Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
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
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?
by Thomas Sutcliffe
Reposted from:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/thomas_sutcliffe/article3018390.ece
Listening to Start the Week yesterday I was startled to hear the theologian Karen Armstrong blaming Richard Dawkins for Islamic fundamentalism. She didn't put it quite like that, of course, but in the course of a passing remark about literalist interpretations of the Koran she made the point that this was a relatively new tradition in Islam and explicitly connected it with Dawkins' intellectual attacks on religion in general.
The implication seemed to be that if we could just get Professor Dawkins to pipe down then more hard-line Muslims would give up their intransigent views about evolution, among other things, and adopt a more Church of England approach to their Holy Book - treating it as a collection of useful parables and metaphors.
I have my doubts, to put it mildly, that any such mechanism exists - however unintentionally flattering it might be about Professor Dawkins' impact on world Islam. Sadly, I suspect Koranic fundamentalists are perfectly capable of coming up with their own follies without outside prompting.
I hope it isn't just an over-reaction anyway, because Professor Dawkins shows no signs of piping down, but has actually just expanded his sphere of operations - launching an organisation, the Out Campaign, which aims to act as a lobby group for bashful or sidelined atheists. Not big on faith in general, the Out Campaign does have one central belief - which is that atheists are far greater in number than is ever acknowledged in public policy or public debate.
I have a feeling this may be truer in the United States than it is here - where the balance of public embarrassment still broadly tilts against the publicly pious. That said I've been thoughtlessly guilty in the past of casually ticking the C of E box on application forms and census returns, thus falsely boosting the statistics for religious faith. I won't ever be doing that again - given how shameless the devout can be about enrolling even indifferent don't-knows into the fold. I might even buy one of the Out Campaign's scarlet letter T-shirts, on the characteristically British grounds that they are stylishly enigmatic enough not to thrust my allegiance into the face of passing strangers.
What I'm unsure about is whether such individual acts of witness can successfully transform themselves into a mass movement, as the Out Campaign clearly hopes. Because, if there is one battleground on which religion might be expected to continue to trump atheism it is that of collective ritual - the temporary suspension of individuality in communal celebration. Atheism has no problems, to my mind, in being more interesting than religion and absolutely no problems at all in being truer or more dignified. But it's quite hard for it to deliver an equivalent to the consoling satisfaction many people find in a church service or Friday prayers, in part because the withdrawal of false consolation is at its core.
Which has always presented a problem for the proselytising atheist. I find the uncertainties of atheism bracing, but "Come on in, the water's chilly" isn't going to appeal to everyone. I hope I'm wrong - and that the Out Campaign coaxes thousands of closet infidels into the light for a regular evensong of unbelief. In the meantime, perhaps Professor Dawkins can be held responsible only for the arguments he's actually put his name to, rather than those he's done everything to repudiate.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/thomas_sutcliffe/article3018390.ece
Listening to Start the Week yesterday I was startled to hear the theologian Karen Armstrong blaming Richard Dawkins for Islamic fundamentalism. She didn't put it quite like that, of course, but in the course of a passing remark about literalist interpretations of the Koran she made the point that this was a relatively new tradition in Islam and explicitly connected it with Dawkins' intellectual attacks on religion in general.
The implication seemed to be that if we could just get Professor Dawkins to pipe down then more hard-line Muslims would give up their intransigent views about evolution, among other things, and adopt a more Church of England approach to their Holy Book - treating it as a collection of useful parables and metaphors.
I have my doubts, to put it mildly, that any such mechanism exists - however unintentionally flattering it might be about Professor Dawkins' impact on world Islam. Sadly, I suspect Koranic fundamentalists are perfectly capable of coming up with their own follies without outside prompting.
I hope it isn't just an over-reaction anyway, because Professor Dawkins shows no signs of piping down, but has actually just expanded his sphere of operations - launching an organisation, the Out Campaign, which aims to act as a lobby group for bashful or sidelined atheists. Not big on faith in general, the Out Campaign does have one central belief - which is that atheists are far greater in number than is ever acknowledged in public policy or public debate.
I have a feeling this may be truer in the United States than it is here - where the balance of public embarrassment still broadly tilts against the publicly pious. That said I've been thoughtlessly guilty in the past of casually ticking the C of E box on application forms and census returns, thus falsely boosting the statistics for religious faith. I won't ever be doing that again - given how shameless the devout can be about enrolling even indifferent don't-knows into the fold. I might even buy one of the Out Campaign's scarlet letter T-shirts, on the characteristically British grounds that they are stylishly enigmatic enough not to thrust my allegiance into the face of passing strangers.
What I'm unsure about is whether such individual acts of witness can successfully transform themselves into a mass movement, as the Out Campaign clearly hopes. Because, if there is one battleground on which religion might be expected to continue to trump atheism it is that of collective ritual - the temporary suspension of individuality in communal celebration. Atheism has no problems, to my mind, in being more interesting than religion and absolutely no problems at all in being truer or more dignified. But it's quite hard for it to deliver an equivalent to the consoling satisfaction many people find in a church service or Friday prayers, in part because the withdrawal of false consolation is at its core.
Which has always presented a problem for the proselytising atheist. I find the uncertainties of atheism bracing, but "Come on in, the water's chilly" isn't going to appeal to everyone. I hope I'm wrong - and that the Out Campaign coaxes thousands of closet infidels into the light for a regular evensong of unbelief. In the meantime, perhaps Professor Dawkins can be held responsible only for the arguments he's actually put his name to, rather than those he's done everything to repudiate.
Comments 1 - 50 of 52 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #75106 by BAEOZ on October 1, 2007 at 8:45 pm
perhaps Professor Dawkins can be held responsible only for the arguments he's actually put his name to, rather than those he's done everything to repudiate.
Here, here.
[EDIT] That was meant to be "Hear, hear". Brain fade.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
3. Comment #75107 by Shuggy on October 1, 2007 at 8:46 pm
But it's quite hard for it to deliver an equivalent to the consoling satisfaction many people find in a church service or Friday prayers...I maintain that the consoling satisfaction of doing something, anything, together in a group, is one of the main things that keeps religions going. (And this makes football not too different from a religion.)
"Come on in, the water's chilly" isn't going to appeal to everyone.But "What they're doing together is really rather silly" has truth on its side.
In the 1980s I flirted on the edges of a variety of New Age spiritualities, and they had that appeal, and also a lot of related self-serving beliefs, of the "Everything is for the best" variety. In the nature of things, it's much easier to believe things that make you feel better, regardless of their truth value.
Other Comments by Shuggy
5. Comment #75143 by mmurray on October 1, 2007 at 11:13 pm
I maintain that the consoling satisfaction of doing something, anything, together in a group, is one of the main things that keeps religions going. (And this makes football not too different from a religion.)
I agree, except I suspect a lot more people watching football know that their `faith' is a bit of a pretend than do in a church. I guess that is partly due to the modern commercial football where club loyalty for players depends on the price. Maybe religion would be better if the rabbis, bishops, popes and imams all changed `team' regularly: `And rumours abound this week that Tehran Mosque has offered $2,000,000 for Ratzinger. Sources at the Vatican deny any such deal and are confident that Ratzinger intends to see out his contract .... '
On the whole it seems to me that football (and similar sports) are a useful safety valve for our genetically inherited tribalism. Of course it can go over board into football hooliganism and extreme right wing politics.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
6. Comment #75146 by Russell Blackford on October 1, 2007 at 11:26 pm
I'm trying to remember which of the Byzantine emperors it was who secured his position against popular unrest by sending his troops to massacre 30,000 citizens in one day ... in the hippodrome in Constantinople. It doesn't really matter. Whoever it was, damn that Dawkins for provoking it. Any other good examples of his perfidy?Edit: Ah, yes, Justinian of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots
A fascinating period. Those were the days when the Christian church really ran things ... and of course Dawkins was responsible for the persecutions, massacres, etc.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
7. Comment #75148 by BAEOZ on October 1, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Dawkins was seen near Mt. Vesuvius in A.D. 79. If only the inhabitants of Pompeii and Heracleum had taken note of this man. Other Comments by BAEOZ
8. Comment #75151 by epeeist on October 1, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Comment #75146 by Russell BlackfordWhoever it was, damn that Dawkins for provoking it. Any other good examples of his perfidy?
Beziers, 21st July 1209. RD was obviously an influence on the Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury when he said "Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"
Other Comments by epeeist
9. Comment #75152 by BAEOZ on October 1, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"Kill them! ....truly the Lord who are his? (my latin sucks)
Kill them (all)! The Lord will know his own?(a guess )
Other Comments by BAEOZ
10. Comment #75153 by BAEOZ on October 1, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Was that against those poor Cathars? Dawkins' evil knows no bounds I tell you. Other Comments by BAEOZ
11. Comment #75163 by Quetzalcoatl on October 2, 2007 at 12:37 am
A rumour on the Internet claims that Dawkins is responsible for the proliferation of nuclear weapons to hostile countries.He also kills puppies.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
12. Comment #75166 by Philip1978 on October 2, 2007 at 12:51 am
"Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own!"Bloody Cathars! Or was it Dawkins or Epeeist since he knows his Latin!! Heretic, I thought you were an Atheist but I see you speak Cathar!!hehehehe
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
13. Comment #75169 by drive1 on October 2, 2007 at 1:25 am
'Kubla Khan' was to contain the most profound and convincing proofs for the existence of the Prime Mover. I think we can all guess the identity of the 'person on business from Porlock' who broke Coleridge's concentration, thereby saving the Atheist movement from conceding defeat. For the time being, at any rate. Not naming names, but - thank you, Richard.
Other Comments by drive1
14. Comment #75171 by IJM on October 2, 2007 at 1:33 am
I recently lost a pair of nearly new and quite nice black socks in the wash, do you think..............?Other Comments by IJM
15. Comment #75173 by BAEOZ on October 2, 2007 at 1:38 am
drive1, Dawkins' has infected Pratchet?IJM, yes I do think. But then I may be paranoid, doesn't mean RD isn't the atheist antichrist. He's certainly an iconoclast and a naughty boy.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
16. Comment #75176 by Veronique on October 2, 2007 at 1:44 am
Careful you guys. The levity police will arrive onto this thread soon and you will all be doomed.Stock up on tea to handle the onslaught:-)
Hahahaha
V
Other Comments by Veronique
17. Comment #75177 by BAEOZ on October 2, 2007 at 1:45 am
Quetz:He also kills puppies.
He's apuppaeist? He hates dolls? Sorry, bad attempt at a joke based the latin word (puppa = doll, also the source for the word puppet) from which puppy is derived......It makes sense, dolls were once just little models of adults (still are if you think of Barbie, but not if you think of baby alive), thus a puppy dog would be a little model of an adult dog.....
OK, I'll have a beer and be quiet.
[EDIT] OK Barbie is a ridiculous guy fantasy of a woman. So is Pam Anderson if you think about it. Then again, let's not.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
18. Comment #75180 by onclepsycho on October 2, 2007 at 1:53 am
This is a good paper overall. But I'm rather tired of hearing atheists concede that their worldview might look "chilling", sad, individualistic or hopeless. It is not. We don't feel that way, so we have to frame it the other way round and stop thinking that people necessarily need these last refuges of consolation and "community celebration" and that they can be found only in churches.Other Comments by onclepsycho
19. Comment #75192 by IceFreak2000 on October 2, 2007 at 2:35 am
I was listening to "Start The Week" on Radio 4 yesterday morning while I was stuck in traffic on the M3, fighting my way into work and heard Karen Armstrong's outrageous assertion that due to the attacks of Richard Dawkins and others (her words) Muslims are increasingly taking the Qu'ran literally and are becoming creationists.I complained to the BBC as soon as I got into the office as Andrew Marr (an interviewer I normally have great respect for) allowed this inflammatory statement to pass with absolutely no challenge.
It is worth listening to the entire conversation as a classic example of wooly theological thinking (why is it that theological contains the word logical when it clearly isn't?)
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/stw/stw_20071001-1036.mp3
Other Comments by IceFreak2000
20. Comment #75193 by BAEOZ on October 2, 2007 at 2:38 am
IceFreak2000:Why is it that theological contains the word logical when it clearly isn't?
Uhm, because Logos means word, theory, explanation..... Thus logic is an "explanation" of how to think. Biology is the "theory" of life, and Jesus is the "logos" (word).....Yada, yada.
Sorry, beer is working.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
21. Comment #75201 by GBile on October 2, 2007 at 3:23 am
What about : Come on in, the water is refreshing ! Other Comments by GBile
22. Comment #75205 by Matt H. on October 2, 2007 at 3:44 am
Why are there people who think that we'll only stop Muslims murdering and blowing themselves up, by apologising to them and being nice to them? They are following their book word for word, they have undeniable faith which is seen as quite a good thing in the west. Time for that to change. Other Comments by Matt H.
23. Comment #75211 by pewkatchoo on October 2, 2007 at 3:54 am
Richard Dawkins is the Anti-Flea. Other Comments by pewkatchoo
24. Comment #75212 by Bueller_007 on October 2, 2007 at 4:01 am
Dawkins: I couldn't find my keys this morning, you bastard.Other Comments by Bueller_007
25. Comment #75214 by Cartomancer on October 2, 2007 at 4:06 am
It is a well known fact that Richard Dawkins invented the common cold, causes global warming, started the bubonic plague and secretly runs the governments of at least fifteen countries.Transubstantiation does not work within ten feet of Richard Dawkins.
Evolution happens three hundred times faster wherever Richard Dawkins walks.
Richard Dawkins's bike can circle the earth in a matter of hours and one touch from it is deadly to all religious people.
Richard Dawkins only wears glasses to conceal the laser death rays that shoot from his eyes.
And of course he causes religious fundamentalism, kills puppies and gave birth to Hitler.
More to the point his books have made me late for more deadlines than I care to name...
Other Comments by Cartomancer
26. Comment #75221 by Logicel on October 2, 2007 at 4:26 am
Almost an hour spent measuring, beating, mixing, etc. down the drain. Thank you very much, Richard, for not allowing my cake to rise in the oven!I, too, do not understand this infatuation with religious ritual as being a desirable activity lacking in the atheist camp. I had to endure that nonsense when growing up, and it was not enjoyable, interesting, or anything positive at all.
Atheists are free to come together in any manner they deem as desirable, interesting, and valuable. The ritual served up by the religites is mass-produced, cold, and congealed--totally unappetizing. I am fed up with the pretense that it is anything else.
A childhood friend of mine died last week. And her loved ones created most meaningful mourning/grieving activities. One was to decorate the simple, hand-built coffin which was placed in the center of her family's living room with hand-made art done by her friends. No priest, or minister was required, nor a group of religious folks either. In addition, we used the web to co-ordinate the scheduling of friends spending time with her during her hospital treatment, to inform others all over the world regarding her treatment and response to it, giving them the opportunity to leave comments.
Other Comments by Logicel
27. Comment #75229 by Philip1978 on October 2, 2007 at 4:49 am
I still maintain there should be an award given for "The most gratuitous use of the word Dawkins in a serious work of non-fiction or radio commentary". I will keep a tally till December and we can all vote on it, how about that?Logicel, I am so sorry to hear about your friend, I hope you are ok
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
28. Comment #75231 by ZaphodBB84 on October 2, 2007 at 4:57 am
I noticed in the Independent that they posted this article with a rather pleasant looking picture of Professor Dawkins. I'm finding that most papers tend to use a more 'grumpy curmudgeon' style picture for Dawkins articles. Other Comments by ZaphodBB84
29. Comment #75234 by detox on October 2, 2007 at 5:00 am
Like Tom Sutcliffe and IceFreak2000, I too was listening to Start The Week yesterday and spat a mouthful of coffee at the radio when I heard the bleating of La Armstrong. Forgot to swallow, you see, before I swore.Stop sniggering at the back there.
Other Comments by detox
30. Comment #75259 by JSW on October 2, 2007 at 6:54 am
'Kubla Khan' was to contain the most profound and convincing proofs for the existence of the Prime Mover. I think we can all guess the identity of the 'person on business from Porlock' who broke Coleridge's concentration, thereby saving the Atheist movement from conceding defeat. For the time being, at any rate.That was Richard MacDuff, not Richard Dawkins.
Not naming names, but - thank you, Richard.
Other Comments by JSW
31. Comment #75260 by Bookman on October 2, 2007 at 7:02 am
One of Armstrong's pet theories is that "fundamentalism" didn't exist in any important way prior to the secularization of western societies. Fundamentalism is, in her view, the fault of secularists. She has a very selective view of history, to put it politely.Other Comments by Bookman
32. Comment #75266 by jimbob on October 2, 2007 at 7:39 am
The "out" campaign must have reached Winnipeg.I was there last week, and I saw a gentleman walking about in the street with the following message written large and bold on the back of his shirt:
JESUS IS A C**T
I checked, and he wasn't Richard!
;-)
Other Comments by jimbob
33. Comment #75268 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 7:51 am
The "let's hate Dawkins" fad is a disturbing example of middle-class anxiety, media repetition = truth, and the bandwagon effect. I find it depressing. Makes me want to live in a cave.We need a public relations makeover. We've got to grab the moral high ground, which is rightfully ours. We need to dramatize how power corrupts, especially religious power.
Without God, we're a fellowship of equals. Honor, duty, sacrifice have meaning. With God, we can be obedient. Whoopie.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
34. Comment #75296 by SilentMike on October 2, 2007 at 8:59 am
This is silly. Nobody in fundyland gets excited about some nutty professor -be he Richard Dawkins or Bertrand Russell- has to say. They don't care about that stuff. They care about women like Armstrong daring to talk and have opinions, opinions that disagree with thier one true faith no less. Not to mention the fact that she's doing it without hiding her face. Shame!Seriously, what a short memory. The 2001 attacks happened before the "new atheist awakening". This crazyness has nothing to do with intelectual atheism. It has everything to do with fundementalist being unable to tolerate free people doing their thing or not so free people obeying someone else's ideas about what's right.
Other Comments by SilentMike
35. Comment #75303 by _J_ on October 2, 2007 at 9:28 am
There is also a low resolution satellite photograph of Dawkins in the Indian Ocean on Boxing Day 2004. He appears to be vigorously wafting a piece of cardboard.* * *
By the way, BAEOZ, 15, regarding drive1, 13 - surely Douglas Adams, not Pratchett? On which note, coincidentally: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/dirkgently
Other Comments by _J_
36. Comment #75316 by the izz on October 2, 2007 at 10:09 am
So lets all sing songs and have coffee and donuts together on specific calender days. There's nothing inherently spiritual about any of those practices (unless we're talking hot Krispy Kreme donuts right off of the conveyor belt- sacrelicious!) I'm all for rituals; everyone needs them and that's really nothing to be ashamed of. (Football is a very apt example.) All we have to do is uncouple ritual from supernatural. This is a difficult task but not impossible. I think that would satisfy quite a number of those religious in name only folks. Other Comments by the izz
37. Comment #75322 by the izz on October 2, 2007 at 10:18 am
Comment #75214 by Cartomancer- Hilarious!I heard he once held an oponants' wife's hand in a jar of acid- at a party.
Comment #75221 by Logicel- What a wonderful way of remembering someone. That's the kind of caring ritual religious people need to see when they call all atheists cold and prickly.
Other Comments by the izz
38. Comment #75334 by Flagellant on October 2, 2007 at 11:16 am
I too heard Karen Armstrong on 'Start the Week'. I've tried to transcribe her words. I think they were ...since the attacks of Richard Dawkins and others, ... they're [Moslems] beginning to get literal about the Creation for the first time...It's a pity she said that because the rest of her talk on her book The Bible: The Biography was very interesting. For example, she said that
The Bible arose out of oral tales with no religious significance.But the suggestion that 'Dawkins and others' have stimulated Islamic creationism is just plain silly. It may be that she was thinking of Darwin – it's an easy mistake to make: confusing Darwin with his Rottweiler (lol). There were lots of other interesting bits and her book may be worth a serious look. It's The Bible: The Biography, published by Atlantic Books on October 8th.
There were several, competing creation stories.
The Bible wasn't taken literally until the 19th Century.
Monotheism only became common after the first five books.
Jeremiah and Ezekiel wouldn't have understood the term 'monotheism'.
Calvin wasn't anti-evolution; [he may have been an early NOMA-ist?].
Hard-line, Protestant, literalism came about in the late 19th Century.
This was contemporaneous with Papal infallibility.
There's more violence in the Bible than the Koran.
Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
Other Comments by Flagellant
39. Comment #75343 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 2, 2007 at 11:26 am
Ah yes, Karen Armstrong, the woman who is so full of shit her eyes are brown.Koranic literalism is the fundamental part of Islam since it's founding by Muhamamd. You can no more be a Muslim and not believe that every word of the Koran is literally true than you can be a Christian and doubt the divinity of Jesus.
Karen Armstrong is a liar, and a dirty one at that. Damn idiot should have stayed in the convent.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
40. Comment #75344 by Vadjong on October 2, 2007 at 11:26 am
Ever since Dawkins invented this God character, the world has gone to hell, apparently. Other Comments by Vadjong
41. Comment #75353 by Northern Bright on October 2, 2007 at 11:42 am
Any other good examples of his perfidy?
Well, don't quote me on this, but I heard he'd been seen in the Garden of Eden, pretending to be a woman and deep in conversation with a snake. Sounds plausible to me.
Other Comments by Northern Bright
42. Comment #75355 by Ian on October 2, 2007 at 11:48 am
Cartomancer:It is a well known fact that Richard Dawkins invented the common cold, causes global warming, started the bubonic plague and secretly runs the governments of at least fifteen countries.
I suppose there's no chance of him taking over the UK, is there?
Other Comments by Ian
43. Comment #75362 by phil rimmer on October 2, 2007 at 11:57 am
I was greatly interested in what Karen Armstrong had to say on the radio and was quite shocked at her stupid throw-away comment at the end of her section of the program.I for one would like her here to debate what she intended by her remark. I can only imagine she hasn't grasped what Dawkins is about, to whit, "No social imperatives from un-evidenced beliefs," and "moderates to publicly endorse same."
With her book she has done sterling work with the latter (or so it seems from the program).
I wonder if there is any formal way we could invite her here? Maybe have a place on the site to vote for people to be given a formal invite from Josh in Richard's name or some such?
She shouldn't feel out of place in the company of CHeard, Paul Emecz and the like, and we must get to grips with this curious problem of moderates.
Other Comments by phil rimmer
44. Comment #75366 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 12:04 pm
...since the attacks of Richard Dawkins and others, ... they're [Moslems] beginning to get literal about the Creation for the first time...I'm still angry with Karen Armstrong for a few stupid things she said in 2001. But, her statement as quoted above might be true and she might have evidence to back it up. I can't slag her until it's clear she's just pulling stuff out her ass to justify trotting out her favorite "whence fundamentalism" hobbyhorse.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
45. Comment #75367 by phil rimmer on October 2, 2007 at 12:05 pm
As ever you've nailed it, Dr. B. (Comment #33)First step is to get moderates to accept there is such a thing as "Religious Power". And there is no "Atheist Power", just an insistence on the question, "Why?"
Other Comments by phil rimmer
46. Comment #75374 by Big T on October 2, 2007 at 12:23 pm
You people have got it all wrong. I happen to know for a fact that before the Zapruder film was edited by the CIA, it clearly showed a young Richard Dawkins on the grassy knoll with a rifle in his hand on November 22, 1963. I know this for a fact because the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA) both beamed thoughts about it into my brain with their thought transmitters.Other Comments by Big T
47. Comment #75380 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Anyone who can remember how to spell "Zapruder" was likely in on the assasination plot. Other Comments by Dr Benway
48. Comment #75382 by Puddock on October 2, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I, too, was listening to Start the Week on Monday. It was an excellent edition with interesting contributions until, that is, Karen Armstrong's throwaway remark.I haven't (until now!) been able to make up my mind about her. She rejects religion, calls herself a freelance monotheist, labels the afterlife a red herring, yet still clings to her need for a god.
Like detox, I nearly choked on my breakfast when I heard her blame atheists for the rise in religious fundamentalism.
I put up a post in my blog on the topic which, with your permission, I'll link to here: http://theviewfromthepond.blogspot.com/2007/10/start-week.html
Other Comments by Puddock
49. Comment #75396 by phil rimmer on October 2, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Karen Armstrong propounds the theory of the "Axial Age" first mooted by philosopher Karl Jaspers. This holds that there was a global shift in human thinking in the period 800BCE to 200BCE. This shift (in brief) was the "discovery" of the Golden Rule. This happened independently across the Globe and involved the likes of Socrates, Confucius, Siddhartha Gautama and sundry figures from the Torah. It was later co-opted by Christianity and Islam.Karen Armstrong is fervent in her belief of the importance of this thinking, and is persuaded that this may have been a means by which (at least spokesmen for) the common people might seek to mitigate the harms wrought by tyrant rulers.
Perhaps her undoing is her belief that a return to these roots will re-nourish society. (It certainly makes her personal journey less of a waste..) Strangely, however, when faced with fact that only a few years after the "gentle" Muhammad's life Arab armies subsume much of the eastern and southern Mediterranean, she responds that this is because Islam has fallen into the hands of politicians....
Exactly! She completely fails to see the built in dangers when philosophy is interlarded with dogmatic detail, to make it a juicier story. So in love is she with this "First Enlightenment" that she prefers to see a dagger aimed at its heart rather than its internal flaw.
Other Comments by phil rimmer
50. Comment #75507 by Big T on October 2, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Alas, Dr. Benway has discovered my shameful secret. It was I who pulled the trigger, wearing a Richard Dawkins mask, at the behest of my KGB handler, a young woman from Australia who called herself "Veronique." The KGB, NKVD, Stasi, and Tontons Macoutes got together to plan it. But the mastermind behind the plot was Dawkins himself. I am one of the few who knows that he is the head of a centuries old, powerful group called The Illuminati. His plot to achieve world domination continues apace. Having fled the evil group, I am no longer an Illuminatus myself, but I well know that Dawkins is plotting my destruction.Other Comments by Big T
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@ independent.co.u
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #75105 by @tomik on October 1, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Sad. I've always had a soft spot for Armstrong's books and her views as a "freelance monotheist". I find it slightly uncharacteristic of her to refer to Dawkins in this way.Other Comments by @tomik