Religion

Richard Kirk reviews Dawkins’s THE GOD DELUSION

Spread the love

Here is an excerpt from Richard Kirk’s review of Dawkins’s The God Delusion, which appeared in The American Spectator.

. . . When it comes to magnanimity, here’s a sample of the author’s generosity: “To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird.” This comment shows the contempt Dawkins consistently displays for ideas that don’t conform to his own — a bio-creed that includes the following affirmations: life emerged on earth due to random interactions of material elements; life evolved from its primitive forms to its current complexity because of natural selection; no god is needed to make sense of these (or any other) phenomena.

In truth, Dawkins’ entire book is an exercise in contempt — summarily dismissing Thomas Aquinas’ theological arguments and devoting less than 100 breezy pages to the whole issue of God’s existence. The rest of Dawkins’ book discusses — with the jaundiced eye of an H. L. Mencken in biological drag — how religious beliefs are given undue social deference, why Einstein’s references to God aren’t religious, why eastern religions aren’t religions, why religion developed (socio-biologically), how the Bible is a jumble of historical trash, how religion promotes intolerance and undermines science, how Hitler may have been Catholic, why Stalin’s atheism doesn’t matter, why society doesn’t need religion to be moral, why Jefferson was probably an atheist (the non-mentioned God-statements on the Jefferson Memorial to the contrary notwithstanding), why studying religion to understand literary references is okay, and why parents indoctrinating their children with religious beliefs are guilty of child abuse. (The depth of Dawkins’ political thought is shown by his failure to ponder for one second the implications of a government that can tell parents what beliefs they can and cannot transmit to their offspring.) . . .

SOURCE: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10729

16 Replies to “Richard Kirk reviews Dawkins’s THE GOD DELUSION

  1. 1
    Barrett1 says:

    I think it has been duly established on this thread that this Dawkins fella is an idiot. But please let me anoint this new topic with a fresh perspective. This Dawkins fella is an idiot.

  2. 2

    Not to toot my own horn, but just a general FYI. I got to confront and interact with Dawkins while he was on his book tour. I blogged about it here and here:
    http://geoffreyrobinson.blogsp.....wkins.html
    http://geoffreyrobinson.blogsp.....-read.html

  3. 3
    Douglas says:

    Richard Dawkins is a boon to ID and Creationism. It will be a sad day for us when there is no more Richard Dawkins to point to and refute.

  4. 4
    Darrow says:

    Shannon Love, himself an atheist, offers a wonderful and insightful review of this book and its assumpions.

    You can find it here.

  5. 5
    crandaddy says:

    If any man could be considered a threat to theistic belief, I can safely say that he is not Richard Dawkins.

  6. 6
    tribune7 says:

    I feel sorry for him.

  7. 7
    Mats says:

    Cleary Richard Kirk is religious motivated, and his atempts to undermine the credibility of an evolutionary scientist are more than obvious. Luckly, my trained randomly-evolved eye could spot it right away, and blow the whistle on him

  8. 8
    shaner74 says:

    Crandaddy wrote:
    “If any man could be considered a threat to theistic belief, I can safely say that he is not Richard Dawkins.”

    I agree with you. I think Dawkins is a great benefit to ID. In fact all the evangelical-atheist-scientists could be seen as beneficial to ID. Remarks from those such as Dawkins, P.Z., Tyson all irritate me, but I realize it’s helpful in the long run. But your response brings up an interesting question: who deserves the title of “the most dangerous threat to theistic belief”? Besides Osama Bin Laden and his ilk, I’m drawing a blank.

  9. 9
    StephenA says:

    Darwin? 😉

  10. 10
    shaner74 says:

    Of course Darwin, but present-day threat?

  11. 11
    StuartHarris says:

    To be fair, I have not read Dawkins’ new book, but having read the commentary about it I think one or more of the following are true:

    1. Dawkins is envious of the Designer and because of this publishes hissy fits.
    2. Dawkins is proof that many men become infantile as they grow old.
    3. Dawkins is an agent of the Discovery Institute, a mole planted into the atheistic culture in order to make its arguments look foolish and over the top.

    Stu Harris
    http://www.theidbookstore.com

  12. 12
    crandaddy says:

    I don’t think that Bin Laden could be a threat to theistic belief per se since, as a professing Muslim, I presume he is a theist himself. To be honest, I have yet to encounter any argument against the existence of interventionist deities that looks really strong unless it would be an argument from evil such as this one by Quentin Smith.

  13. 13
    Collin says:

    Does anyone have a link to that video where Dawkins admits he believes in natural selection as a matter of faith?

  14. 14
    IDist says:

    I remember he said that in a newspaper interview, not sure about the video.

    I also read somewhere that he confessed that he decided to study biology and evolution because he wanted to promote atheism, not sure though.

  15. 15
    mike1962 says:

    No one is convinced by Dawkins one way or another. The theists are still theists, and the atheists are still atheists. He’s a TROLL and I’ll bet he knows it. And I’ll bet he reads this blog. I wonder if he can imagine me flipping my bird up his nose. What a philosophical dunderhead. Sheesh. Why do we care? Because he has a major publisher? Time will tell if any of this matters. I’ll bet it doesn’t.

  16. 16
    Rude says:

    Speaking of reviews–and I’m off topic so this’ll be short–have you seen Eric Cohen’s article (The Human Difference) in the latest Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine......p?id=10799)? It deserves some intelligent responses from y’all. It bows to both Darwin and Intelligent Design, but then says, “The irony is that by focusing relentlessly on man’s origin, not man’s being, ID theorists ultimately make the same error as orthodox Darwinians. In an age when biotechnology may soon allow us to redraw the biological boundaries between man and the other animals, what we need to understand is not the human beginning but the human difference. ” So he shows how we are different–and what is that difference? It turns out that, in essence, we are capable of producing Intelligent Design. Of course ID never claims to say it all, and as this author argues, ID indicates that man and beast are both designed. OK, that we share, but ID says more: Our design suggests purpose. And without a serious search for and appeal to that purpose I’m afraid we are defenseless from H.G. Wells’s island of Dr. Moreau.

Leave a Reply