The Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, has accused Richard Dawkins
of being anti-semitic. That's a pretty serious charge.
According to Sacks, Dawkins has misunderstood those sections of the Hebrew Bible because he is a "Christian atheist" rather than a "Jewish atheist".
Dawkins, says Sacks, reads the Old Testament in an "adversarial way," and that is "Christian" because Christianity’s New Testament is supposed to have "gone one better" than the Old Testament.
Alexander Waugh has a nice illustration of this in his book God - The Biography:
Randolph didn't come to the shocking conclusion that God's a shit because he was already committed to reading the Old Testament in an anti-semitic way, but because that's the conclusion that any sensible person would draw after reading it at first blush.
In fact, Dawkins's point is hardly new. As the Christian Paul Copan points out, Enlightenment thinkers like Robert Ingersoll were arguing back in the 19th Century that the God of the Old Testament was a cruel and unjust person, and that no one in their right mind could be a Christian as a result.
As Sacks must surely be aware, Christians, just as much as Jews, have strived to show that the Old Testament God is not the monster he might seem to be. They're still at it. Here, for example, is a Christian Apologist attacking Dawkins et al for concluding that the Old Testament God is a moral monster. Here's another. Here's another. Here's another. Here's another.
Clearly, it's not pro-Christian prejudice that leads people to conclude the God of the Old Testament is a moral monster. Rightly or wrongly, it's the Old Testament itself that leads them to draw that conclusion.
Argue, if you wish (and as the above linked posts do), that those atheists who draw the conclusion that the God of the Old Testament is a monster are reading the OT texts in too literal a manner, or are at least unwarranted in drawing that conclusion based on the texts. But the atheist's mistake, if there is one, is clearly not a product of some sort of deeply-ingrained, anti-semitic culture.
In a BBC TV exchange (which you can view here), Sacks says that a passage in Dawkins’s
book The God Delusion - in which Dawkins says that "the God of the Old Testament" is a
"vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser" as well as
"misogynist", "homophobic", "racist", "pestilential"
and "infanticidal" - is “profoundly anti-semitic”. According to Sacks, the passage reflects a centuries-old
anti-Jewish attitude.
Of
course there are centuries-old anti-Jewish attitudes, but this is not an example.
According to Sacks, Dawkins has misunderstood those sections of the Hebrew Bible because he is a "Christian atheist" rather than a "Jewish atheist".
Dawkins, says Sacks, reads the Old Testament in an "adversarial way," and that is "Christian" because Christianity’s New Testament is supposed to have "gone one better" than the Old Testament.
The truth, of course, is that Dawkins read the Old Testament in the way
almost anyone one would coming to it for the first time, be
they Christian or not.
Alexander Waugh has a nice illustration of this in his book God - The Biography:
Randolph Churchill, son of Winston, had
been annoying his friends by talking too much. They wagered he could
not keep quiet for a week. Churchill, a keen gambler, thought he could
win the bet by reading the Bible. But he didn't last long. After a few
pages, he was heard to exclaim, "God! God's a shit!"
Randolph didn't come to the shocking conclusion that God's a shit because he was already committed to reading the Old Testament in an anti-semitic way, but because that's the conclusion that any sensible person would draw after reading it at first blush.
In fact, Dawkins's point is hardly new. As the Christian Paul Copan points out, Enlightenment thinkers like Robert Ingersoll were arguing back in the 19th Century that the God of the Old Testament was a cruel and unjust person, and that no one in their right mind could be a Christian as a result.
As Sacks must surely be aware, Christians, just as much as Jews, have strived to show that the Old Testament God is not the monster he might seem to be. They're still at it. Here, for example, is a Christian Apologist attacking Dawkins et al for concluding that the Old Testament God is a moral monster. Here's another. Here's another. Here's another. Here's another.
Clearly, it's not pro-Christian prejudice that leads people to conclude the God of the Old Testament is a moral monster. Rightly or wrongly, it's the Old Testament itself that leads them to draw that conclusion.
Argue, if you wish (and as the above linked posts do), that those atheists who draw the conclusion that the God of the Old Testament is a monster are reading the OT texts in too literal a manner, or are at least unwarranted in drawing that conclusion based on the texts. But the atheist's mistake, if there is one, is clearly not a product of some sort of deeply-ingrained, anti-semitic culture.
Comments
If one says something is the truth then one would expect there to be at least *something* resembling an argument supported by evidence and reasons. When do you suppose you will be providing those? Bear in mind that your two anecdotes are not evidence.
I certainly don't recall Robert Ingersoll using the hate filled violent rhetoric that Richard Dawkins uses.
But then again, it's easier to attack the messenger than to actually read the message, no?
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/britains-chief-rabbi-calls-richard-dawkins-a-christian-atheist/
Richard responds, post 3.
Indeed, Sacks has nothing but praise for the Old Testament. He regards it as a work of beauty, even if other people don't.
Other people might regard the stories of genocide in the Old Testament disgraceful, but Mr. Sacks has a different opinion. He regards them as children's reading material.
Her goals in life seem to be the following: Read only John Searle's work, then bash atheists. It's odd that she seems to only take issues with atheists considering her militant agnosticism should make her equally repulsed by theists.
Shes also suspiciously similar to another militant agnostic named Noen.
But it sure exposed the fact the Old Testament http://whale.to/c/bible_passages.html is nasty, that's because it is Judaic http://whale.to/b/judaism_h.html not Christian. Judasim is the EXACT opposite of Christianity as they say so themselves http://whale.to/c/jews_on_jesus.html
And didn't it all happen before Jesus was even thought of?
Btw, Catholicism, isn't true Christianity, it's Judaism for Gentiles, it wouldn't have their satanic shite in it's bible, otherwise http://whale.to/c/catholicism.html
And their god of the bible is Jehovah, an Archon, Reptilan, or whatever http://whale.to/c/jehovah.html
as to anti-semitic http://whale.to/b/anti_semite.html , it's just the term they use for people they don't like, ie folk who point out truths, Ken Livingstone eg, he pointed out the Nazi and Zionists did co-operate http://whale.to/c/haavara_agreement.html