The last refuge of a scoundrel

[ElBurroSinNombre]

I see that the chief Rabbi has accused Richard Dawkins of anti semitism in a debate at the BBCs rethink festival.

Story is here; www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/19563336

From what I can glean from the story, and having read the book, there is no justification or substance whatsoever for this attack. It is more like a smear. Churchill once said that 'the last refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism'. In the modern world it would seem that the last refuge of a scoundrel is an accusation of racism.

Isn't Sacks saying that Dawkins is peddling a view of the God of the Jewish Scriptures which has long been associated with Christian anti-semitisim, and betrays both ingnorance and misunderstanding of the Jewish Scriptures?

It reflects no credit on Dawkins that he now says the passage was a joke. Either he should claim his words and their clearly aggressive tone, or he should say he was wrong.

From what I remember the passage is written in a light hearted way as Dawkins suggests. However, all of the things mentioned in the passage do appear in the Old Testiment - why should he say he was wrong?

I've read The God Delusion as well and I certainly wouldn't say anything in it was anti-Semitic (and as a Jewish woman, albeit non-practising, I do take great offence at insults towards us). I feel that Dawkins has very strong views, but that they are applied lightly, gently and courteously in his treatment of others.

Dawkins is a thorn in the side of the religious establishment with his articulate rational atheism. I see this attack as an attempt to damage his reputation and therefore detract from his message by someone who is from that establishment. As I implied in my OP, in the modern world it is one of the worst labels that you can give someone and is not accusation that should be made without foundation. Shame on the chief Rabbi, you should know better.

We can disagree about whether Richard Dawkins is rational -- I would argue that he's prejudiced and ignorant. That's debate for you.

Jonathan Sacks can disagree with what Dawkins writes and say it is offensive. That's what happens when you publish books. People will then read them and some will disagree and some of those will say so in public. It's called free speech.

The Rabbi is wrong, simple as that. His views are an attempt to censure criticism of a book that should now be regarded as profoundly racist and supremacist about others. This was not exceptional at the time, but just look at how the Hebrew Bible portrays 'Cannanites' and Samaritans. The Yahwists who wrote the book accused others of practices such as child sacrifice when this was part of some branches of the cult of Yahweh. It refers gleefully to the slaughter of women and children all in God's name. This was standard for the time in which it was written. It is not standard now. That progress is due to the development of our moral understanding, and that growth has little to do with religion. The parts of the book that Richard Dawkins was referring to were written long before Rabbinic Judaism started anyway. Thousands of years of human effort, (mostly male effort) has gone into 'explaining away' all the nasty bits of the Hebrew Bible. Why not accept like Humanistic Jews do that this is just a book that reflects its time, the events in it are not always true, and they are not morally correct. The Rabbi needs to accept that if he wants the kudos of hanging with his new science chums he will be expected to bring evidence to the table to back up what he says, and the mis treatment of minorities including, but not restricted to Jews, (Gays, Atheists, other Christians) by Christians is not explained by what he says. A last thought, the writers of most of the Hebrew Bible did not call themselves Jews, they were Hebrews, or Israelites. RD is discussing their concept of God, not the God that modern branches of Judaism beleve in. Therefore RD can in no way be accused of anti-semitism. The Rabbi should rethink and apologise.

I think it was that famous atheist Voltaire who said 'I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?

nimby - as Yolansa says - if you want to play with the big boys you will have to bring evidence to the table. Jonathan Sacks did not simply disagree with Dawkins as you state - he has labelled him as an anti semite without foundation. You have added to the rabbi's smear by saying that Dawkins is prejudiced and ignorant, again without any evidence to back it up.

Don't be so effing patronising.

Unlike Richard Dawkins, Jonathan Sacks will not only have read all of both the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament, many times and with close attention, but he will also have immersed himself over many years in biblical scholarship, the long tradition of Jewish exegesis , midrash, and hermeneutics. I think he probably has good grounds to think Dawkins, who considers theological study to be a waste of time, is being offensive. I'd certainly consider him well qualified to disagree with Dawkins on the topic of the nature of God as he is portrayed in the Hebrew scriptures.

I've got a new theory regarding Richard Dawkins. I thought it up earlier today on a long car journey. :) I think he's actually a devout Christian in secret, and his real aim is to force believers to defend their faith. What sparked this off was a mental rotting-up I did if the number of times that Dawkins has been used a straw man in sermons I've heard. (Nb this post is not entirely serious.... But then again, maybe....)

Haha! Totting up, not rotting up! Predictive text is marvellous, eh?

niminy;
You are missing the point. Of course Sacks is free to disagree with Dawkins. I am very much in favour of civilised, informed debate, in fact I enjoy it. What I object to is labelling someone as an anti semite when there is absaloutely no evidence for it. Sacks may find it offensive but that does not make Dawkins a racist. To me, that allegation looks like a smear on a person's character that is likely to distract from a proper debate. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that supports what Sacks has said instead of frothing.

Rabbi Sacks did not say that RD was being offensive, he said he was being anti semitic. Where is the evidence?

"I think he probably has good grounds to think Dawkins, who considers theological study to be a waste of time, is being offensive. "

Hardly the same as labelling him anti-semitic?

I've re-read the whole story. You are both right and wrong. Sacks is not saying Dawkins is offensive. He is also not saying Dawkins is anti-semitic. What he is saying is that the passage at the beginning of ch 2 of The God Delusion reflects an anti-Semitic characterisation of God which in turn reflects Dawkins's cultural background. He is, according to Sacks, a culturally Christian atheist rather than a culturally Jewish atheist. If he were the latter, the things he would find to be annoyed at the Bible about would be different.

I said something like this in my first post.

However, I stick by my view, which is not Sacks, that Richard Dawkins is prejudiced and ignorant.

(not Sacks's, I meant)

I think we are splitting hairs here. By saying that something that someone has written is an anti semitic viewpoint then you are implying that the person who wrote it is an anti semite. There is no evidence that Dawkins is anti semitic, and from what I can tell, everyone who has contributed here and elsewhere, agrees with that. Therefore the rabbi should, at the very least, apologise for propagating this falsehood, which amounts to a smear on Dawkin's character.

I confess that I was surprised when I read the book that Dawkins took the trouble to argue about the old testiment. Any sane person would agree that the things that he singles out (and many others in the bible) are morally unacceptable in this day and age. It is almost pointless to highlight this, excepting that many Christians use other parts of the the bible as a guide to morality.

Finally, when taking a scientific view of the world you have to consider only what is known and what can be observed and put your own prejudices to one side. I am very surprised that you can call Dawkins prejudiced and ignorant when his (scientific) writing suggests the complete opposite.