New Atheists heart Old Fundamentalists
When I think of horribly unpersuasive spokespersons for their views, I think of Pat Robertson and Richard Dawkins. Both see the absolute worst in those with whom they disagree and feel the need to constantly speak their mind when no one wants to hear it. So why would I be surprised when Dawkins actually defended Robertson's Haiti idiocy? New York Times columnists Russ Douthat explores what he calls "the symbiotic relationship" between new atheists and fundamentalists.
10 Comments Post a comment
"So why would I be surprised when Dawkins actually defended Robertson's Haiti idiocy?"
Link?
Never mind, I got it.
Dawkins On Hypocrisy
From reading Dawkins' actual words, it doesn't seem at all that he is defending Robertson's "idiocy" as moral, sane, or compassionate, but that Robertson's view of God is consistent with the actions of the God of the Old Testament. Whether Dawkins' assessment is accurate or not, I can't say. I think it's safe to say that Dawkins would agree that Robertson is an idiot, just a consistent one.
I suppose "defend" is a bit strong or could give the wrong idea. Perhaps it would be better to say "defended them as consistent." But I think Douthat raises a good point that Dawkins et al almost rely on Falwell and other fundamentalists and their odd theology and view of the relationship between faith & reason.
Perhaps it would be better to say "defended them as consistent."
I don't see where Dawkins defends Robertson at all, consistent or otherwise. For support let me point out some of what Dawkins said…
"What hypocrisy."
"Loathsome as Robertson's views undoubtedly are, he is the Christian who stands squarely in the Christian tradition."
"… those faux-anguished hypocrites are denying the centrepiece of their own theology. It is the obnoxious Pat Robertson who is the true Christian here."
Now whether you agree with Dawkins or not is beside the point. The point is there is no way that he is defending Robertson. On the contrary, he is attacking Robertson and saying his "loathsome" behavior is CONSISTENT with Christianity. That is what the comment "Robertson is an idiot, just a consistent one" refers to.
Dawkins, et al, depend on a certain strain of Christianity to make their points – modern, fundamentalist and/or evangelical Christianism. There are other forms of Christianity which don't maintain the anti-reason, anti-science, literalist and fundamentalist doctrines the new Atheists so rightly attack. The problem is, they ignore these other versions, or caricature them mercilessly, to make their sweeping points. Now, we can look at daniel's attacks on so-called "liberal" Christianity to see the kind of religion that both conservative religionists and secular atheists can't abide. In fact, both mirror each other in their strange insistence that religious literature be taken literally – one side to defend, the other to attack. This, of course, is a recent historical development, dating from the early modern period and beginning of science and rationalism in the 17th century. Many of us are beginning to wake up to the fact that neither side in the current debate holds the truth of the matter, that there are other ways to express our spiritual quest, and that we may safely ignore both the rationalist atheists and the fundamentalist religionists (cf, Karen Armstrong's "A Defense of God" for an enlightening and ferociously learned historical discussion of the issues involved).
Questions about biblical doctrines don't depend on fundamentalist Christians, they depend on the Bible.
Such criticisms come both from outside and in. Within Christendom, more fundamentalist Christians have derided those who ignore the Bible's rules about premarital sex or masturbation or divorce or homosexuality or whatever else as "cafeteria Christians".
You can believe whatever version of God you like, but if you identify what you worship as the God of the Bible, then it's fair to respond by questioning the character of the Bible's versions of God. Stories about Noah and the flood, or Sodom and Gomorrah, or the Passover, or God's many other biblical atrocities, portray a malevolent, genocidal God.* Or to ask: If God commanded you, "Now go and attack New Orleans, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey", would you go kill men, women, and babies for God?**
* If you regard God's atrocities in Bible as metaphorical and not literally true, are the stories of Jesus and his resurrection metaphorical too? How do you choose which parts are metaphorical and which are literal? Is your personal salvation metaphorical or literal?
** If your reaction is "God wouldn't do that", see 1 Samuel 15:2-3.
>>ROBIN: more fundamentalist Christians have derided those who ignore the Bible's rules about premarital sex or masturbation or divorce or homosexuality or whatever else as "cafeteria Christians"
Minor correction, Christians don't really have a doctrine about masturbation.
>> ROBIN: Stories about Noah and the flood, or Sodom and Gomorrah, or the Passover, or God's many other biblical atrocities, portray a malevolent, genocidal God.*
Out of context, and ignoring the many passages showing God's mercy, one might conclude that. Ignoring the wickedness of men burning their children to pagan Gods could be seen as a failure of justice on God's part as well if you want to see it that way.
>> ROBIN: If God commanded you, "Now go and attack New Orleans, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey", would you go kill men, women, and babies for God?**
If I was part of Israel, I might. If I was a Christian, I would recognize such commands as contrary to NT Christianity.
>> ROBIN: ** If your reaction is "God wouldn't do that", see 1 Samuel 15:2-3
My reaction is God did do that with Israel, and God is still just, and wicked nations bring judgment on themselves.
Are all invasions or calamities God's judgement? No. How do you tell? Ask the prophet :)
Ha! Seriously? Have you never met a Roman Catholic?
Pope John Paul II reaffirmed this Church doctrine in 1993 CE. To hammer the point home, I could post quotes from Orthodox Christians and other denominations on this topic, not to mention various other early theologians.
Suffice to say, many Christians do, indeed, have a doctrine on masturbation.
How come no one talks about all the people Hitler didn't kill? No matter how nice he may have been to people who weren't his victims, it cannot excuse attempting global genocide.
So instead Moses murdered those children with swords for his god. That's ~so~ much less wicked.
So, you'd say "No, God, I won't do that, because that's against the New Testament"? Wasn't it contrary to OT Christianity too, like the Ten Commandments? Yet God ordered it. Should Moses have said, "No, God, your command is against those slabs you made me?"
So, if I understand you correctly:
Your reaction is that commanding people to kill infants is moral, when those infants are born in a wicked nation.
My reaction is that commanding people to kill infants is immoral. You're making excuses for wickedness, danielg.
Saul, I should have said. Saul slaughtered the Amelekite children, Moses slaughtered the Midianite children. I slipped and started talking about a different God-ordered genocide. My bad.