (atheist Rushdie) would have to say about this.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

14. Comment #160761 by Wosret on April 14, 2008 at 11:23 am

what about people like myself who DON'T think that christian'art' is so great- I don't like seeing fat naked or half naked women- everytime I see the work of some 'great' painter I think oh great another fat naked woman or another jesus - just my two cents

Well clearly you should avoid it like everything else you avoid because you don't personally like it. Surely you don't mean to imply it should be done away with because you don't like "seeing fat naked or half naked women".

As long as people keep saying "oh it's part of the historical culture...and you must know about the bible and what it says to appreciate the context of alot of our history" then it will be true that you must.

No...I think for as long as it is true, it will be true.

Surely we can't do away with any literature, especially literature that has had such a profound and lasting effect on our literary history.

Other Comments by Wosret

15. Comment #160767 by Spinoza on April 14, 2008 at 11:27 am

Robotaholic, spoken like a true engineer.

You weren't a reader as a child, were you?

Other Comments by Spinoza

16. Comment #160770 by STLstrike3 on April 14, 2008 at 11:29 am

A wikipedia entry on Zeus describes him as:

"(A character) in Greek mythology (who) is the king of the gods, the ruler of Mount Olympus, and the god of the sky and thunder."

A wikipedia entry on Jesus describes him as:

"... the central figure of Christianity, revered by most Christians as the incarnation of God, and is also an important figure in several other religions."

While I appreciate that the entry doesn't say (although I'm sure it's been hacked many times) "is the Son of Our Heavenly Father," note the syntax.

Teachers refer to Zeus and Apollo as gods in Greek mythology. Our consciousness has not been sufficiently raised, although it desperately needs to be, to refer to Jesus Christ as a god in Christian mythology.

Either that, or respect those (and I'm sure there are a few) individuals who still worship Zeus as a god in the Grecian faith.

Other Comments by STLstrike3

17. Comment #160774 by Teratornis on April 14, 2008 at 11:35 am

Comment #160736 by robotaholic:

I think it shouldn't. As long as people keep saying "oh it's part of the historical culture...and you must know about the bible and what it says to appreciate the context of alot of our history" then it will be true that you must... We should just drop it like the plague if you ask me.

When people claim:

"and you must know about the bible and what it says to appreciate the context of a lot of our history"

they seem to assume future generations will struggle to make do with the limitations of paper, just as past generations did. Because paper is such a weak and static medium for information, the reader must bring to bear substantial background knowledge to understand all the references, allusions, and jargon which might appear on a page. This limits the audience which can efficiently use a given piece of printing, to those readers who happen to share whatever common knowledge the author assumed. Everyone else will either miss the subtle allusions completely, or will have to juggle the book with other reference works to track them all down.

I hope the next generation of humans, or perhaps the generation after that, will be smart enough to throw off the shackles of paper and stop punishing themselves with obsolete technology.

Returning to the passage from Dawkins I quoted earlier:

Even with almost no knowledge of Wodehouse, I needed only a few seconds to look up his article on Wikipedia and find the external link to the site which compiles his biblical allusions. Because The God Delusion is a fixed snapshot of one author's thinking at one point in time, readers cannot add in their helpful bits, such as by linking Dawkins' speculation about the number of Wodehouse's biblical allusions to the site which claims to list them exhaustively. Thus we are chopping down trees to print books which rob readers of this kind of extra value.

Paper is a flat text medium, best suited for reading in serial order, from start to finish. While this is fine in many cases, an allusion by its nature is not flat. It is, instead, an implied hyperlink in an implied hypertext medium.

In a world where paper is the only option for writers, hypertext consists of paper plus the reader's associative memory. That is, the reader must already have a web of information in his head, otherwise he can't follow the implied hyperlinks on the flat paper document.

Obviously only a limited number of people will have built up the same web of information in their heads that the writer carries around in hers, so the writer who only uses paper will limit her reach and effectiveness.

Hypertext solves this problem by allowing any work to link into a vast web of information (namely, the entire World Wide Web) which overwhelmingly exceeds what any one person could hope to carry around in his head. Even when one does understand a particular allusion, usually one does not know everything there is to know about it yet - for example, what other great writers have used this particular allusion, and in what contexts?

Rather than teach children to read the Bible, specifically, why not just encourage children to explore the web of information, and more importantly to help build the web, pursuing whatever they find interesting? Where they happen to run across Biblical references that strike them as worthwhile, they can click their links and see what they're about.

And, of course, people will be drawn to online communities, and those which use powerful markup languages (e.g., wikitext) will encourage their users to link their jargon and allusions to suggest further material for their readers.

Paper is certainly an improvement over the oral tradition, but paper is not nearly the final word in information technology. We can do much, much better, and then we won't have to march children through so much compulsory cultural background information (most of which won't be useful to most of them) - instead we can let children explore the web freely and pick up the background they need as they go. Learning anything is easier when it is personally relevant at the time, rather than to be marched through a bunch of material whose need isn't at all obvious yet. No wonder so many children suffer from "attention deficit disorder"! Curiosity by its nature defies regimentation.

Other Comments by Teratornis

18. Comment #160776 by PLAYBALL on April 14, 2008 at 11:37 am

robotaholic:

I think it shouldn't. As long as people keep saying "oh it's part of the historical culture...and you must know about the bible and what it says to appreciate the context of a lot of our history" then it will be true that you must... We should just drop it like the plague if you ask me.

I completely agree. The one thing I did get out of reading the
Bible is a reason to feel grateful that I wasn't living back then. It was a boring read, or maybe there is just something missing in me that I can't appreciate it.

I just finished The Republic. It was excellent. I wish I was encouraged to read books like that instead.

Other Comments by PLAYBALL

19. Comment #160797 by Vaal on April 14, 2008 at 11:51 am

Richard, does it not infuriate you the way you are constantly misrepresented? It is bad enough from apologists such as David Robertson, but from articles in the Guardian, and other mainstream newspapers.

I admire your restraint.

Other Comments by Vaal

20. Comment #160804 by Wosret on April 14, 2008 at 12:10 pm

I saw RD get blasted on CBC yesterday morning, calling him an "atheist fundementalist" and an "absolutist" and such. They brought on Chris Hedges to set up some straw-men for them to embrace. It was rather infuriating.

Other Comments by Wosret

21. Comment #160810 by Teratornis on April 14, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Comment #160776 by PLAYBALL:

I just finished The Republic. It was excellent. I wish I was encouraged to read books like that instead.

That's an excellent start. Now there are only 137 more essential authors to go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books#Sample_list

This is why I want to live forever. Having to die before I have enough time to get through all the good stuff, let alone maybe think about contributing something, is annoying.

Another option would be to speed up our minds. Imagine being able to experience a whole life's worth of thought in one second. Then a year would start to look like a reasonable amount of time.

Other Comments by Teratornis

22. Comment #160814 by Steve Zara on April 14, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Comment #160774 by Teratornis

I hope the next generation of humans, or perhaps the generation after that, will be smart enough to throw off the shackles of paper and stop punishing themselves with obsolete technology.

I find it ironic that someone who worries so much about energy resources wishes to do away with a wonderful almost zero-energy method of preserving information and allowing it to be read.

Books are beautiful, and important.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

23. Comment #160823 by Teratornis on April 14, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Comment #160797 by Vaal:

Richard, does it not infuriate you the way you are constantly misrepresented?

Does the lion feel infuriated when occasionally a cape buffalo fights back? For a lion, getting gored or trampled now and then by one's intended lunch is an occupational hazard.

When Richard calls God a "Delusion" he is implicitly predicting the sort of reaction he will draw.

By demonstrating their rejection of reason with their responses, Richard's opponents make his case for him. Richard says only illogical people believe in God, and they oblige him by providing the experimental evidence.

Of course to drive that lesson home, we should annotate all the illogical responses to show exactly where and how they depart from facts and logic. Only a small percentage of people could probably work all that out on their own.

It is bad enough from apologists such as David Robertson, but from articles in the Guardian, and other mainstream newspapers.

I admire your restraint.

Richard married a movie star and he hobnobs regularly with show-biz types. Surely Richard of all people understands the slogan, "There's no such thing as bad publicity."

I don't think Richard's goal in writing TGD was to get all the religious people he calls "deluded" to fawn all over him. If you want people to like you, then you reinforce their beliefs. (As George Monbiot, no stranger to controversy himself, says on his site, "Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.")

Rather, the polemicist's goal is to stir the pot and get people asking questions. Richard certainly has put the question of God's existence on the table, along with quite a number of related questions.

The reaction of theists to this unwelcome intrusion on their sacrosanct turf is not unlike the reaction of a cozy clique of industrialists who are getting their first taste of foreign competition. They will use all available means to defend their turf, and if the truth isn't working for them at the moment, they will abandon it for whatever does work.

Other Comments by Teratornis

24. Comment #160826 by Koreman on April 14, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Religion might be gaining some ground because of internet.

Other Comments by Koreman

25. Comment #160837 by cynthax on April 14, 2008 at 1:03 pm

I'm one more person in disagreement with Robotaholic. Do you also think we should get rid of Roman, Greek, Norse etc mythology writings? Should we rename all planets and constellations? I think as long as it is clearly identified as a document reflecting some people's beliefs at a certain time in history, the Bible can stay around. As for art and stuff, it's hard to believe that anyone who visits the Vatican museum, for example, can leave without being impressed by Christian art (in spite of the vine leaves that they put over any body part they don't want shown!).
Maybe you mean that we're too close to the Bible and Christianity to be able to look at it impartially as we do with classical Romans, Greeks, and Norse. Is that it?
And Teratornis, I don't think books are obsolete at all! The thing I look at first in people's homes is their bookshelf! Digital media cannot beat the beauty of a bookshelf! But then, maybe I am the one who's getting obsolete...

Other Comments by cynthax

26. Comment #160845 by Chris Jackson on April 14, 2008 at 1:24 pm

I agree with Cynthax, whilst I'm not all that fond of the Bible, it serves as a useful accretion of Bronze-age myths that might otherwise have been lost. Whilst it may seem easier to try and sweep away any religious writings or religiously-inspired texts, it's important to remember that, for the majority of human history, the vast majority of people were deeply religious. To deny access to religious works to schoolchildren would be to deny an enormous amount of our cultural and intellectual history.

I don't think that the current state of affairs (Biblical myth being passed off as authentic history) should be allowed to continue, but certainly, a wide ranging education in a variety of religious sources could only bring about a more informed and less dogmatic generation of schoolchildren. No one is asking children to believe on the ridiculous catalogue of bunkum that makes up religion, but certainly an understanding of biblical texts (for allegorical purposes) would serve to benefit anyone wishing to read the great literary classics.

As a side note, without the background of early, intolerant Christianity, the world might never of heard of Prophyry or Celsus, my two favourite classical writers.

Other Comments by Chris Jackson

27. Comment #160849 by Sally Luxmoore on April 14, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Well said, chaps.

Now, about that 'Secular Army' - how do we join it?
Is it like Dumbledore's Army? Do we meet in secret? Will we learn new spells? Where's the Room of Requirement?

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

28. Comment #160850 by Teratornis on April 14, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Comment #160814 by Steve Zara:

I find it ironic that someone who worries so much about energy resources

The world is rich with irony, such as to read impassioned defenses of paper coming from people with prodigious online posting volumes. If you love books so much, why not go spend all day in libraries with them?

Actually I am not so much worried about energy as I am worried that hardly anybody else seems to worry about it. As Matthew Simmons says, "If global warming is a three on a scale of one to ten, peak oil is a twelve." Peak oil isn't receiving one percent of the attention, and it's already starting to unfold upon us.

If everybody knew what I know, and behaved accordingly, we would have no energy problems. Instead everybody I know carries on as if there is no energy problem, and that is the problem.

The world has more than enough energy resources to sustain billions of people, more or less indefinitely, in the kind of lifestyle I find completely satisfying.

The world does not, however, have nearly enough energy resources to sustain the gargantuanly wasteful lifestyles that most people can't seem to imagine doing without - needing to surround themselves with massive energy-intensive artifacts, and to tickle their brains by repeatedly dissipating vast energies to move information by dragging themselves around.

And, of course, people insist on heating entire buildings in winter instead of just their bodies.

wishes to do away with a wonderful almost zero-energy method of preserving information and allowing it to be read.

I wonder how long it would take, using only books, to look this up helpful page that lets us discuss this topic as if we know what we are talking about:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/carbon_emissions/paper.html
Carbon Emissions in the Paper Industry

To call paper "zero energy" one has to deliberately overlook the manufacture, distribution, and care of paper. Paper is one of the most energy-consuming industries we have.

Not only does paper burn vast energies to come into being, once we surround ourselves with a blizzard of paper, we must then organize the great heaping masses of it in large centralized office buildings, which workers must then physically commute to every day.

Please read this sentence over and over again until its full implications sink in:

Paper is one of the main obstacles to telecommuting.

As long as people continue to use paper as the medium for information exchange, they will also feel they must have cars. Thus paper reinforces the catastrophically wasteful behavior pattern that is about to run civilization straight over the cliff.

In contrast, Moore's law continues to drive down the energy cost of computing.

If Moore's law continues long enough, eventually we could each carry around a complete library of all human knowledge, accessible via self-contained contact lens displays, or perhaps microscopic brain implants, drawing just milliwatts or microwatts.

In the meantime, the energy requirements of paper will not decrease appreciably, while the monetary cost of that energy will continue to rise. At some point the market will motivate people to do what they should have had the good sense to do years ago - get rid of paper.

I just hope humans can get rid of paper while there is still time to avoid collapse.

Books are beautiful, and important.

And high-maintenance, much like lots of other beautiful important things.

Paper is like a trophy wife. Nice to look at, but far from free, if you insist on having the real thing.

Lots of things are beautiful, and then along come things of still greater beauty. I'm all for preserving beautiful artifacts in museums (although paper was never meant to be a durable artifact). Childen should be able to see the clumsy tools their ancestors had to use, but forcing them to use the stuff borders on child abuse (or, more properly, neglect). For example, the Wright Flyer was impressive for its time, but by today's standards it's a slow, unreliable deathtrap. Of course even the state-of-the-art airliner of today is soon for the recyling bin, given the looming and progressively more dire shortage of liquid fuels being brought on by the ongoing mass-delusion insistence on behaving as if petroleum resources are inexaustible.

Other Comments by Teratornis

29. Comment #160870 by emmet on April 14, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Robotaholic, spoken like a true engineer.

Oi! Spinoza! *blows whistle* Yellow card!

:o)

We'll have less of your stereotyping engineers, thanks. Someone says they don't like a particular kind of art and that makes them an engineer? I'm an engineer who's spent more than his fair share of time in art galleries and I resent the insinuation that my profession makes me some kind of cultural Philistine.

I'm not a culture vulture, I admit, but someone saying they don't like a particular kind of art doesn't allow one to infer their profession. If someone says "Unmade Bed" is execrable (and Tracy Emin generally), what does that make him? A diesel fitter, perhaps? What if cubism doesn't blow his skirt up? Maybe a lawyer? If I think that every painter who ever held a brush did an "Ecce Homo" and most of them are pretty unremarkable, does that make me an accountant?

All of the above to be read in Michael Palin's "Parrot Sketch" accent.

Other Comments by emmet

30. Comment #160871 by Teratornis on April 14, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Comment #160837 by cynthax:

As for art and stuff, it's hard to believe that anyone who visits the Vatican museum, for example, can leave without being impressed by Christian art (in spite of the vine leaves that they put over any body part they don't want shown!).

It's hard for most people to imagine their subjective tastes are not universal.

It would be nice if the educational system could at least make sure every student emerges with some grasp of the diversity of subjective tastes.

Maybe you mean that we're too close to the Bible and Christianity to be able to look at it impartially as we do with classical Romans, Greeks, and Norse. Is that it?

As a southerner in my country might say, we still have a dog in that fight. Or might have said, before that particular bloodsport became a felony.

Speaking of the southern U.S., we have all sorts of ongoing controversies about state symbols and emblems that feature the Confederate flag and other trappings of old south. It seems a number of African-Americans find these cultural allusions deeply offensive, since the practice of slavery was central to the old south.

No debate is complete without an argumentum ad Hitlerum. Therefore, how much should we teach children about the rich culture of the Third Reich, so they can understand their Hitler allusions?

And Teratornis, I don't think books are obsolete at all! The thing I look at first in people's homes is their bookshelf!

I agree that bookshelves remain a useful metric for evaluating a person's obsolescence. Much as would a person's collection of medieval weaponry.

Digital media cannot beat the beauty of a bookshelf!

So make digital media better. You can do that. Plus, you can appreciate the beauty of digital media from anywhere, not just from people who happen to live in sufficiently close proximity to show you their bookshelves.

I suppose you're also overlooking the cows and trees which gave their lives to create the beauty of those leatherbound volumes.

Personally, I think live trees look better than dead trees, but who is asking me?

I'm not ideologically opposed to leather, but I'd rather wear small amounts of it than leave larger amounts sitting on a shelf.

But then, maybe I am the one who's getting obsolete...

People have always found beauty and ways to create more. Also beware of the endowment effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect

People tend to become irrationally attached to whatever they grew up with, even when better stuff appears. This is why children are more computerized than their parents just now, for example.

Eventually the last booklovers will be doddering away in the retirement homes. Assuming there will still be retirement homes after petrocollapse.

Other Comments by Teratornis

31. Comment #160880 by D'Arcy on April 14, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Wolf in sheeps' clothing

Biblical origin eh? I could have sworn that came from Little Red Riding Hood.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

32. Comment #160893 by yussel123 on April 14, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Dear Professor Dawkins:

I am also taken aback by the ignorance of those educated in recent decades (or even earlier) with regard to the Bible. A true appreciation of the Bible requires one to be able to read it in the Hebrew/Aramaic in which it was written. The english translations used in the Christian world are colored by theological prejudices. A really good understanding of the Bible would not only require knowledge of the original languages, but would also require familiarity with the Talmud, Midrashim and the principal medieval commentaries (Rashi, Rashbam, Nachmanides, to name three)

Other Comments by yussel123

33. Comment #160902 by PLAYBALL on April 14, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Comment #160810 by Teratornis

That's an excellent start. Now there are only 137 more essential authors to go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books#Sample_list

This is why I want to live forever. Having to die before I have enough time to get through all the good stuff, let alone maybe think about contributing something, is annoying.

Another option would be to speed up our minds. Imagine being able to experience a whole life's worth of thought in one second. Then a year would start to look like a reasonable amount of time.

Uh, ok. That's a pretty ambitious list. Teratornis, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out after reading a few of my post that I'm not exactly a mental giant. That's why I love this site. I've learned more here in the last year and a half than I did in college. But to be fair, I don't think I really paid much attention to anything other than my wardrobe until recently. So I've traded in my Vogue for a subscription to Skeptic. I didn't realize how sexy smart is.

Anyway, thanks for your encouragement. You're sweet!

Comment #160850 by Teratornis

To call paper "zero energy" one has to deliberately overlook the manufacture, distribution, and care of paper. Paper is one of the most energy-consuming industries we have.

I was certain you would catch this and you did.

Other Comments by PLAYBALL

34. Comment #160906 by Eric Blair on April 14, 2008 at 2:33 pm

The author of the Guardian article and Dawkins apparently agree on the aesthetic and anthropological value of studying religion, as many here have noted.

But what is the chance that kids wil actually study the Bible in school, before college or university. Even high school comparative religion courses are more likely to be based on someone's summary of the great religions, not actual texts. One can imagine the furor if schools suddenly put the Bible on the reading list, after decades of building up walls to keep it out.

Will we see the professor waving a placard reading "Study the Bible for art's sake"? T'would be a bizarre and ironic sight.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

35. Comment #160908 by robotaholic on April 14, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Spinoza I greatly accept the rebuke (in the words of Dawkins of course) I wish I could erase the memory of every kind of torturous read I've had forced on me about this nonsubject.

Mitchell Gilks I never said we should do away with the literature-
For someone who wants to 'preserve literary history' you surely don't know how to read-

And I stand by what I said, we shouldn't force feed children the bible or religious art, and I personaly don't give it as much respect as quite a few "culturally and literarily diverse" people.

Other Comments by robotaholic

36. Comment #160918 by robotaholic on April 14, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Let me not labour the point. I have probably said enough to convince at least my older readers that an atheistic world view provides no justification for cutting the bible, and other sacred books, out of our education.

Religion and belief in god is a disease. Why not just eradicate it from the source or at least one of it's sources - it's holy texts.

Other Comments by robotaholic

37. Comment #160951 by MelM on April 14, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Every time this topic comes up, I nearly panic for fear of what might happen.

Bible literacy Trojan horses
In the U.S., there are two main Trojan horse "Bible Literacy" programs for high schools. One says what its religious intentions are, right up front. The other is much slicker and digging is required, including looking at the founder's background. In an email reply to me, a textbook reviewer whose team--as part of their work--looks for and finds religion snuck into history books, informed me that the companion book for the slicker of the programs is an "outrageous fraud."

Fundies for Shakespeare? Give me a break.
There is no massive feeling of outrage from fundies because their kids can't read Shakespeare--the idea is ludicrous. The faithful are being enlisted to promote "Bible Literacy"; but, they don't give a rat's behind about Shakespeare or any other literature--except perhaps the "Left Behind" series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.

Prof Dawkins, please, please, please, do not get tricked into endorsing any of these "Bible Literacy" Trojan horse programs.

Other Comments by MelM

38. Comment #160961 by exquisitetruth on April 14, 2008 at 3:34 pm

This is one of the questions I try to touch on in my podcast. Personally, I appreciate the fact that our culture is deeply effected by the Christian tradition. But we are also deeply effected by Greek mythology. When people can come to see Jesus in the same light as Hercules, we will finally be able to address Christian history in a sensible context.

Other Comments by exquisitetruth

39. Comment #160966 by Cartomancer on April 14, 2008 at 3:44 pm

A true appreciation of the Bible requires one to be able to read it in the Hebrew/Aramaic in which it was written.

True if what you want to appreciate is the culture which gave rise to the work in the first place. If, however, you want to understand how it was received, interpreted and transformed - and the influence it had on the societies which used it - you need to look at the translations instead. Aquinas and Scotus did not use the original Hebrew bible - they used the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate of St. Jerome. Celsus and Porphyry used the Septuagint. Shakespeare used Tyndale's version. Milton used the King James...

That name plagues me even here...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

40. Comment #160977 by yussel123 on April 14, 2008 at 3:57 pm

To Cartomancer:

I agree. The point I wanted to make, however, is that to extent you (or your culture) do not make use of the primary sources, your understanding and, therefore, appreciation of the Bible is lacking. The effect it has on your culture is derivative, as it does not result from first-hand knowledge.

Other Comments by yussel123

41. Comment #160988 by TeapotTheist on April 14, 2008 at 4:21 pm

How much bible study actually goes on in schools today?

Other Comments by TeapotTheist

42. Comment #160991 by MelM on April 14, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Put the expressions in footnotes or a book.
There are lots of sayings and expressions in common use that didn't come from the Bible; anyone can find books of them on Amazon.com. So, why not put the Bible expressions and stories truely needed for English lit into a book. Or, why not put explanations needed for Shakespeare into editions of Shakespeare--foot notes or end notes etc. Even a companion to Shakespeare might be in order--perhaps also including some history or whatever else is needed to make the plays more understandable. (I like Henrik Ibsen anyway. I'm reminded to try looking for a good English edition again.) I have a great deal of trouble with the idea of giving the Bible to little kids or spending a half or full year course in high school.

At this point, I find the literary argument and the use of the Bible to understand history to be the only reasons to have anything to do with the disgusting book--I include the "Jesus Love" drivel so nicely trashed in the "Brick Testament". Future generations--at least for a few hundred years--will need to know about Genisis to understand the opposition to Darwin--for example. In a thousand years, perhaps only specialists will have a reason to be interested; the religious counter attack on Darwin will just be a footnote--Darwin will still be famous.

As for religious culture, I'm willing to give up every scrap of it. I will go to religious weddings and funerals but I only tolerate them; I don't like them. "Tradition" and "heritage" are not virtues.

Other Comments by MelM

43. Comment #161060 by Fuller on April 14, 2008 at 5:47 pm

The Professor should respond this way every time there's a (non) criticism of his work. Maybe that way people will eventually get the hint that they should read his work before they take cheap shots at it.

Other Comments by Fuller

44. Comment #161068 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 5:59 pm

24. Comment #160826 by Koreman

Religion might be gaining some ground because of internet.

No worries on that score; just the opposite, in fact.

Religions (or, more precisely, religious leaders) largely rely on keeping their adherents ignorant; the internet makes that more difficult for them.

It's a lot easier to ban books than it is to block educational websites.

Other Comments by Geoff

45. Comment #161089 by leigh on April 14, 2008 at 7:28 pm

RE: Comment # 17 by Teratornis
"Obviously only a limited number of people will have built up the same web of information in their heads that the writer carries around in hers, so the writer who only uses paper will limit her reach and effectiveness.

Hypertext solves this problem by allowing any work to link into a vast web of information (namely, the entire World Wide Web) which overwhelmingly exceeds what any one person could hope to carry around in his head. Even when one does understand a particular allusion, usually one does not know everything there is to know about it yet - for example, what other great writers have used this particular allusion, and in what contexts?"

I agree wholeheartedly with your post however I think for many authors and readers the fact that not all readers will understand or appreciate every allusion is precisely the point. (NB: I am not making this accusation at Professor Dawkins) The author and those readers familiar with the background of a particular allusion reinforce their sense of superiority at how clever and well read they are. Or similarly by making your poetry, song lyrics or post modernist essay sufficiently obscure as to be incomprehensible you may mask your actual lack of original thought.

Other Comments by leigh

46. Comment #161122 by Blake C. Stacey on April 14, 2008 at 8:57 pm

The comment system ate my comment the last time I tried to say anything on this thread, so I'll just copy-and-paste something I wrote in a discussion here last December:

Typically, one reads an assertion along the following lines: "There are umpty-ump references to the Bible in Shakespeare, so in order to understand our cultural heritage, we have to learn about the Bible." To which I say, read the footnotes!

How many of those Biblical allusions can be clarified with a sentence or two, down at the bottom of the page — or by Ken Branagh's acting and direction? Furthermore, Shakespeare was not a scholar, seeking out jots and tittles of theological nicety in order to win himself tenure. He wrote for people who had heard Bible stories, and thus he gave plenty of attention to the nasty bits ("O Jephthah, judge of Israel, what a treasure hadst thou!") in addition to folklore which isn't in the Bible at all ("they say the owl was a baker's daughter"), not to mention an encyclopaedia's worth of Greco-Roman mythology. For his voyages into "serious literature", did Shakespeare turn to Testamental themes? No, he penned poems called The Rape of Lucrece (Roman legend) and Venus and Adonis (Greek myth, filtered through Roman authors). To understand and appreciate in fullness the Bard of Avon, shouldn't we learn about Adonis in addition to Adonai? Even the argument for "cultural heritage" leads us to abandon bibliolatry.

Then, of course, there's the English history behind, well, all the English historical plays, from King Lear right the way through to Elizabeth's proud papa. I know that my own schoolbooks left the British Isles behind for most of that time period, focusing on Henry the Navigator while ignoring the Henry of Agincourt. The Wars of what Roses?

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2026,Happy-Newton-Day,Richard-Dawkins-New-Statesman,page2#99382

Bottom line: bibliolatry should not distort our view of what is actually necessary to understand history and culture.

Other Comments by Blake C. Stacey

47. Comment #161123 by Blake C. Stacey on April 14, 2008 at 9:04 pm

Come to think of it, you can't understand how Shakespeare or his audience saw the Bible by reading any of the translations in common circulation nowadays, anyway.

MelM said,

Or, why not put explanations needed for Shakespeare into editions of Shakespeare--foot notes or end notes etc. Even a companion to Shakespeare might be in order--perhaps also including some history or whatever else is needed to make the plays more understandable.

Most editions have such footnotes. In addition, Isaac Asimov wrote a companion of just that sort, called, naturally enough, Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare. I have a sentimental fondness for it.

Other Comments by Blake C. Stacey

48. Comment #161124 by robotaholic on April 14, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Blake I hate Shakespeare - I think he SUCKED and I didn't learn a single thing by reading him. Even the movies suck.

I agree with your bottom line for sure-

Other Comments by robotaholic

49. Comment #161139 by MelM on April 14, 2008 at 11:10 pm

#161122 by Blake C. Stacey
#161123 by Blake C. Stacey

Thanks for the informative comments. I've checked the Asimov book on Shakespeare and it looks quite valuable for providing the large context Asimov requires for Shakespeare. I'm impressed. This and annotated editions should allow English lit to remain alive without making the Bible a central component of a child's education for perhaps many years. For high school kids, I'd rather see a course in the history of philosophy; explicitly take up some of the big basic ideas--faith vs reason would be a requirement for inclusion.

http://www.amazon.com/Asimovs-Guide-Shakespeare-Understanding-Enjoying/dp/0517268256/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208237202&sr=1-1

So, with a guide and some footnotes, the problem looks headed for a solution without bibliolatry.

Edit: Surely, there's no need to immerse kids in a book of toxic woo woo that's helping to destroy the world. Ideas matter.

And what about the Greek plays? They're wonderful.
Henrik Ibsen too.

Other Comments by MelM

50. Comment #161160 by Grumpy Max on April 15, 2008 at 1:23 am