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.”
4
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 (26 - 35)
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.The Bible as allegory? Tell that to the investors in the Noah’s Ark theme park, which “proves” that the ark was real.
Rghurst
Level 5
Apr 11, 2019
4
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.
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.
AlasBabylon
Level 8
Apr 11, 2019
3
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.
Fernapple
Level 9
Apr 11, 2019
1
Nonsense. without the original sin of Adam and Eve in the garden, Jesus would be redundant. Of course the story is taken literally.
Moravian
Level 8
Apr 11, 2019
3
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.
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
3
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.
Count_Viceroy
Level 7
Apr 11, 2019
2
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.
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.
CK-One
Level 6
Apr 11, 2019
3
What relevance to the debate between fundamentalism and science do the others have anyway ?
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.
brentan
Level 8
Apr 11, 2019
1
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.
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
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.