Ideologues always go for the children. I understand why deists must, if their beliefs require it. But WTF causes Dawkins and company to mess with other peoples’ children? Pure sanctimony and self-regard.
(The usual caveat: there are atheists and then there are militant atheists. The latter are all like Dawkins; no matter how clever their words, all of them are profoundly stupid. Here’s why.)
These myths/stories seem ridiculous, and Dawkins takes the tone he always takes when describing religious stories—a condescending one.
It’s good to hear that Dawkins can’t keep his sneering contempt off the page. Not that I’d have expected anything different. Like that book series that got increasingly preachy and annoying.
…primitive people wrongly perceived the world and invented stories to explain whatever natural phenomenon.
The faith of Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Pullman will always be subordinate to deism. The atheists can only change that by murdering enough believers, a la Lenin and Mao.
But atheists have a problem with their fairy tale. It’s far too outlandish. Most people, even the simplest, instinctively know that it’s wrong. So the day will come when most people believe anything else. That’s when deists outnumber atheists once again.
Why? This is a “fox and hedgehog” situation. It doesn’t matter how many different things Dawkins knows, or how much of religion he can explain away. Because most people know “One Big Thing”: we’re Different. We’re alike each other in some mysterious way, while Different from everything else around us. We are not simply animals.
The Dawkins/Pullman creation myth–Chance Evolution–claims otherwise.
Of course both Dawkins and Pullman sense that discrepancy between Nature and Human Nature. Simply acknowledging “right and wrong” denies us the simplicity of animalhood. So militant atheists must spin frantic yarns to deny that denial, to “explain whatever natural phenomenon.” (Dawkins included.)
I’ve a standing challenge to atheists, especially of the intelligent, non-militant sort: tell me the story. Tell me how life could arise by chance and people could become Different. Alternately, if we’re not Different, why shouldn’t I kill you and your offspring and take your wealth and woman? Species can’t survive without culling the unfit, right? So I’m arguably doing “good”.
I give Dawkins credit for one thing: he’s man enough not to hide behind children. You know, the way statists and “activists” often do. Trotting out kids to spout their arguments about global warming or unions’ benefits or whatever. But apart from that, Mr. “Selfish Gene” just seems increasingly sad and pathetic.
I’d have a little more sympathy if he’d leave the kids out of this.