Larry Taunton does not like Dawkins’ newest book.
This time, Oxford University’s professional unbeliever is out to spread holiday cheer with a new children’s book, The Magic of Reality. Christmas is, after all, the season of magic, and lest children confuse sugar plum fairies and flying reindeer with the observable and repeatable, the professor has loaded neither toys nor goodies on his sleigh but a heavy dose of “rational skepticism.”
There’s not a single atheist who has a problem with the magic of imagination. Our problem is when people fail to draw the line between fantasy and reality. Stories of people rising from the dead are fantastic. Believing those stories is a cognitive failure.
The implicit thesis of the book is that religious explanations of “reality” are silly and utterly incompatible with the scientific endeavor.
And a damn fine thesis it is! Global flood? Woman being made from a rib? Talking snake? Yes, these are incompatible with science. As usual when believers sneer at rationalists for their love of reality, Larry does nothing to explain why such folderol is not obscenely offensive to science.
Jewish traditions are lumped with those of the Tasmanians, the Christian story of Jesus with that of Cinderella, because one is as absurd as the other. Never mind, kiddies, that it was the Judeo-Christian tradition (not Cinderella) that gave rise to the very science Dawkins occasionally practices and the civilization from which he draws most of his moral and intellectual sensibilities.
Say what? Show me in the bible where it tells us how to build a telescope or where it teaches how to solve for x. That religious people were scientists gives religion no more right to claim responsibility for science than racist scientists give ownership of the enterprise to racists.
And if you think Dawkins derives his moral sensibilities from Christianity, I have a bridge up for sale in the Bay Area…
Jesus, do I ever get annoyed at hearing that line.
Factual errors aside, the irony of Dawkins’ crusading is that he is crusading at all. In so doing, he has unwittingly mimicked the Christian missionary and evangelistic efforts that he so hates.
Yes, zealots are passionate. So are many vocal atheists. Just like PZ Myers has children, so he’s just like Fred Phelps. Makes sense as long as you flee from logic like a vampire from the sun.
Yes, we think we’re right and we are trying to convince others of it. That similarity is not the problem with evangelists. The problem with evangelists is in the way they differ from the rationalist ideal. The problem is their apathy/disdain for evidence, their insistence that others must organize their lives around the evangelist’s beliefs, and a host of other qualities that would humiliate someone if not for religion praising them.
Larry finishes up with presumably the best dig in his arsenal.
Then again, maybe Dawkins is seeking to become atheism’s Oxford equivalent to C.S. Lewis, whose stories continue to excite the imaginations of young and old alike some five decades after his death. If so, the Lewis estate need not worry. The place of the pipe-smoking inventor of Narnia within the canon of children’s literature is firmly intact.
You’re missing the point, Larry. I love Narnia. I thought The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe was a great book. You must realize that fantasy is not under attack. The problem is not with closing one’s eyes and visiting a magical world that could never be. The problem is when people start believing lions and snakes really talk, or that evil witches are really among us, because the text of a book says so. Eight year-olds can make that distinction. It’s a pity when grown men cannot.
Via Steven Olsen.
Apparently these charges against The Magic of Reality are being dispensed by others (also with comparisons to C.S. Lewis). PZ makes short work of them.