Dear Irish:
As always, thanks for shining rays of sunshine and sensitivity on the conversation.
I liked the "fat" kid analogy, actually, and thought it apropos. But I'm not a big fan of obscene language, and I do agree this discussion has gotten absurd. In fact, we zoomed by the boundary of absurdity quite some while back and nobody even gave it a nod...
Regarding the book's tone, I do find it objectionable regardless of the poor scholarship so frequently on exhibit. (Don't miss the Einstein's Religion thread for more of the same.) I don't believe RD's mocking and derisive tone is appropriate to the subject. Niall said it best, I think, when he commented that it isn't what one anticipates from a respected academic. I think it is true, though, that the misuse of references and weak arguments make me less willing to overlook the tone.
I've almost finished the book and am not as impressed with the last chapters as you seem to be, but that conversation more properly belongs on other threads. The problems stem from the same issues that crop up any time RD isn't discussing evolution and genetics -- what does he know of psychology? sociology? anthropology? terrorism? Middle East culture? etc., etc. All sorts of conclusions and assertions are made on the basis of little solid research or actual knowledge.
I was particularly amused by his use of a 150 year old anecdote to characterize mainstream "moderate" religious attitudes. I assume he chose this example because it was readily at hand, and he couldn't be bothered to research more current examples. Of course, NO footnotes are provided in the entire 10 page section where he discusses the issue. But, more on that in the appropriate location...
Fiske
Tweet This Topic
Edited by: 
