What is provocative in those quotes is the deliberate way in which Dawkins separates any sort of defensible and reasonable (by both his standards and the typical standards of his audience) spiritual and religious sentiment from what he defines as "real religion," which is solely composed of fundamentalist insanity.
But he doesn't say that in the quotations, which is not surprising because he has made it clear in various places that he doesn't think this. Thus he accepts, as is obvious, that there are moderate, nice, reasonable religious people - and he thinks theirs is "real religion" too. His problem with them is that, as he sees it, they give a cloak of respectability to the more extremist forms - so obviously he doesn't restrict "real religion" to the extremists or he wouldn't have this complaint/argument.
Yet again views are attributed to him which he just doesn't hold. The distinction he makes, see chapter one, is between the "religion" attributed to Einstein and others, which was awe and reverence for nature, and, the real religion of those who believe in a god, a supernatural being who created nature. The latter can come in moderate or extremist forms. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
aspiring to genteel poverty
And how would you judge the adequacy of any definition - by whether it fitted some anterior definition - or by your general understanding of what religion is?
School essays are often supposed to start with a definition, sometimes it's a good idea, with a very general term which we're perfectly capable of applying, it's just a waste of time; See your own favourite "definition" of religion - and stop wasting your time. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Maybe "religion" is an extremely complex topic that does not lend itself to those who would dismiss it as evil in a paragraph or two.
What are you talking about - Dawkins wrote a book, not just a few paragraphs - if you have any arguments about what he has actually written, let's see them. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Am I supposed to take this kind of rambling seriously:
Well I stared off with a sympathetic mind on the smearing of Dawkins. I was less open to some of Dawkins arguments. Some of his arguemts I think are interesting and under some circumstances would be interesting to debate. Did nanne go overbord? I still don't have enough information to form an opinion. On the other hand the defense of Dawkins so far is none to pretty either. And then there is Hitchens.
What is the "none to [sic] pretty" part of the defense ? Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
We are meant to be impressed with the evils of religion and regaled with the Battle of Jericho. Alternative explanations are not listed. Einstein said Nationalism is an infantile disease. What role did religion play? What role did nationalism play? What would Jewish children who did not believe in god think? We have no answers and are thus little wiser. Simple truths to mask complex questions, such as "Does religion manipulate and control society? Is it the other way around? Is it a two way street?" "As society changes, does religion change?" "Do we create god in our own image, or does religion create us in its own image?" Is Skinner correct or is he wrong?
Nationalism is an infantile disease.
What role did religion play? What role did nationalism play? What would Jewish children who did not believe in god think? We have no answers and are thus little wiser. Simple truths to mask complex questions, such as "Does religion manipulate and control society? Is it the other way around? Is it a two way street?" "As society changes, does religion change?" "Do we create god in our own image, or does religion create us in its own image?" Is Skinner correct or is he wrong?
Instead you are interested in pretending that I have said nothing at all. You are trying to score cheap debating points as opposed to something more serious.
If you don't want to answer my criticisms then don't. Don't pretend that I have not made any.
I will no longer be reading your responses on this topic.
Oh dear. For anybody else - the bit you quoted from your comment is not exactly coherent - you seem to be complaining that Dawkins doesn't deal with all the possible issues you can dream up. You don't clearly set out anything specific he says and show what's wrong with it.
Simple truths to mask complex questions
Exactly which supposed "simple truths" ? Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
