Richard Dawkins Loves the Bible
Richard Dawkins, the supposedly angry New Atheist constantly accused of knowing nothing about the religion he rails against, couldn’t even wait until January 1st to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible—”warts and all.” He riffs, in the New Statesman:
The King James Bible occupies nearly 42 pages of the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, only narrowly beaten by Shakespeare, with 45. Not just literature in the high sense but everyday speech is laced, suffused—riddled, even—with biblical phrases the status of which ranges from telling quotation (“They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind”) to cliché (“No peace for the wicked”) and all points between. A word in season and perhaps we can see eye to eye. Although I wouldn’t call the Bible my ewe lamb, and I would have to go the extra mile before I killed the fatted calf for it, you don’t need the wisdom of Solomon to see how biblical imagery dominates our English. If my words fall on stony ground—if you pass me by as a voice crying in the wilderness—be sure your sin will find you out. Between us there is a great gulf fixed and you are a thorn in my flesh. We have come to the parting of the ways. I fear it is a sign of the times.
Do you think he really read the thing? Or just the book of Ecclesiastes and the entries in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations?
Related: atheism, Bible, literature, New Atheism, poetry
December 30th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Reading the Bible deeply and thoroughly, even loving the Bible, is one of the primary ways one becomes an angry New Atheist.
December 30th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
The man is a supreme intellectual. I am pretty sure he read it, as have other atheists. And if you take the time to read it, you will find it is chock full of fantastic literature. But that’s all it is. Literature. Just like Shakespeare, or Aesop’s Fables.
December 30th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Of course Richard Dawkins knows nothing of the religion he rails against; or rather, there will be those who can keep on saying that, because there are so many versions of said religion. One Christian can say, “well, he’s not talking about MY Christianity” and another Christian can say, “Well, he’s not talking about MY Christianity either.”
And perhaps they are right. The Christianity Dawkins came to reject may be different from the Christianities practiced by person X and person Y, but I suspect it’s where each version is similar that Dawkins (and others like him) find their reasons to reject it.
December 31st, 2010 at 7:27 pm
How awesome that the link that backs up the claim of Dawkins knowing nothing of Christianity goes to a review by…Terry Eagleton, human hot air balloon, last seen being absolutely eviscerated by Matt Taibbi and PZ Myers, among others. PZ wrote a piece called “The Courtier’s Reply”, in fact, that addresses this lame Christian tendency to invent yet another irrelevant tangent that they insist skeptics have to be familiar with before their objections can have any merit. Of course, when their founding premises are ludicrous and objectionable, it hardly matters how many ornate trifles they pile up on top of them.
January 1st, 2011 at 1:33 pm
As one who HAS read the works that Eagleton suggests Dawkins become steeped in before passing judgment on Christianity, I can say confidently: Don’t waste your time. It would be akin to telling a married man that, prior to making his commitment to his true love at the altar, he should first be certain, absolutely certain, that he had masturbated to ALL of the centerfolds ever printed. He requires that one forego reality in exchange for an exhaustive survey of fantasy.
Preposterous.
January 2nd, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Bob, I’m not sure the metaphor’s quite right. My sense of Eagleton’s claim, especially from his book, would be more like the man about going up to the altar saying, “I happen to be in love. [Or, in Eagleton's case, more like "I was in love once in college."] You try being in love like this, and then tell me not to get married.”