Saturday, February 16, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

The Dog Allusion

by Martin Rowson

Martin Rowson is one of the Guardian's political cartoonists and a strong atheist.

Buy it on Amazon.co.uk

The Dog Allusion

'As with dogs, so with gods - by and large, you should blame the owners.' A particular trait, common to all human civilisations, is the worship of non-human entities with followings of devotees who claim that their reverence can transport them to transcendental heights of complete and unfettered love. Do I mean God? No - I mean Dog. Dogs and other pets we've been keeping and loving since we began walking on two feet. But why do we love God - and pets - so much when their capriciousness sometimes suggests that they don't love us back? In this wise, witty and highly topical book, celebrated cartoonist and novelist Martin Rowson argues that rationally, the whole enterprise of religion is a monumental and faintly ridiculous waste of time and money. But then again, so is pet-keeping. What both do, however, is tell us a lot about who we are, which is perhaps a more important question than whether God exists and if so, if he is indeed great.

Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 25 of 25 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #128160 by Greybishop on February 16, 2008 at 11:29 am

A reverse flea...with built in fleas of its own?

Other Comments by Greybishop

2. Comment #128162 by JamesDB on February 16, 2008 at 11:34 am

This looks like an interesting book. I would somewhat disagree on the fact that you can't tell if your animals love you or not. Ive seen plenty of dogs and cats that wait by the door for an owner who just got home from work and they ignore the other people in the room.
At least I can say that dogs are real, a trait god seems to be missing.

Other Comments by JamesDB

3. Comment #128164 by Johnny O on February 16, 2008 at 11:36 am

'As with dogs, so with gods - by and large, you should blame the owners

I'm getting that put on a t-shirt... GENIUS!!!

Other Comments by Johnny O

4. Comment #128166 by Quetzalcoatl on February 16, 2008 at 11:41 am

with built in fleas of its own

But surely Dog has a flea collar?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

5. Comment #128170 by SPS on February 16, 2008 at 12:03 pm

The difference between dog and god for me is that I still talk to my dog and am relatively sure he exists.

Other Comments by SPS

6. Comment #128175 by TonyA on February 16, 2008 at 12:08 pm

For me, Dog is he who fills the infinite expanse of my couch.
It is he who is the origin of puppies.
It is he who is the absolute moral authority to determine what it is right and what is wrong to pee on.
Dog is he who hears my calls when I cry out in moments of stress.
Dog is he who looks after the helpless.
Dog is he who I am sometimes very angry at for failing to look after the helpless.
The word 'Dog,' the essence of Dog, is he who wrestles with Dog.
Dog is he with whom I have a relationship.
I have a right to challenge Dog.

Other Comments by TonyA

7. Comment #128183 by davem on February 16, 2008 at 12:29 pm

"But surely Dog has a flea collar?"

Hmmm. ...and vicars have dog collars....

Other Comments by davem

8. Comment #128188 by Quetzalcoatl on February 16, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Hmm. But what do fleas have?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

9. Comment #128209 by Deepthought on February 16, 2008 at 2:14 pm

When I first read the title and looked at the cover I thought it was an Onion-type article on a non-existent book. Then I worked out that it was real.

I think that this is a quote to keep: "As with dogs, so with gods - by and large, you should blame the owners."

Other Comments by Deepthought

10. Comment #128249 by TonyA on February 16, 2008 at 3:47 pm

My post above is a parody of the vapid, self-aggrandizing response Rabbi Boteach gave to a question asking him to more clearly and specifically define what "god" is.

Other Comments by TonyA

11. Comment #128266 by HourglassMemory on February 16, 2008 at 4:31 pm

I can predict that any flea for this book will have to be as witty and as funny.
I don't think anyone will have the guts or the brains.
And when a deluded person tries to be funny with things like jesus, where they try to be serious....it just won't compare.
I'm now wondering if the fleas will be more hilarious or not.

I hope this is first of many books that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett have in a sense, allowed to be published.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

12. Comment #128277 by Wosret on February 16, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Should have given it more time TonyA, I was about to make your day and recognize the parody, I thought it was good.

I personally hate dogs, and gods. They are needy, self-centered, and emotionally shallow creatures. I am a cat person. Particularly females, because they are more independant. My little kitty wants me to pat her just about as much as I am interested in patting her, which is maybe once or twice a day. Sometimes we go a few days. She doesn't make noise, doesn't destroy anything, and is obviously prideful, and has self-respect. I enjoy all of those qualities. None of which exist in dogs, or gods.

Other Comments by Wosret

13. Comment #128301 by Slyer on February 16, 2008 at 6:00 pm

Bring on the Philosophy/Humour genre!

Other Comments by Slyer

14. Comment #128392 by dragonfirematrix on February 16, 2008 at 10:33 pm

I love my Shih-Tzu. Her name is EWOK of Forest Moon.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

15. Comment #128413 by dreamsphere on February 17, 2008 at 12:47 am

Dogs and other pets manipulate human responses that evolved to facilitate human relationships. Generally pets trick the owner into establishing a parent-child relationship, enabling pets to elicit caregiving from humans.

This is discussed in detail in the article: Archer,J. 1997: Why do people love their pets? Evol.
Hum. Behav. 18, 237-259.

(or you could just watch more Penn and Teller)

Other Comments by dreamsphere

16. Comment #128426 by jaf on February 17, 2008 at 1:42 am

Greybishop wrote-
A reverse flea...with built in fleas of its own?

Big fleas have little fleas
on their backs to bite'em.
Little fleas have littler fleas
and so, ad infiinitum.

jaf
wwww.anax-andron.com/thunderbox

Other Comments by jaf

17. Comment #128441 by Gorgonzola on February 17, 2008 at 2:42 am

Interesting. I'll certainly buy this when it comes out since I've enjoyed his hilarious cartoons for a number of years.

One of my favourite Rowson things was a feature that he used to do for The Independent newspaper (I don't remember it appearing in 2007)where he produced a month by month "review" complete with drawings of what would happen in the year to come - so the 2006 version therefore was what was going to happen in 2007. It was so funny that I kept it.

The 2007 highlights included - the Anglican Synod declaring war on Secularism (that's actual war - there's a great cartoon of a band of machine gunning bishops), Richard Dawkins becoming pope and travelling back in time to the moment of creation to have it out with God in person and giant chinchillas abducting all religious terrorists in the world to an epoch several million years in the future.

I got the distinct impression from it all that Rowson is in the "I'm an atheist but Dawkins is a bit shrill" camp but as he seems to dislike the religious side equally if not more I look forward to his latest.

Other Comments by Gorgonzola

18. Comment #128459 by LorienRyan on February 17, 2008 at 4:03 am

Dogs are not so silly. They've got it easy, just a bit of human worship and fetching the paper and they got it made. Silly humans get squat from God, all that sucking up and not even one scooby snack.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

19. Comment #128512 by beeline on February 17, 2008 at 9:14 am

And just like dogs, sometimes our gods bite the hand that feeds them.

Oh no, wait, they don't. The tail wags the god.

Hey, there's a lot of mileage in this...

Other Comments by beeline

20. Comment #128534 by lbq on February 17, 2008 at 10:21 am

There is one somewhat important difference between gods and dogs. Dogs exist.

And cats.

Other Comments by lbq

21. Comment #128717 by Ed-words on February 17, 2008 at 6:44 pm

BEWARE of DOGma! (from FFRF)

Other Comments by Ed-words

22. Comment #128751 by Teratornis on February 17, 2008 at 10:15 pm

I wonder how this book would read in the various east Asian languages? I'm thinking about countries where more people wok their dogs than walk them.

Other Comments by Teratornis

23. Comment #128907 by PJG on February 18, 2008 at 9:26 am

I can just imagine the hate mail Christopher Hitchens would have received if he had written a book entitled "dog is not GREAT". Death threats from Islamic fundamentalists are NOTHING compared to those from the Canine Defence League!

Sam Harris: The End of Fifi?

Other Comments by PJG

24. Comment #129451 by MuNky82 on February 19, 2008 at 6:42 am

Ive seen plenty of dogs and cats that wait by the door for an owner who just got home from work and they ignore the other people in the room.

I also interpreted this as love, until my mom's dog, Gina, went along to the family beach house. Grandma fed the dogs, and after a week grandma replaced mom in Gina's life. I think dogs are social creatures, for sure, but the same way the Golden Rule can be proved by Darwinian arguments, so can their loyalties and love be proven.

Another example, my grandad's spaniel, Ben (RIP, buddy). Ben grew up and loved and share everyday with my grandad, layed at his feet etc. Except when we are outside and there was a tennisball around. Ben knew I played more intensely with him, thus he flatly ignored my grandad, even though my grandad plays more regularly with him.

Other Comments by MuNky82

25. Comment #130925 by davidstvz on February 21, 2008 at 1:53 pm

"I would somewhat disagree on the fact that you can't tell if your animals love you or not. Ive seen plenty of dogs and cats that wait by the door for an owner who just got home from work and they ignore the other people in the room."

That's just selfishness. Even human love could probably be reduced to selfishness. Of course, that's a cynical way of looking at things, and I don't endorse cynicism (except for brief periods of introspection and perhaps dispassionate discussion).

Other Comments by davidstvz

Reload Comments | Back to Top