The Atheist Blogger

As I previously mentioned, I’ve been invited to a discussion of the book “The Dawkins Letters” by David Robertson. At the time this blog post appears on the site, we will have just started recording. The plan was to do one show focusing on 3-4 of the “atheist myths” presented in the book, but we have since decided to record two shows and discuss more issues. I’m not entirely sure when the shows will be broadcast now, but as soon as I know the details I will of course inform everyone.

The first show will cover the topics of atheist rationality and tolerance, the “inherent” evil of religion, and religious child abuse. It might be prudent to note here that David’s book is very well written and I agree with a lot of his points he makes against Dawkins’ arguments. I think the whole tolerance issue comes down to the difference of opinion that both theists and atheists have. I don’t think a general rule can be made that separates theists from atheists in terms of tolerance; it all depends on your outlook. I agree though that there isn’t an “inherent” evil in religion, but rather I would consider some aspects of religion evil, and the way people twist and use religion as ammunition of hate is one of them. The issue of religious child abuse seems to have been entirely lost in David’s book, as he seems to think that simply labelling a child as a “Christian child” is what Dawkins (and atheists) would refer to as child abuse. What I believe, and what I suspect Dawkins also meant, is that not explaining different worldviews and beliefs to a child and simply telling them “this is how it is” would count as child abuse. It is what I saw when watching a recent BBC documentary.

The second show will cover godless morality, the immoral Bible, and the cruel Old Testament God. This is where I will probably concede some ground, as I haven’t got the 25 years of Biblical study that David claims in his book. I can handle morality fine; I think there are perfectly naturalistic explanations for it and the fact that morality changes over time is evidence that there is no “absolute” moral code that people live by. This would lead me onto the morality of the Bible, which as David explains, must be read in historical context. In this sense, he destroys his argument for Biblical morality, as he has to concede that interpretation of the Bible changes over time, and what was considered moral back when we burnt “witches” would not be considered moral now, even though the words are still there. The issue of the cruel Old Testament God is also down to interpretation. I interpret the Genesis story as cruel, seeing that God supposedly created our curiosity and then sees fit to punish us for it, as well as seemingly setting up the whole thing to fail (as Ricki Gervais says “Either don’t have the snake or the tree…it’s an accident waiting to happen!”). David says he finds incredible beauty and compassion in the Old Testament though, and I’ll have to ask him a few questions to get his view.

The shows are all about discussion rather than debate, and I will try to keep everything as light and friendly as possible, because I respect the book David has written, and I think his opinions need some careful consideration. David is obviously a very intelligent man, and I hope that we can both go away from the discussion a bit more educated in each other’s philosophy and outlook.

Finally, thanks to everyone who has wished me well on Twitter and on the blog. Your comments are most appreciated.