With his razor-like approach, Dawkins is almost brutal in his deconstruction of the argument that religion is necessary as a source of morality. He says "much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird". Anyone who wishes to "base their morality literally on the Bible" he writes, "[has] either not read it or not understood it." In response to criticism that no one takes every word of the Bible literally any more, Dawkins says:
That is my whole point. We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories. Such picking and choosing is a matter of personal decision, just as much, or as little, as the atheist's decision to follow this moral precept or that was a personal decision, without an absolute foundation. If one of these is "morality flying by the seat of its pants", so is the other.Dawkins, like Harris, also sees inconsistency evidenced by the Ten Commandments as being the foundation of morality. He points out:
If we took the Ten Commandments seriously, we would rank the worship of the wrong gods and the making of graven images as first and second among sins. Rather than condemn the unspeakable vandalism of the Taliban, who dynamited the 150-foot-high Bamiyan Buddhas in the mountains of Afghanistan, we would praise them for their righteous piety.That is not the only commonality between Harris and Dawkins. Both are equally appalled that religious doctrines can not only influence but dictate public policy. Likewise, perhaps given their ardent approach toward the subject, Dawkins joins Harris in questioning why religion is granted "such uniquely privileged respect" that any disagreement is viewed as intolerance.
The immunity and existence of blind and unquestioned faith is a large part of what Dawkins sees as the evil of religion. Once again, though, Dawkins approaches it from the standpoint of analysis and evaluation.
More generally (and this applies to Christianity no less than to Islam), what is really pernicious is the practice of teaching children that faith itself is a virtue. Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument. Teaching children that unquestioned faith is a virtue primes them — given certain other ingredients that are not hard to come by — to grow up into potentially lethal weapons for future jihads or crusades. ...If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers. Suicide bombers do what they do because they really believe what they were taught in their religious schools.That also leads Dawkins to a conclusion that undoubtedly prompts outrage from believers. He considers some aspects of religion to be child abuse. For example, he believes it improper to refer to a child as "Catholic" or "Muslim". While they may be a child of parents of that religious belief, "children are too young to know where they stand on such issues, just as they are too young to know where they stand on economics or politics."
Article comments
1 - DAVE
My man Dawkins. I can't wait to get my hands on his book. Saw him on Avi Lewis on the CBC. Where he presented the doc about the God Delusion and later attended a debate about it following. Can't argue his logic.
"Some of us take our atheism one god further"
2 - john connore
I can't wait to get my mitts on Dawkins new book, remember all thinking men are atheist(Hemmingway)
3 - duane
Suicide bombers are just a fringe effect of religion, if they really are attributable to religion (that might be debatable). On the other hand, religion affects billions of people every day. In some cases, that's good, or, at worst, harmless. But averaged over the billions of believers and/or practitioners, it's a net impediment to the advancement of civilization.
4 - Natalie Bennett
This article has been selected for syndication to Advance.net, which is affiliated with newspapers around the United States. Nice work!
5 - Calladus
Suicide bombers are just a fringe effect of religion - as are people like Fred Phelps, or minister Paul Hill. Lesser fringe are people who make legislation that gives religious groups the freedom to discriminate or gives them a financial free ride - like H.R. 1815 or H.R. 2679.
The problem with the 'fringe' is that about 30% of America is that 'fringe'. The other problem is that the majority of moderate Christians either ignore the fringe, or make excuses for them, or write them off as harmless.
Moderate Christians are enablers in an abusive codependant relationship with fundamentalists. And America is suffering for it.
6 - Bliffle
I've thought for some time that religious indoctrination of children is abuse.
7 - Karl Priest
Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman. See Life Science Prize for a list of bluffing evolutionists.
8 - Christopher Rose
Karl, I took a look at the site you linked to and can tell you that prize will never be claimed - by either party.
The reason for that is the set-up of the terms doesn't have any meaning, not because the Theory of Evolution is unscientific.
9 - Mark Saleski
i thought the Bluffing Evolutionists broke up shortly after Woodstock.
10 - Christopher Rose
Naah, that was The Waffling Hippies.
11 - duane
Karl writes: "Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman."
Hey, Karl, the Headless Horseman is NOT impossible. Sure, he can be a bit obstinate at times. And, yeah, he just broke up with his girlfriend. But really, you just have to know how to get on his good side (ask him about his grandkids, for example). Oh, and don't mention the ... you know ... the head thing. He's a little sensitive.
12 - bliffle
Karl is right: evolution is impossible.
I just proved it a few minutes ago. I opened the dryer door and a puff of warm air came out, but when I extracted my clothes a blue sock was missing! It must have been an act of God. It could not have been evolution because no one has shown the progression from sock to hot air, and no one has uncovered any of the Missing Link steps that must exist for a sock to evolve into hot air.
Therefore, evolution is a fraud and God exists.
Oh, wait a minute. There's my sock tangled in my pajama pants. Oops.
Never mind.
13 - Bennett
Hey Christopher Rose or Dr. Dreadful, could you undo this mess?
14 - Bennett
"I shall begin by assuming that the issue of God's existence is settled. We all believe that there is a God."
rafael, with that as your opening sentence, there's really no point in reading any further.
You've heard the "assume" thing, right?
15 - Dan
I think I'm ready to become an atheist. I just need to know where the primordial soup and lightning bolt that spawned the first single celled organism came from.
Is that in the book?
16 - Bennett
Dan, being an atheist takes commitment. I don't know if my 'lack of belief system' is quite ready for that.
As for the primordial thing? Just because something is highly unlikely, doesn't mean it can't happen. Given the time span involved, and the available real estate, somewhere on all of the billions of planets in the universe, I figure it's gotta happen somewhere, eventually.
We humans didn't "get lucky somehow", we are simply the outcome of the unlikely (but law of averages proscribed) event, and the subsequent passage of billions of years.
Intellectually, we humans have developed delusions of grandeur, and parasitic institutions.
17 - Dan
"Dan, being an atheist takes commitment. I don't know if my 'lack of belief system' is quite ready for that."
I hear ya Bennett, A couple of perks us happy-go-lucky agnostics enjoy is we don't need commitment, and we're never wrong.
18 - Bennett
"...and we're never wrong."
There is that.
19 - Dr Dreadful
Saying that being an atheist takes commitment makes about as much sense as saying that deciding not to be a professional tennis player takes commitment.
20 - Dr Dreadful
Bennett:
Hey Christopher Rose or Dr. Dreadful, could you undo this mess?
I assume you mean the ridiculously long comment posted by the chap who apparently thinks copying and pasting entire books into discussion threads is a great way to make friends online?
It's gone.
Rafael:
I've deleted your extremely long comment, which as I indicated above you appear to have copied wholesale from the book Normal Christian Faith, by Watchman Nee. If you are truly anxious for others to know about the book, you would do better to link to a place where it can be purchased - for example on Google Books, where sizeable sections of it can also be viewed online.
Before copying and pasting large chunks of someone else's work again (a simple Google search revealed that Blogcritics is not the only place you have done this) you would do well to take note of the 'copyrighted material' stamp on the bottom right corner of each page.
Assistant Comments Editor
21 - duane
You mean that drivelly nonsense actually got published? As Gonzo would say, oh my stars and garters!
22 - Dr Dreadful
Yes, but did you see who it was published by?
Its appearance in print (all the way back in 1931, it seems) is no more surprising than if a book entitled Emasculate All Belgians were to be published by the I Hate Belgium Press.
(With apologies to any actual Belgians out there for my spurious example. Nice chocolate, by the way. Well done.)