Still? Still? The same old thing, so the same you could write it in your sleep?
This time it’s in the Irish Times and it’s written by a tutor of philosophy at Trinity College Dublin, Robert Grant.
Have the first three fresh sparkling original paragraphs:
The New Atheists – Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens – have become immensely popular in the past decade through a series of blistering attacks on religion.
While their starting point was the lack of scientific evidence for God’s existence, they quickly expanded their target to argue that religion is the “root of all evil” in the world. Far from being tolerated, religion should be banished. It obstructs the progress of the human race; and progress based on the pursuit of science and reason.
At first I was sympathetic to their cause. I too was angry with the hypocrisy and false piety of religious leaders, their cover-up of abuse, their oppressive views on homosexuality, contraception and the treatment of women. Not to mention that I don’t believe in heaven, hell, miracles or the power of prayer.
But then, of course, there was that moment of conversion, and he realized his error. You could write the rest of it in your sleep. It’s hackwork – treating three writers as a single unit, making sweeping generalizations about what they claim without backing up a single one by actually quoting anything, exaggerating with cheery abandon, and uttering dull platitudes every step of the way.
There’s a lot I object to in Dawkins and Harris (and slightly less in Hitchens), but that doesn’t mean they deserve this kind of sloppy inaccurate recycled garbage, especially at the hands of someone who teaches philosophy.
“Trinity College”….sorta gives you a clue as to what’s coming, doesn’t it?
The “Root of all Evil” thing seems to have come from a program Dawkins did for Channel 4 here in the UK. The title was not his choice and he objected to it. He even wrote an essay about it, saying that he did not consider any one thing to be root of all evil.
It is hard to believe that the author of that tripe is not aware of this.
Kevin – well yes and no. It’s a very respected university, but at the same time…it’s not very secular.
Not at all. Are you unaware of all the Nobel Prizes awarded to Trinity alumni? Why, they have more Nobel prizes than all the world’s Muslims. (And only 27% fewer than all the world’s women.)
Okay, it’s a different Trinity College. But it still has its share of laureates.
Dear Muslima,
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering poor Richard Dawkins, BBC television star, has to put up with.
Ah, yes! One can write this in their sleep!
Grant says of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris “They make the mistake here of treating evil as if it exists exclusively within a set of beliefs or practices” but gives no example of any of them saying that. I’m sure the folks here, being familiar with the writings of those chaps, will easily be able to come up with passages making that claim.
I’ll wait over here while you do so.
Grant goes on (from not believing in heaven, hell etc):
“The New Atheists offer a binary world view, neatly divided into good and evil. Science and reason on the one hand, religion and faith on the other. The implication being: if we get rid of religion we get rid of evil.”
That assumes that the NAs not only hold religion to be evil, but claim that it is the only evil in the world. Provided the definition of ‘religion’ can be expanded to somehow include all the crime and offensive behaviour around, I suppose one could go along with it. I may be wrong, but I do not think that the NAs make any such claim.
But at the same time, I notice that philosopher Grant attacks his NA targets using reason.
Religion provides answers to questions, and the answers depend on reason. Without reason, there would be no religion as we know it. (Which is not to miss the fact that religion also appeals to emotion and the desire for a tribal identity and to belong.)
..
Grant sets up a straw man, and then slaps it on the back, and wittingly or otherwise, tells it what a fine fellow it is. Thinking about believing is included in thinking about thinking. I hope Grant has also set this article for discussion and dissection in Philosophy 101.
Despite Grant’s claims, there is evidence of a steady reduction in violence since Palaeolithic times ( the citation of absolute figures is misleading) and that trend has coincided with the progressive decline of religious influence and the rise of the secular state, particularly in the West. This decline is, of course, not represented by a straight line, any implication that it should be, is tendentious.
Earlier Eurasian conflicts killed proportionately more people than WW1 or WW2.
“The Better Angels of Our Nature”–Steven Pinker.
https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence
Let’s play hack bingo…
o POV that is favored by wealthy, powerful, reactionary interests
o Punches down
o Pretends atheists are some sort of powerful, sinister priesthood, while providing cover for the real powerful, sinister priesthood
o Follows the tired old “I used to be an atheist but then…” trope of apologists since time immemorial
o Sweeping generalizations
o Mischaracterizations of the subjects of the essay/critique
o Lack of a coherent point
o Vaguely critical, but without the clarity or coup de grace that it takes for criticism to be biting, effective, or interesting
o Tries to end with a fluorish, but it comes out horribly written, incomprehensible, and incoherent. Just look at that last sentence!
BINGO!!!
“Dear Muslima,
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering poor Richard Dawkins, BBC television star, has to put up with.”
Sorry, but what does that have to with what I said ?
Atheists are being killed for their beliefs around the world and Dawkins is objecting to what his television programme is titled?
#whitepeopleproblems