The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Some random points:
Full-on assault just gives the fundies more PR coverage, which seems unhelpful - although I guess Dawkins' agent might not agree.
Very, very good diary. Thankyou for taking the time to write it.
WHAT a surprise - considering that it supports your original diary - which I went to some lengths to criticise - on the basis of what DAWKINS actually says he's doing and supporting evidence for this. The result ? In comments you simply reiterated your opinions and when I pointed out that these ignored the evidence I'd presented (and, yet again, you fail to provide evidence for your own case) - you failed to respond.
Now we have another rerun of your general opinions and we just get blanket assertions that Dawkins fails to understand - just about everything - if ONLY he'd consulted you, the poor man could have been spared all these supposed areas of ignorance:
Yes, Dawkins doesn't understand mythology, and he doesn't understand social dynamics. He certainly doesn't understand politics and he completely fails to understand that the rise of the Religious Right in the US is an interesting piece of applied social engineering, and not, in any way, a religious phenomenon. The fact that it happens to use religious symbolism is a matter of political convenience and expediency.
Of course, not a shred of evidence for any of this - the value of which is evident from the absurd and simplistic "the Religious Right in the US is an interesting piece of applied social engineering, and not, in any way, a religious phenomenon."
Well, that will be news to a lot of people, and not just Dawkins, Hitchens et al, also, here, it will be news to rdf and Millman, and to the many ex-religious people who've written or spoken to Dawkins to thank him for helping to free them from RELIGIOUS groups.
Of course religion and politics interact in complex ways and of course some politicians try to exploit such groups - but it works both ways. Part of the reason for the criticisms from Dawkins et al is that religious groups have become very active in politics. They are not active just about general political issues, but also about issues specific to their religious beliefs - cf. the comment from rdf. Their advocacy for creationism in schools is very obviously motivated by their religious beliefs, not just general political ones, as with other policies they campaign for.
The dominant mythology of today isn't Christianity, it's Neo-liberal fundamentalism.
Dawkins et al are arguing against religion, not just Christianity, and they don't claim that it is THE most important thing, just an important and influential thing - cf rdf's comment again - which they want to write about - not what you think they ought to write about.
If he wants a target to rail against, he should attack the organ grinder, not the monkey. Because without funding and a supportive media climate, the Religious Right would fade away within a decade or two, especially if distracted with a few scandals - not hard to find, I'd guess - and some competing narratives.
The religious give very generously to their churches' campaigns, many of which are specifically based on religious beliefs. THEY are influencing politicians, it's not just one-way, and some of their campaigns cause really suffering and death.
Over-simplification again: it doesn't JUST do that - as I've pointed out to you, repeatedly - their books provide support and ammunition for wavering religious people, agnostics and closet atheists, as is evident from the sales of the books, feedback to Dawkins' site, feedback he and Hitchens got on their book tours in the US and the testimonies on sites such as
http://exchristian.net e.g.:
I grew up in a Christian Fundamentalist home, where the Bible was law and nobody questioned its authority. I am now 33. For the first time I have found enough courage to REALLY question the things that I have held dear for so long. I found a website last night listing the similarities between Jesus and Horus. Scary. Everything matches. I found another site where a certain Rev Pete disproves the Bible by using the Bible. Even more scary. No argument I ever had for Christianity holds water any more. I am now convinced that God is not affiliated to any religion. He does not care where in the world you live. And He certainly does not want to throw us into a lake of fire! I am not entirely sure where that leaves me, but I refuse to call myself a Christian anymore. I am still looking for answers, testing what I have been taught against true evidence. Till then, I remain pissed off. http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2007/12/i-refuse-to-call-myself-christian.html
I am not entirely sure where that leaves me, but I refuse to call myself a Christian anymore. I am still looking for answers, testing what I have been taught against true evidence. Till then, I remain pissed off.
http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2007/12/i-refuse-to-call-myself-christian.html
Some of one and a half million people who have already bought Dawkins' book are people like this person "still looking for answers". Cf.:
It's been a long hard fought road, but worth every tear, frustration and sleepless nights. I have a few close friends who are supportive of what I believe and I cannot stress how important that is to anyone who has left the fold. It is also extremely important to keep reading material that questions Christianity and it's dogma. Education is a constant process since believers will use every trick in the book to bring one back to church. http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2007/06/i-received-double-dose-of-cognitive.html
It's been a long hard fought road, but worth every tear, frustration and sleepless nights. I have a few close friends who are supportive of what I believe and I cannot stress how important that is to anyone who has left the fold. It is also extremely important to keep reading material that questions Christianity and it's dogma. Education is a constant process since believers will use every trick in the book to bring one back to church.
http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2007/06/i-received-double-dose-of-cognitive.html
Some of one and a half million people who have already bought Dawkins' book are people like this person "still looking for answers".
Millions of people also bought The Da Vinci Code looking for answers. That doesn't mean it gave them any answers worth having.
It's clear you don't understand the origins or motive power behind the fundie movement any more than Dawkins does. So for homework I suggest you research who funded Jerry Falwell and the other original fundies in the 80s, and who they were connected to politically.
When you're familiar with that, we can move on to the difference between creating media noise and crafting a coherent and memorable narrative, and the different options that are available to do that.
You might, for example, want to look into how effective direct mail campaigns have been in building up the fundie base. And whether they're more effective as agents of persuasion than a book aimed at a middle class and educated readership which has no interest in becoming part of fundie culture.
Some time spent pondering the difference in influence and effectiveness between the narrative Dawkins is selling and the knee-jerk grudge-politics of the Right could be interesting too. In fact a diary on that would be useful for everyone, and with your media background I'm sure you'd be an excellent person to write it.
Believing that Dawkins has a clue about any of this, or any influence on it at all, is entertaining, but - it has to be said - somewhat at odds with historical reality.
You refer specifically to ONE point:
Some of one and a half million people who have already bought Dawkins' book are people like this person "still looking for answers". Millions of people also bought The Da Vinci Code looking for answers. That doesn't mean it gave them any answers worth having.
Books like the Da Vinci Code are part of the problem which Dawkins et al are addressing. You haven't come up with any specific criticisms of Dawkins' book - apart from assumumptions about what he's trying to do - which are clearly wrong - as I'm tired of pointing out.
Of course you again ignore the other evidence that he's succeeding in helping religious people leave religious groups, and giving support to agnostics and atheists - which many of them appreciate and feel is important in the current religious climate in the US. You also ignore rdf's comment and the evidence in it.
It's clear that you are so rigid in your views you continue to ignore any evidence and arguments against it - despite the absurdity of claiming that "the Religious Right in the US is ... not, in any way, a religious phenomenon." I have already said that I'm sure some politicians exploit religious groups - but that clearly religious groups are pushing religious agendas too in politics with extremely harmful consequences for many.
I find it staggering that after all that's been pointed out about Dawkins' aims and the various forms of positive feedback he's got, you continue with junk like this:
... And whether they're more effective as agents of persuasion than a book aimed at a middle class and educated readership which has no interest in becoming part of fundie culture.
If YOU did some homework you'd know that even some fundamentalists are intelligent people who've struggled with their own doubts, often suppressed not to upset those close to them, but that, in the end, they couldn't compartmentalize any more. Some of even the previously most committed started asking questions and then reading books like that of Dawkins and, despite the personal problems, changed radically.
In between these extreme cases and overt atheists, who welcome support, there are many people of all classes in the US who have doubts and many are beginning to read such books and open discussion of them has become more acceptable. This is to the credit of such authors.
Presumably we should just have faith in your views - even though they are "somewhat at odds with historical reality" - which is a bit more complex than - it's all due to the neo-cons. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Oui - Dec 5 8 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Dec 83 comments
by Oui - Dec 617 comments
by Oui - Dec 612 comments
by Oui - Dec 58 comments
by Oui - Dec 41 comment
by Oui - Dec 21 comment
by Oui - Dec 157 comments
by Oui - Dec 16 comments
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by Oui - Nov 2838 comments
by Oui - Nov 2713 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments