Agnostic.com

35 4

LINK The closed mind of Richard Dawkins

“Quite apart from the substance of the idea, there is no reason to suppose that the Genesis myth to which Dawkins refers was meant literally. Coarse and tendentious atheists of the Dawkins variety prefer to overlook the vast traditions of figurative and allegorical interpretations with which believers have read Scripture. Both Augustine and before him the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria explicitly cautioned against literalism in interpreting the biblical creation story. Later, in the twelfth century, Maimonides took a similar view. It was only around the time of the Reformation that the idea that the story was a factual account of events became widely held. When he maintains that Darwin's account of evolution displaced the biblical story, Dawkins is assuming that both are explanatory theories—one primitive and erroneous, the other more advanced and literally true. In treating religion as a set of factual propositions, Dawkins is mimicking Christianity at its most fundamentalist.”

skado 9 Apr 11
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

35 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

10

The Bible as allegory? Tell that to the investors in the Noah’s Ark theme park, which “proves” that the ark was real.

Agreed. Not to mention the predecessor of the Noah’s Ark theme park, the Creation Museum. Tens of millions of dollars. At one point it featured a diorama of a huge dinosaur with a saddle on its back. That's right. Since they believe the earth is LITERALLY about six thousand years old, of course dinosaurs co-existed with humans.

9

The great majority of Christians do not take the Bible allegorically. Many more take the Bible literally than not. This is much more important than traditions which do not significantly affect the lives of millions of believers and non-believers alike.

8

Just because some highly educated Jewish and Christian thinkers didn't take the myths seriously doesn't mean that the ordinary priests didn't inculcate such superstitious myths into the common people.

8

This is the same old "atheism is another religion" argument. I am narrow minded, apparently, because of my inability to take the ridiculous with the undue seriousness with which they embrace it.

8

There are is a wide spectrum of believers and most are closer to the literal description in the Bible. One cannot blame Dawkins for taking them at their word.

What relevance to the debate between fundamentalism and science do the others have anyway ?

7

What's the criteria for determining what is literal and what is allegorical in the Bible? Don't fault Dawkins for responding to a healthy chunk of Christians who take the Bible literally.

What relevance to the debate between fundamentalism and science do the others have anyway ?

@Fernapple and because it's allegorical it's beyond examination?

@Count_Viceroy Very true. Actually using fictional evidence as a basis for your world model is no better however you use it.

6

People like dawkins can back up their lectures with proof....based on actual evidence.....show me one shred of evidence to back up any evidence relating to that fairy story book nutters call the bible

6

More attacks from the same old areas. Why don't these publications, sometimes right wing, sometimes regressive left, pick on the truly bigoted close minds that run the world.

Attacking prominent atheists will not undermine this growing movement. Give it up.

6

From what we have been seeing many of the evangelical Christians today talk about the literal statements from(a) bible - there are several versions. I am sure not all atheist agree on some of the finer points but we all agree all religious teachings are crap and only pollute ones mind. Dawkins is human and so can be prone to mistakes but my question would be how much conflict of interests are involved. Religion has a massive conflict of interest but there is usually little gain in helping people let go of myths. Looking at some of the links I suspect Gray is a stealth religionist. Denigrating science and glorifying religion shows that.

6

Yes, it's obviously Richard Dawkins who is closed minded. Ha ha ha.

Because there have been a small number of xtians over the years who purported that the bible was allegorical, it was obviously never meant to be taken literally.

And what about other bible stories? Believing in the literal resurrection and virgin birth is what defines a christian. A great many xtians also believe that the bible is the unerring word of god regardless Philo, Augustine, and Maimonides many have said.

JimG Level 8 Apr 11, 2019
5

The author makes Darwin's case, and then attacks his person, ascribing motives that are of no consequence of Dawkin's writings.

5

started reading but then found myself examining my navel & noticed a tiny amount of lint...

5

Nonsense. without the original sin of Adam and Eve in the garden, Jesus would be redundant. Of course the story is taken literally.

You're absolutely right. He was never beleived to have come on earth to be a propitiatory sacrifice for an allegory.

@TheAstroChuck It's from scripture.

5

I think of him as the 'David v Goliath' figure who took on an organisation single-handedly and won. I read two of his books, The Selfish Gene and the The Extended Phenotype, and they are truly wonderful books. No doubt, he will come to be seen as a stepping stone among others who took us forward in our understanding of ourselves. That move forward usually involves modifying what has been done earlier so I trust Dawkins' work will undergo the same process.

You should also read "Unweaving the Rainbow" for his thoughts on religion and human culture if you can, and "The Blind Watchmaker", is pure fun.

4

What a waste of intelligence.

This is the same shit thrown at Sam Harris. His response is, "The majority of believers do believe the stories are literal. I am only responding to those believers who say they believe."

4

When fundie's don't believe catholics are even christian there's some serious translation problems in religion. Batshit crazy is what they all are.

Well, Catholics, at least, don't take the bible 100% literally. Like they don't think there was a literal garden if eden, for instance. At least I don't THINK so. It's been a while. Like 55 years or so. But that's SOMETHING, anyway. They DO buy into the gist if it, though. Most of it.

@Storm1752 Correct. I attended a catholic college and came out an atheist 🙂 When they don't have an answer they aren't afraid to say so. At least not in college classes. Seems to be different in the church.

4

There is perhaps no doubt that Dawkins is arrogant. But having said that there is perhaps a failing of logic in criticizing him for only attacking the easy target of fundamentalist religion, and failing to engage with the the, “ vast traditions of figurative and allegorical ”, when by definition such traditions are irrelevant to the debate between the literal interpretation of religious texts and science.
Especially as by some definitions such traditions could be said not to be religion at all.

3

Dawkins does not ‘assume,’ ...you lost me there. The Science was not replaced, religious teachings were overridden is how I take that.

3

I always figured Dawkins was critiquing Religion as currently (for the past 500 years or so) practiced, not as Augustine or Philo may have considered it. When he, or anyone else for that matter, denigrates Religion as an institution, it’s irrelevant whether Genesis is considered to be literal or figurative. It’s the basic function and purpose of religion that cause the problems, not the details of the dogma of its adherents. Saying that Dawkins has a closed mind entirely misses the point.

3

well, it is interesting to know that the bible's original readers (or hearers) were not encouraged to take genesis literally, but as for dawkins, i had been an atheist for nine years when his first book came out, so he had no influence on me one way or the other, and still doesn't.

g

Ditto.

3

The Dawk is a Bright.

cava Level 7 Apr 11, 2019
2

I was reading Daniel C Dennett when I was in grade school. I didn't know until years later that he is an atheist. I wonder if that had something to do with my lack of belief and always questioning religion. I just know I couldn't make myself swallow the garbage the fundies were peddling. I could never get past the concept of original sin.

2

It's okay to respect Dawkins as a biologist and take his sociological claims with a grain of salt.

1

so how do we know which parts are an analogy and which parts are the literal word of god. Please pass on the bits that are literal......better yet.....why don't YOU re-write it so the christian world can be of one mind

The writer of this article and I, as most members of this site, are not believers in a literal god, so I don’t claim that any of the Bible is the literal word of God.

1

Dawkins is trying showing that fairy tales are a bunch of bs. No matter how it's written.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:329084
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.