Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-21-2012, 08:17 PM

Author of The God Delusion says providing free Bibles to state schools is justified by its impact on the English language - and as a corrective to people who think the Bible is the source of morality.

Quote:

As Dawkins reveals in today's Observer, support for the Bible plan is justified on the grounds of literary merit and he lists a range of biblical phrases which any cultivated English speaker will instantly recognise. These include "salt of the Earth", "through a glass darkly", and "no peace for the wicked". Dawkins states: "A native speaker of English who has not read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian."

Rapprochement would seem to be in the air – until Dawkins's thesis is studied more closely. While Gove believes the Bible is a guide to morality, Dawkins is sure it is not. "I have heard the cynically misanthropic opinion that without the Bible as a moral compass people would show no restraint against murder, theft and mayhem. The surest way to disabuse yourself of this pernicious falsehood is to read the Bible itself," he says.

In fact, its pages are riddled with the advocacy of murder, slavery and theft. Hence his support for Gove's plan: opening the Bible is the surest way to put young minds off its contents. From this perspective, the Dawkins-Gove alliance looks dead before it started.

From Dawkins' essay at the link:

Quote:

I am a little shocked at the implication that not every school library already possesses a copy. Can that be true? What do they have, then? Harry Potter? Vampires? Or do they prefer one of those modern translations in which "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, all is vanity" is lyrically rendered as "Perfectly pointless, says the Teacher. Everything is pointless"? That is Ecclesiastes, 1:2, as you'll find it in the Common English Bible. And you can't get much more common than that, although admittedly the God's Word translation provides stiff competition with "absolutely pointless" and the Good News Bible challenges strongly with "useless, useless".

Ecclesiastes, in the 1611 translation, is one of the glories of English literature (I'm told it's pretty good in the original Hebrew, too). The whole King James Bible is littered with literary allusions, almost as many as Shakespeare (to quote that distinguished authority Anon, the trouble with Hamlet is it's so full of clichées). In The God Delusion I have a section called "Religious education as a part of literary culture" in which I list 129 biblical phrases which any cultivated English speaker will instantly recognise and many use without knowing their provenance: the salt of the earth; go the extra mile; I wash my hands of it; filthy lucre; through a glass darkly; wolf in sheep's clothing; hide your light under a bushel; no peace for the wicked; how are the mighty fallen.

...

European history, too, is incomprehensible without an understanding of the warring factions of Christianity and the book over whose subtleties of interpretation they were so ready to slaughter and torture each other. Does the eucharistic bread merely symbolise the body of Jesus or does it become his body, in true "substance" if not "accidental" DNA? Prolonged wars have been fought over how we should interpret the words allegedly uttered at the Last Supper. Three bishops were burned alive just outside my bedroom window in my old Oxford college for giving the unapproved answer. Centuries-long schisms were based on nothing more serious than the question of whether Jesus is both God and his son, or just his (very important) son. Even bloodier wars were fought against a rival religion that sees him not as God's son at all but just reveres him as a prophet.

Logical · 05-21-2012, 08:29 PM

Perhaps it's so. Most modern people don't know the Bible. They only know a beautified interpretation (or rather a set of carefully selected stories). Show them the real thing and they will reject it.

Although I'm not so sure. Most people do know the stories where one is cursed for eating a fruit, countless children are murdered for the sins of one pharaoh, and the entire freaking planet is drowned to kill everyone, including the children. And yet people don't have a problem with it. Not only that, they consider it the highest moral authority. I guess people are idiots.

john_v_h · 05-21-2012, 09:12 PM

Dawkins makes a tidy little argument but it's quite naive. No one is actually going to slog through all that early modern English. Students will simply regard the bibles' presence as signs of Christianity's legitimacy.

johno · 05-22-2012, 12:30 AM

When I started secondary (grammar) school at the age of 11 in 1956 every new pupil was given a copy of the bible, and of course in those days in England that meant the Authorised Version. The edition provided was illustrated, but only with anodyne pictures (no Cecil B de Mille style orgies . . .) It didn't do me any harm. Scripture was taught by the headmaster: he would read aloud a randomly selected chunk of the bible for forty minutes, and that was the scripture lesson. Stupefying boredom was the result. I didn't realise it at the time, but he must have had vocal cords of steel.

GenesisNemesis · 05-22-2012, 12:35 AM

Quote:

"A native speaker of English who has not read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian."

I like Dawkins, but please. What on Earth does "barbarism" mean? Also, who defined "barbarism"?

J842P · 05-22-2012, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

Quote:

"A native speaker of English who has not read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian."

I like Dawkins, but please. What on Earth does "barbarism" mean? Also, who defined "barbarism"?

From merriam-webster.com:

Quote:

Definition of BARBARIAN

1
: of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people
2
: lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture

From the context, it's obvious he meant it in the sense of lacking refinement.

sotto voce · 05-22-2012, 03:28 AM

So why is Richard Dawkins so concerned about the literary standard of the British? Has he campaigned, as others have, for increased teaching of Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Blake, Shelley, Dickens, Burns, Dylan Thomas and other classical British authors, in British schools? Or did I blink?

The KJV, as it's called, is now used for only one purpose— obscurantism. Dawkins is such a fervent believer.

GenesisNemesis · 05-22-2012, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J842P

From the context, it's obvious he meant it in the sense of lacking refinement.

Still, "refinement" is pretty vague.

sotto voce · 05-22-2012, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J842P

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

Quote:

"A native speaker of English who has not read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian."

I like Dawkins, but please. What on Earth does "barbarism" mean? Also, who defined "barbarism"?

From merriam-webster.com:

Quote:

Definition of BARBARIAN

1
: of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people
2
: lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture

From the context, it's obvious he meant it in the sense of lacking refinement.

The Merriam-Webster, as quite often, is unreliable. Dawkins is using 'barbarian' in the way that losers of a football match say they were 'massacred'. Though with less responsibility.

Guest46854 · 05-22-2012, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

Quote:

Originally Posted by J842P

From the context, it's obvious he meant it in the sense of lacking refinement.

Still, "refinement" is pretty vague.

Refinement is: developing and using ever more sophisticated methods and machines to take everything from the pot, such as capitalism's corporate-governmental financial system, nuclear weapons, sneak killer/spy drones, etc, with US-style politics.

Barbarians are the victims of the Refined.
:wave:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-21-2012, 08:29 PM	#2
Logical Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: USA Posts: 802	Perhaps it's so. Most modern people don't know the Bible. They only know a beautified interpretation (or rather a set of carefully selected stories). Show them the real thing and they will reject it. Although I'm not so sure. Most people do know the stories where one is cursed for eating a fruit, countless children are murdered for the sins of one pharaoh, and the entire freaking planet is drowned to kill everyone, including the children. And yet people don't have a problem with it. Not only that, they consider it the highest moral authority. I guess people are idiots.

05-21-2012, 09:12 PM	#3
john_v_h Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Francisco, California Posts: 1,760	Dawkins makes a tidy little argument but it's quite naive. No one is actually going to slog through all that early modern English. Students will simply regard the bibles' presence as signs of Christianity's legitimacy.

05-22-2012, 12:30 AM	#4
johno Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Scotland Posts: 1,549	When I started secondary (grammar) school at the age of 11 in 1956 every new pupil was given a copy of the bible, and of course in those days in England that meant the Authorised Version. The edition provided was illustrated, but only with anodyne pictures (no Cecil B de Mille style orgies . . .) It didn't do me any harm. Scripture was taught by the headmaster: he would read aloud a randomly selected chunk of the bible for forty minutes, and that was the scripture lesson. Stupefying boredom was the result. I didn't realise it at the time, but he must have had vocal cords of steel.

05-22-2012, 03:28 AM	#7
sotto voce Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: UK Posts: 3,057	So why is Richard Dawkins so concerned about the literary standard of the British? Has he campaigned, as others have, for increased teaching of Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Blake, Shelley, Dickens, Burns, Dylan Thomas and other classical British authors, in British schools? Or did I blink? The KJV, as it's called, is now used for only one purpose— obscurantism. Dawkins is such a fervent believer.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.