Professor Richard Dawkins reportedly says 'The Bible is good reading but an appalling moral compass'. What makes it good reading then prof?!
I would disagree with this renowned atheist scientist who is implying that all religious doctrine is altogether bad for us!! I don't think faith or non-belief is the issue here but that the Christian code as stated in the Ten commandments in The Old Testament is hard to beat as a moral humanistic code or compass. Does Mr Dawkins suggest something better? 'Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself' and 'love your neighbour' is a lot better than the moral code that has taken over from church worship which is the television and namely the soaps that have millions of addicts and is socially indoctrinating. Whether The Bible is truth or a fairy story is neither here nor there if it serves a purpose, that purpose being to offer a guide.
I am no Christian in the claimed sense and am probably more an atheist now than an agnostic and do not have the arrogance of scientific knowledge or certainty about anything but I question those who pull down bricks without anything positive to rebuild with. It suddenly seems very fashionable to knock Christians and yet we have the hypocrisy (or fickleness) to celebrate an important Christian festival - Christmas with only one thing in mind to overindulge and over consume with money a lot of us don't have! Playing Devil's Advocate it is curious the Bible has survived two thousand years of interpretation and ambiguity, even if it a human construct. The problem with science is it often leaves a vacuum!
I think the late John Lennon is more convincing when he said 'whatever gets you through the night' and that is how I would view the tradition of leaving Gideons Bible in lonely hotels nationwide.
I think the late John Lennon is more convincing when he said 'whatever gets you through the night' and that is how I would view the tradition of leaving Gideons Bible in lonely hotels nationwide.
Jeremy,
ReplyDeleteIn my view, Richard Dawkins doesn't much understand literature or art. He appears to think literature is something you enjoy whilst disengaging your moral faculty. Similarly he claims to be able to appreciate religious art or music without concerning himself with the nature of religious belief, which is something he addresses when he comes back to the 'real world', after luxuriating in the wonder of 'art'. But then I don't think he is interested in the nature of religious experience either, which is signalled by the fact that he seems to think the question 'Does god exist?' is overwhelmingly important to the nature or validity of religious experience.