3 Responses to “Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory”

1. Krauze Says:
   September 21st, 2006 at 3:59 am

   Thanks, Mike. This is my favorite:

   One might argue that a professor of the public understanding of science has no need to concern himself with trivialities outside his field like the French revolution, the Spanish civil war or Stalin's purges when he knows that history is on his side. "With notable exceptions, such as the Afghan Taliban and the American Christian equivalent, most people play lip service to the same broad liberal consensus of ethical principles." Really? "The majority of us don't cause needless suffering; we believe in free speech and protect it even if we disagree with what is being said." Do the Chinese believe in free speech? Does Dawkins think that pious Catholics or Muslims are allowed to? Does he believe in it himself? He quotes later in the book approvingly and at length a speech by his friend Nicholas Humphrey which argued that, "We should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out." But of course, it's not interfering with free speech when atheists do it.

Comment by Krauze — September 21, 2006 @ 3:59 am

2. TomG Says:
   September 21st, 2006 at 9:34 am

   It's worth noting that the reviewer is hardly grinding an axe in favor of religion:

   In his broad thesis, Dawkins is right. Religions are potentially dangerous, and in their popular forms profoundly irrational. The agnostics must be right and the atheists very well may be. There is no purpose to the universe. Nothing inconsistent with the laws of physics has been reliably reported. To demand a designer to explain the complexity of the world begs the question, "Who designed the designer?"

   These beliefs in themselves are of course overblown and can be corrected by referring to the facts about them. I hope that by quoting them I am not undermining the credibility of the rest of the review, which I think is right in its assessment of our friend Mr. Dawkins. The point is just to show that one does not have to disagree with Dawkins' basic starting point to notice that he is no longer making any sense when he talks about it.

Comment by TomG — September 21, 2006 @ 9:34 am

3. chunkdz Says:
   September 21st, 2006 at 11:11 am

   Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory

   You left out:

   …disingenuous…

Comment by chunkdz — September 21, 2006 @ 11:11 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.