Hi, Phat. The new avatar is a winner.
I've not read anything by Dawkins other than the BBC excerpts I linked in the OP. I see his name bandied about whenever the theory of evolution is in someone's crosshairs, though, so I figured other people at EvC would be familiar with his books.
I can see how he would be controversial. Read his take on religion and you know Bob Jones University is not going to invite him to speak at commencement anytime soon.
My impression of the excerpts at BBC?
The first one struck me as a routine rant. Valid points as far as they go, but cliches by now. I have read Bishop Spong and am familiar with the revenge fantasies of Pat Robertson, two figures he mentions. His riff on the story of Lot was occasionally amusing, but come on--Lot is an easy target. Everybody knows that story is sordid, fundies included. And I think our Mystery Science Theater comedians at EvC could get a lot more laughs out of a sulfurous matinee like
The Adventures of Lot and His Family than Dawkins manages.
The second excerpt struck me as being in a different class--something more perceptive, even necessary. The subject is terrorism. Dawkins notes that terrorists do not do what they do because of 'evil,' jealousy of our freedoms, or the shortcomings of Mr Blair or Mr Bush--all the convenient scapegoats we muster. Their actions are motivated by religion. The London suicide bombers believed what the Koran told them. Literally. They willingly traded their young lives--and the innocent lives of their victims--for the eternity in paradise promised to them in a book.
Dawkins finds it interesting that our public discussions of terrorism avoid mentioning religion. The terrorists do not shrink from the subject at all. Pay attention to what they tell you, says Dawkins, and the message is clear. They do what they do because they really believe this stuff.
Food for thought.
How about you, Phat? Thoughts?
__
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Punctutation.
Archer
All species are transitional.