This clip is hilarious. I could also have titled this Stick to Your Profession. Forget about the first part of the clip where they ask a guy if he believes in the story of Lot and he says yes because Jesus believed it (I really don’t know how he knows Jesus believed it – did anyone ever ask Jesus, “Hey, you believe that story about Lot and his daughters and his wife turning to salt?”).
At around 1:48 a Jewish woman to Dawkin’s left tells him, according to her, what the moral of the story is. And Dawkin’s response is so typical of a certain modern mentality who thinks all truth as mere relating of facts.
“Why not just say “Argue about it?” he asks, “Why wrap it up?” Yes, Dawkins, perhaps we should just go through all poetry, all stories, all art through all of time and strip the plain text message out of it and we can dispense with the art itself.
Why write a story about never giving up and keeping your hope in X alive? Why not just say “Don’t give up.” You just saved thousands of words.
All of art, of philosophy, of theology is beyond Dawkin’s ability to comprehend. He does not understand the basic functioning of the human mind. We are not moved by formula, nor by memes (which don’t even exist as he thinks they do) nor by mere plain injunctions.
I used to be a very staunch atheist up until a few years ago. I say staunch, but I was no creature like Dawkins who I find uncouth. But I knew never to argue outside my ken. I would never argue about the crucifixion of Christ knowing almost nothing about it theologically.
As Dawkins does at 2:57. This betrays a staggering lack of sophistication, reading comprehension and/or laziness. Dawkins trick is to always present the religious story from the point of utter ignorance and present that as the truth of the story. If you are going to argue against the story of man’s redemption through the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, at least be familiar with the material.
People worship this Dawkins guy like some sort of atheist crusader hero. When I was an atheist, I considered this guy an embarrassment.
The Jewish lady at 5:55 explains why the Bible is not The Cat in the Hat. Dawkins represents the distortion, the temporary oasis from the real hardships of life that a good portion of westerners have been able to enjoy for so long.
Again demonstrating his complete lack of understanding of human nature at 7:25 he asks, “Why bother with the Bible at all when we can go straight to moral philosophy?”
We do not ingest morality from the philosophers. We ingest morality through art. Anybody ever seen a mother blundering through Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics when choosing how to instruct he son on right behavior? Or how about Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals? How about a little Hegel?
9:35 he begins to expound on the Ten Commandments, well, the first few anyway, and then has to have their meaning explained to him. I believe this man’s problem is arrogance. He does not even bother to know his material first. It’s not like this stuff flew off the shelf last Tuesday.
Again, you can disagree with the meaning of the commandments, but you have to get the meaning right first. There are philosophers that have objected to the actual meaning of those commandments. Dawkins, unable to see past his ego, presents his complete lack of comprehension as the challenge.
At 11:05 Dawkins, seeing he is not winning any points goes for the insult to the ancients. See, when I mentioned Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics I forgot to mention that Dawkin’s would not have meant that as moral philosophy. Those people were ignorant. No, what he would mean by moral philosophy would be something that is written within the last twenty years. Something with an eye to science, a bowed knee to science. He is deservedly booed for this remark.
I truly think the man is simply not worth listening to. I think it is simple rabble rousing and ego stroking. Listening to the piece you will here him waver repeatedly between the Bible is terrible, why read it. To he respects is as literature. To it was written by ignorant people so why bother.
The Jewish lady sitting next to him belts him a real good one at 11:50. At 12:35 he lists other people we could listen to such as Confucius and Buddha… eh… what? Did they not also live in the ignorant era? If we’re not going to pay attention to ignorant Jewish scribes, as he puts it, because they lived long ago, why would we listen to other people from just as long ago?
And who says a Jew or a Christian couldn’t get something from Buddha or Confucius? Apparently he’s never heard of Thomas Merton the Trappist monk.
If you want to hear real atheist arguments go read St. Thomas. Dawkins is just a fool. But a fool for the modern mind hence his drone followers.
In exactly the same vein, Neil deGrasse Tyson wants all you bitches to stop saying the poem Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star to your kids – cuz that ain’t how the shit works, man. Get on the science train people. You’re going to permanently fuck your child’s brain if you recite that poem to them and not a scientific description to them from an astronomical textbook.
Just kidding. He does sort of say that, but only because I didn’t have the whole context of the interview. I don’t mind Tyson, he keeps his foot out of his mouth pretty well. His commentary on dark matter and the God of the Gaps is spot on.