• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 758 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 3:50 am

Richard's Kid Gloves

#35: Jan. - Mar. 2007 (Non-Fiction)
FiskeMiles

Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

Rereading chapter one I was struck by the following juxtaposition. Here is the final sentence from the first chapter:Quote:I shall not go out of my way to offend, but nor shall I don kid gloves to handle religion any more gently than I would handle anything else. And here is the first sentence of chapter two. In fact, the very next sentence in the book:Quote:The God of the Old testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.If this Richard's idea of not going out of his way to offend? Because if it is, he sucks at it. Going out of his way to offend is precisely his intent. So why make the first statement? I'm seriously asking -- why make the first statement and follow it up with the second?FiskePS: Okay, I had to look filicidal up.PSS: Is anyone else reminded of Chevy Chase's tirade against his boss in Christmas Vacation when he gets the jelly of the month membership instead of a bonus? Edited by: FiskeMiles at: 1/4/07 1:52 am
Federika22

Re: Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

Quote:In fact, NOT the Christian God but the God of the Old TestamentI know Dawkins was talking specifically about the OT in that section, but technically it is not incorrect to refer to the OT god as Christian, is it? Edited by: Federika22 at: 1/4/07 2:10 am
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17016
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3507 times
Been thanked: 1310 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

FiskeI don't think Dawkins is going out of his way to offend. I think Dawkins is brutally honest and telling it like it is. Nothing in his description of the Christian God is untrue or embellished, so he cannot be faulted for being completely honest. If his words offend it might be because the truth can sometimes hurt.
FiskeMiles

Re: Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

Chris:Quote:Nothing in his description of the Christian God is untrue or embellishedOops! In fact, NOT the Christian God but the God of the Old Testament. Christ came later and offered a new covenant with a "kindler, gentler" God...I don't suppose you would be impressed with an argument about cultural relativism?Fiske
Federika22

Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

I don't see a problem with the two statements. There may be other comments made in the book that come across as designed for offense, but the description of the OT god is right on, IMO. Like Chris said, all the statements Dawkins made are true about the OT dude. So what's the prob? What's should be offensive is when we hear someone trying to square those qualities with the notion of the height of love.
FiskeMiles

Re: Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

Teacher's pet! Fiske
Federika22

Re: Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

Quote:Teacher's pet! Nit-picker!
Saint Gasoline

Re: Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

Like Chris said, this is remark isn't made just to be offensive. It will certainly offend believers, but as Dawkins routinely points out, believers are routinely offended by even the most subtle of criticisms.Frankly, I don't see how it is offensive for Dawkins to list off some obvious truisms about the God of the Old Testament. He does murder people, he is vindictive, he is jealous, and he does everything that Dawkins lists. If one is offended, then they should be offended at their own religion, not Dawkins for merely pointing out the obvious.
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

Yes, I agree with everyone here that there is nothing really wrong with the chosen approach or what was said. Just because something may offend someone, does not mean that saying it is looking for trouble.But this is what Harris and Dawkins and others mean when we say religion is granted some sort of buffer zone when it comes to talking honestly about it and it's shortcomings.Mr. P. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!Mr. P's Bookshelf.I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - AsanaThe one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
FiskeMiles

Re: Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

Dear Saint (et al):Quote:Like Chris said, this is remark isn't made just to be offensive.Okay, then why WAS it made?The statement IS true, but why make it at the beginning of a chapter devoted to RD's God Hypothesis?Here's what I'm getting at. Let's say you visit some friends, and they have a fat kid. Would you say to them, "My, but your son is rotund?" If they had taken their son to a doctor, and he told them that Little Johnny needs to lose weight, or else become the subject of even more jokes, not to mention a lot of health problems, the statement would not only have a purpose but have been solicited and ethically required. But in the first instance would you really preface the comment by saying you weren't going out of your way to offend? Would your friends believe that? Or would they be even more offended? Think about it -- the prefatory comment just makes the following comment even more offensive.Oh, a structural point about what is being done here: not only does RD trash Yahweh in his very next sentence, he makes sure that sentence falls at the beginning of a chapter. This is a typical device used for dramatic effect. In other words, to make it even more shocking.Here's how Dawkins begins his next paragraph:Quote:It is unfair to attack such an easy target. The God Hypothesis should not stand or fall with its most unlovely instantiation, Yahweh...So if it was unfair, Richard, why did you do it?He follows this up by stating:Quote:I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus or Wotan.The heck he isn't! What did he just do? (In fact, what he continues to do throughout the book.)The point I'm making is that when Dawkins states he is not going out of his way to offend religious believers he is being disingenuous. That is exactly what he is doing. The intent of this book, following Sam Harris' lead to a certain extent, is to position Dawkins as an atheist shock jock in the Fox News style. His subsequent media-blitz is part and parcel of the enterprise.Fiske Edited by: FiskeMiles at: 1/4/07 11:27 am
Post Reply

Return to “The God Delusion - by Richard Dawkins”