Scientist, author and "militant" atheist Richard Dawkins is at it again. He's criticizing Pat Robertson, religion in general and Christianity in particular; this time in a January 25 editorial in The Washington Post. "The religious mind," he says, "...restlessly seeks human meaning in the blind happenings of nature," which is why people like Pat Robertson see the hand of God in the Haitian earthquake; smiting a sinful nation in retribution for a "pact with the devil" some of their ancestors supposedly made over 200 years ago. And yet while Dawkins finds Pat Robertson's viewpoint loathsome, he reserves the bulk of his criticism for the Christian moderates who disown him for it. Why? Because Pat, at least, is no hypocrite. He stands foursquare in the Christian tradition of regarding suffering as the punishment of, or atonement for, sin. (more here)

Tags: Religion, hypocrisy

Views: 40

Replies to This Discussion

That's because he directs his message to the moderates, who still has some chances to think. He tries to force them to think and take one side. He apparently is praising the fanatics but actually he, again, is talking to the moderates.
Richard Dawkins asks, “Where was God in Noah's flood? He was systematically drowning the entire world, animal as well as human, as punishment for 'sin'. Where was God when Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed with fire and brimstone?”

It is complicated. Essentially, the story of the Noah’s flood alludes to the two faces of Yahweh, judgment and mercy, which are balanced by the human being, Noah. Thus the mythological stories of Genesis reflect a covenantal relationship between God and human kind, represented by the generations of Adam.

As I have learned in my exploration of the Bible, compassion is the central force of two opposites: the mercy of God and the judgment of God. Compassion moved Noah to build an arc and save all the species of animals along with his family. This is the true lesson of this story, which starts at Genesis 6:5 and goes through Genesis 9:17, teaching to the future generations of Israelites that they were chosen by God and they shall fulfill their choosiness by learning how to inhabit his or her side of the new equation.

It seems to me that Christian evangelicals like Pat Robertson use another culture’s ideas for purposes that may wholly contradict their original intention. However, is it not Richard Dawkins doing the same?
Her reasoning is unclear to me too. God's compassion seems pretty minor compared to what His judgement entails... drowning all those sinful animals and sinful children in order to get at the adult transgressors(?).

In spite of His petty and savage nature, the God of the Old Testament is still more compassionate than the God of the New Testament. Cross the OT God and he just kills you. Cross the NT God and he condemns you to an eternity of torment in Hell.
Richard Dawkins knows, like you, that you have to read a religious text through its connotation and not through its denotation. However, he had to adopt the same assumption as Robertson and discuss about the Bible through its litteral meaning, not through its metaphorical meaning. Many Christians take the Bible litterally, that is the problem.
No he's not doing the same. And quoting bloody scripture doesnt work on this site.

Dawkins is stressing the utter ludicriousness of the biblical belief in atonement for sin. In this case, Noahs story. Mythical people doing the so called bidding of a mythical being. Thats a far cry from people being crushed to death for real in an earthquake caused by plate techtonics.

And its not complicated at all. The bible stories, especially the flood story are just that. Stories. Dawkins latest exhortions call attention to the childishness of belief in atonement for mankinds self imposed original sin (whatever that is) and then the hypocritical judgements made by self proclaimed 'loving kindly christians'. Bah.
When I saw the news story about robertson's rant, my first thought was: "Hmmm, revenue must be down at the '700'." I figure, even if the old fool believes what he says, you can bet the money changers could care less. Probably some good bonuses made.
What would be bliss on earth for me would be if the old fool ranted and no one noticed.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service