Madeleine Bunting’s Sea of Bullshit
by Jura Watchmaker, 6 September 2007
Comrade Will’s cruelty knows no bounds. I was just settling down to an evening of nothing much in particular, and up pops an email from the rubbish one pointing me to an article just published over at Comment is Free by Our Maddy of the Sorrows. I do so wish I hadn’t read it.
Bunting writes about religion (!), condemning Richard Dawkins, whom she regards as dangerous, and praising cuddly bunny Anglican bishop Richard Harries.
Now I have difficulties with Dawkins, but these are due largely to his intellectual arrogance and the personal abuse he levels at ordinary folk who choose to display emblems of their faith. Christopher Hitchens is in an altogether different league when it comes to dealing with opponents.
To me Dawkins’ behaviour displays a lack of empathy, but this could be simply the result of a communication skills deficit in a man who has spent the best part of his life in the rarified atmosphere of the academy.
But dangerous? Dawkins?
“He has spent enough time now thinking about religion and listening to thoughtful religious people such as the Harries, yet he persists with a parody, a childlike perception of God and religion. Of course there’s no man with a beard crashing about in the sky.”
Relative liberal on social issues he may be, but “the Harries” is an orthodox Christian who believes that the prime mover of the universe (hirsute or not) came to Earth, took human form, preached the gospel and suffered to save humanity from sin.
Harries is no Don Cupitt, with that post-Christian philosopher’s references to the poetic metaphor of Arnold’s sea of faith. The Lord Bishop of Oxford actually believes in the man in the sky dogmas promulgated by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is Harries, not Dawkins, who has a “childlike perception of God and religion”.
Bunting again:
“There’s a fascinating debate to be had between atheists and people of faith and, often, they can find the gulf between them is not nearly as wide or unbridgeable as is often suggested.”
Really? Well this godless heathen has no interest in debating with people of faith about faith. It simply no longer interests me, and I do not see it as serving any useful purpose. Life is short enough without frittering it away in debate that can have no rational conclusion.
Thursday 6 September 2007 at 23:30
Bunting’s virtuous flock
Bunting’s religious paragons of virtue
http://wonkette.com/politics/dept%27-of-religious-studies/wacky-baptist-preacher-arrested-for-dozens-of-sexdrug-crimes-284899.php
Friday 7 September 2007 at 5:53
This is the woman who criticised enlightenment thought for being too anti-Islamic, so its entirely in keeping that she should criticise Dawkings for being too anti-Christian. Presumably we need to get back to the good times before the 17th century, when these dangerous atheists were kept properly in check…
Friday 7 September 2007 at 7:13
Speaking of Dawkins, he reviews Hitchens book in the Times.
http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25349-2649121,00.html
Friday 7 September 2007 at 7:19
Could be interesting. Dawkins, or at least somebody with his login, has started to respond……
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/madeleine_bunting/2007/09/the_smallest_signs_of_retreat.html#comment-798710
Friday 7 September 2007 at 7:22
Dawkins has turned up in the CiF comments to refute Bunting.
Friday 7 September 2007 at 8:08
That’s an excellent review of Hitchens’ book, save for stuff such as:
“With characteristic effrontery, he took his tour through the Bible Belt states – the reptilian brain of southern and middle America, rather than the easier pickings of the country’s cerebral cortex to the north and down the coasts.”
This displays a failure to understand the complexities of the American psyche, and I would recommend that the good professor watch the film “Searching for the wrong-eyed Jesus” to aid his understanding of the “reptilian brain” of the southern US. Perhaps others could recommend artistic representations of the mushy northern brain,
Pity the poor commenter who chimed in with:
“The Book of Mormon. Maligned in this essay, it actually is complex, profound, and, most importantly… literally true.”
Thank Go … odness for the New Atheists.
Friday 7 September 2007 at 8:33
Relative liberal on social issues he may be, but “the Harries” is an orthodox Christian who believes that the prime mover of the universe (hirsute or not) came to Earth, took human form, preached the gospel and suffered to save humanity from sin.
Well yes but, you know, there are very complex proofs of the existence of God that you haven’t read. Therefore Jesus was the son of God whether you have read those proofs or, as with 99% of the faithful who turn up to protests or vote, not.
(The only time I have even got anyone to name such a book it was by an ancient Arab scholar. Which probably doesn’t help with Christ’s divinity.)
I appreciate that smart people take issue with Dawkins’s “Father Christmas” view of God, but there is a reason why he has taken that view as a starting point, and it isn’t because that is the view that professors of theology hold. He also tackles other views, as we will all know having actually read the book that we spend so much time being very careful to appear measuredly critical of.
Friday 7 September 2007 at 9:03
I share the conclusion in your final paragraph absolutely.
Friday 7 September 2007 at 9:05
Other things that there is simply no point in discussing:
- Poker players on things that have happened in poker games
- anti-Huntingdon Life Sciences people, on medical experimentation
Deluded, boring fools.
Friday 7 September 2007 at 17:38
“..his intellectual arrogance and the personal abuse he levels at ordinary folk who choose to display emblems of their faith..” I’ve come across many such expressions since “God Delusion” came out, but not one single corroborated example of him behaving in the manner described. Perhaps you can come up with one - although you’ll need more than one if you’re really willing to declare it a trend.
Friday 7 September 2007 at 17:51
The worst example I came across was the stupid face insult levelled against the Christian BA flight attendant. The arrogance has been a general feature of Dawkins’ public demeanour, but in recent times (e.g., including the recent two-part TV documentary), he’s softened a little.
I quite like Dawkins, but am not uncritical of his approach. His thesis I have no problems with whatsoever.
Anyway, I’m currently in dispute with the editor of CiF, who has refused to publish an article I submitted today that mocks Madeleine Bunting and her latest article on Dawkins. More later on that (including the offending piece).
Domestic chores to attend to…
Friday 7 September 2007 at 18:20
Matt:
Presumably, there’s no such thing as being “too anti-Jewish” for Maddy, so we’re not likely to have our senses offended by her writing on that topic.