The Professor Responds

Richard Dawkins’ book, “The God Delusion“, has become a worldwide non-fiction best-seller. He has been chastised in numerous reviews and debates for his stridency, focus on disputing claims by certain populist preachers rather than moderates, and general poo-pooing of religion as a necessary or desirable force in the world.

After months of silence, earlier this month Richard Dawkins responded. While I realize most/many/all of us have not read “The God Delusion” (it’s on my to-buy list once I finish Dawkins’ “The Ancestor’s Tale”), I think Richard’s perspective on the debate surrounding his work is helpful toward keeping the discussion centered on the real issues of faith in global politics and war rather than ad-hominem.

Some quotes:

I’m an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant, ranting language.

Objectively judged, the language of The God Delusion is less shrill than we regularly hear from political commentators or from theatre, art, book or restaurant critics. The illusion of intemperance flows from the unspoken convention that faith is uniquely privileged: off limits to attack. In a criticism of religion, even clarity ceases to be a virtue and begins to sound like aggressive hostility.

“you attack crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than facing up to sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury.”

If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so.