Check out the animated show Bat out of Hell on YouTube!

A Dawkins Cornucopia

Okay, this is my last preview of stuff at TimesOnline, but this collection of bits by or about Richard Dawkins is pretty rich. I found these headlines for these two articles within an inch of eachother:

Everyone should read the Bible, says Dawkins
Richard Dawkins, the atheist author of The God Delusion, believes that children should grow up reading the Bible and says that he has a “soft spot” for the Church of England.

Dawkins says religion is ‘like sucking a dummy’
Professor Richard Dawkins has described religious believers as “sucking on dummies” for comfort and said that giving children a religious education was comparable to “erecting a firewall in their minds” against scientific truth.

First of all, how are these two statements even remotely compitable? You read selections for irony and metaphor? Good luck with that.

More importantly, what the hell does he mean by sucking on dummies, and how would he know?

Comments

  1. Rufus McCain says

    Dummy = brit for pacifier. You knew that, right?

  2. Quin Finnegan says

    Well … okay, yeah, I did. But I only realized that after I’d started the comment, so I just went through with it. Apologies for the crudeness. I regret the post.

    I wish I’d just written, “How would he know?”, on the assumption that not many adults actually remember what it was like to suck on a dummy. But then adults can see what the babies are up to, so I guess the question is a failure there as well.

    BUT … Dawkin’s atheism is a bit of a dummy for him. Or so it seems to me. And in the “God Delusion” (which I went through while standing in a bookstore), it seems like he’s sucking pretty hard, and really, really fast.

  3. I’ve always thought the British use of the term “dummy” as apt, but in the context it caught me totally off guard. My middle class, Mid-West American brain conjured some horrible picture involving a department store mannequin…

  4. Oh, he’s full of interesting little contradictions—accusing ID proponents of cherry picking the evidence only to do the same with religious texts and historical events, dismissing proofs with no argument only to accuse theologians of the same. He’s amazingly inconsistent for a scientist.

Speak Your Mind

*