Since my initial story about it on Saturday, I have since seen Mapantsula's defense in many quarters, all of which reacting to the beauty of his explanation.
I should state here that as a theist my reaction to this news in no way involved God. I’ve resolved, for myself at least, the issue of theodicy and do not have the temperament to find relief for this horror in God. Last weekend, in a private celebration of the Sabbath, I prayed for a few moments and read the 11th Psalm which seemed appropriate. But, my response to this evil was purely within an philosophical/existential framework and not in a theistic one. My personal theology tells me that these issues are ours and we must come to terms with them on our own. We must seek to understand them within our own existence and our own universe, and perhaps one day find a way to stop them. I do not expect to find the Hand of God in either its cause or its end.D'Souza, on the other hand, makes it clear that the gross ignorance of Dawkins is not limited to atheists. In fact, in circles concerned with the study of religion, Dawkins is essentially viewed as "perhaps a good biologist, but a rather naive student of religion." I believe the same may be said of Mr. D'Souza, or like Dawkins, ideology simply leaves gaping blind spots.
Read More:
Article comments
1 - Dr Dreadful
I can hear the zealot's answer to Mapantsula's post now: "The gift of compassion comes only from God. Yet still this man denies Him!"
Just a forewarning. There's no getting through to some people.
2 - Gideon
Thanks... But honestly, I think such people are so sufficiently removed from the conversation that even if they did... so what? You can't argue with a fanatic or a skeptic.
The rest of us must continue to have the conversation in their absence, and hope that cooler heads prevail.
3 - melvin polatnick
Debating over the issue of gods existance is an avoidance of better spent energy.If the people that believe in god also believe that we were created in gods image,shouln`t they do gods work,and make it a kinder world? Atheists can also be godlike and pitch in,the existance of kindness is all that really matters.If we wait for a god to make it a kinder world we would be avoiding our responsibilities to be a kinder person.
4 - Aaron Fleming
Refreshing clarity, Mr Addington.
5 - Bob
You talk about the "gross ignorance" of Dawkins. I'm sorry but this indicates to me that you obviously only know the pastiche and reactionary characterization of his writings which is presented by folks exactly like Dinesh D'Souza!
Dawkins may sometimes be blunt about his views on religion, but he is precisely one of the atheists who talks -- as you do, as Mapantsula does -- about the humanistic values and meaning that atheists can have.
It's deeply ironic that in this otherwise rather sweet article, you buy into the very kind of demonizations of athiests that you are valiantly trying to call D'Souza on.
6 - Gideon
I'm not arguing his grounds on Humanistic values, but have you read the God Delusion? It's a polemic, argued poorly and generally launching more firebombs than saying anything remotely useful.
Don't get me wrong, I've actually liked a number of Mr. Dawkins books, and find him a very fascinating writer. But the "God Delusion" was pretty much garbage. I'm not even arguing the issue that religion may be a sort of biological adaptation, or a viral meme - but simply that he misses the point entirely. He treats religion as something sui generis, which is ironic given his opinions, and not as simply another ethos. Modern history has proven God doesn't need to be involved for unspeakable horrors to occur.
Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi in the UK put it this way:
"I only wish I had as much faith as the learned professor. It would be nice to believe that if you cured people of believing in God, you would thereby have cured them of hate, violence, anger, injustice, cruelty and the urge to control, exploit, dominate and oppress.
Nothing in history suggests such a thing. On the contrary, if people do not commit evil in the name of God they have never been short of other reasons to do so: race, the war of classes, the political system, the march of progress, the Darwinian struggle to survive."
But religion is also responsible for a great deal of the good that happens in the world. And perhaps it is some sort of delusion, but those people who use religion as an excuse for evil would simply find something else as an excuse. Politics, economics, tribalism, the eternal other.
So, understand, it is not a demonization of atheists in general - it is a critique of Dawkins, whom (to me) is a bad example of an atheist. The place for atheism isn't some sort of ridiculous war against religion, but is working towards those humanistic values.
If he wants to discredit creationism - be my guest, I still have the "Blind Watchmaker" on video and enjoy it. But "The God Delusion" takes him out of his expertise, and makes him look ridiculous.
7 - Gideon
I may have worded a phrase poorly, Bob.
"Dinesh then goes on to explain Dawkin's gross materialism as the essence of atheism - that there can be no values, no explanations, no psychological"
I meant by that, that Dinesh uses the basic materialism presented as the only thing atheism asserts, not that it is the only thing that Dawkins asserts.
8 - neonmagek
I haven't read any of Dawkins books, so I am not going to say he does or does not have a case when it comes to religion. I think what you wrote was rather well thought out. I would like to thank you for not slanting it.
As far as whether religion is good, bad, somewhere in between, that is a whole differant bowl of wax (I am refering the reponse you posted to Bob).
9 - bliffle
Religion has proven so futile at dealing with good and evil that it has just become a distraction, a waste of time.