Richard Dawkins the arch-atheist backs Michael Gove's free Bible plan

[rug]

Author of The God Delusion says providing free Bibles to state schools is justified by its impact on the English language

Robin McKie, science editor
guardian.co.uk
Saturday 19 May 2012 16.30 EDT

It sounds like one of the most unlikely alliances of recent years. Richard Dawkins, arch-atheist and scourge of the praying classes, has announced support for education secretary Michael Gove's plan to send free King James Bibles to every state school.

The proposal aims to help pupils learn about the Bible's impact "on our history, language, literature and democracy" and will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the authorised version's publication, Gove said earlier this year. Church leaders have approved, but the plan has fallen foul of most non-believers. An online Guardian poll showed an 82% opposition, while the National Secular Society said the £375,000 proposal wasted money and favoured Christianity in multi-faith state schools. Nevertheless, several rich Tory party donors agreed to back the plan and the first Bibles were sent out last week, to the derision of secularists – with the exception of their most prominent and pugnacious recruit: Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and critic of all things clerical.

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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/may/19/richard-dawkins-backs-free-bible?newsfeed=true

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Know your enemy. n/t

[rug]

2. That's always good advice but Dawkins believes it belongs because it's essential English literature.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. One of his reasons. The one I stated is also in his remarks, basically. n/t

[skepticscott]

18. Not English literature

since none of it was originally written in English, obviously. But important literature and mythology, in a form (the KJV) that had enormous influence on the English language.

[Goblinmonger]

24. Absolutley

You can't understand Western literature without a good understanding of the mythology in the bible and related works (Paradise Lost, Divine Comedy, etc). I often have to teach bible lessons in classes to help kids get the point of the literature (Old Man and the Sea being the most prevalent).

[longship]

4. As an atheist, I agree with Dawkins

A lot of Western literature is rife with biblical allusions if not quoted snippets. Churchill's writing is full of them both.

Also, knowing what the Bible actually says helps one to understand religion. For instance, how many Christians know that there are two creation stories in Genesis, two ten commandment stories, two (interleaved) Noah and the flood stories, etc. Many of these duplets exist throughout the Pentateuch. The New Testament has all sorts of weird stuff, too. For instance, the birth narrative associated with Christmas is a melding of the narratives in Matthew and Luke -- Mark, the earliest written, has no birth narrative. Etc.

Having people know the Bible is a good thing.

[xfundy]

5. If they actually read it--a horribly time-consuming ordeal-

they'll become atheists.

[dimbear]

6. It should be helpful to the irony challenged that King James was bi.

History so far has not greatly upheld this hope, but times change.

[LuvNewcastle]

7. I'm glad they're using the KJV; I think it's had the most

impact on our culture. Some basic familiarity with the Bible is necessary for educated Westerners. It's at least as important as reading Shakespeare's plays.

[AlbertCat]

13. basic familiarity with the (KJ) Bible ... reading Shakespeare's plays.

You really can't "get" the English language without these two things.

[laconicsax]

8. Arch-atheist?

[Odin2005]

9. I stopped reading at "arch-atheist".

[laconicsax]

10. There's nothing that should surprise you if you've read The God Delusion.

Last edited Sun May 20, 2012, 03:14 AM - Edit history (1)

[AlbertCat]

12. if you've read The God Delusion.

But I suggest you read Dawkins'

Unweaving the Rainbow
The Selfish Gene
The Ancestors Tale
The Blind Watchmaker


And the many other books he's written in his chosen field: Biology & Genetics.

He's an arch-scientist is what he really is.

[Permanut]

11. K & R; the Bible has had a profound impact on Western Civilization...

and that statement stands independent of what anybody believes about it or its contents.

Plus, if King James English was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me!

[cbayer]

14. One might think that Dawkins just thrived on

attention.

[edhopper]

15. Those atheist

need to stay under the rocks the scurried from.

[cbayer]

16. I didn't say that at all. I am speaking only about Dawkins as an individual.

But feel free to (mis)interpret what I say anyway you want.

It's already a well established tradition here.

[edhopper]

19. It seems that Dawkins would be

someone the Newspaper would go to on an issue like this. But you belittle him and behave as if he did not say something worthwhile and he is a publicity hound.

Which atheist do you think would be okay to talk about this?

And it's funny how I never have seen you criticize Bill Donahue for sticking his nose in every other story.

[cbayer]

20. He is an anti-theist, so I am not a fan.

When someone like Dawkins takes the opposite position of most atheists here (that is encouraging bibles in public schools), what else is one to think?

Many, many atheists have spoken on this issue. 82% of those polled oppose this move, as does the National Secular Society. Those of us who champion separation of church and state oppose it. The only way this would be ok with me is if it were part of a program to provide major religious writings as part of an academic resource library. But this one is exclusively for the christian bible.

Sorry if it upsets you, but I do think Dawkins is a publicity hound.

Who's Bill Donahue?

[edhopper]

22. Head of the Catholic League

[cbayer]

26. Donohue. I comment all the time on statements made by the Catholic League.

[skepticscott]

28. You mean the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights?

That faith-based champion of the Civil Rights cause? Guess we are all wrong about religion being at the forefront.

And sheesh, of course you knew who he was talking about. What's with the passive-aggressive crap over a typo?

[skepticscott]

23. Opposite position? Baloney.

Did you even READ Dawkins' full statement? There is a huge difference between having one or more Bibles, including the KJV, in a public school library, because they are important books for the reasons that he stated quite clearly, and handing out Bibles to individual students for the purposes of proselytizing. The latter is what Dawkins and most, if not all, of the atheists here would be adamantly opposed to, not the former, and you know that damn well. This is no more a violation of church-state separation than including comparative religion or the history of religion (or the role of religion IN history) as part of the public school curriculum (as opposed to religious doctrine and theology). Here is a link to that exact effect from some of "us" who champion separation of church and state:

http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/teaching-about-religion-in-public-schools-let’s-do-it-right

Would there be anything wrong with having other sacred texts, such as the Koran, available as references? Almost certainly not. But this is England, and they are not just talking about the "christian bible", as you try to imply, but a very specific version of it which, in addition to being important as a general literary reference, is a vital part of the history of the language spoken in and originating from that particular country. That alone justifies it being granted special status, for reasons that have nothing to do directly with the religion underlying it.

And how can you possibly not know who Bill Donahue is if you pay any attention to religious issues? Or even to this board, for that matter?

[skepticscott]

17. Why, because he dared to offer his opinion

on a subject of special interest to him? The nerve!

Based on the number of OPs you throw out just on this board, someone might just as easily accuse you of being an attention hog as well. Would that be fair? I'm guessing you'd say not. So why do you feel the need to smear a perfectly reasonable position statement from someone else with something like this? Did you read his entire statement, and do you think it has no place whatsoever in a "meaningful discussion" on the topic? Are you seriously saying that it is just an attempt to get attention?

[Goblinmonger]

25. So he's kind of damned if he does and if he doesn't with you, then?

If he speaks out for atheism, he is part of the "new atheism" and if he supports something like this, then he is an attention-whore.

[On the Road]

21. As a Fellow Atheist, So to Speak,

I am constantly amazed at the level of ignorance about the Bible nowadays. It's only one book, for God's sake, and parts of it are very interesting. You can even skip over the 'begats' if they get too repetitive.

You can't really understand Western cultural or political history, much less art, philosophy and literature, without having some clue on what the Bible says.

Expectations were much different a century ago. When Oscar Wilde, who was scarcely a devout Christian, was taking an oral exam in Greek, he was asked to translate from the next to last chapter of Acts. (This chapter deals with Paul's being shipwrecked on Malta as he was being to taken to Rome for trial.) After being told he had translated enough and could stop, he quipped "no, I want to keep reading and see how it turns out." This was considered a great joke, since Acts ends ambiguously, with Paul in custody and no indication of whether he was freed or executed.

The point is that it went without saying that Wilde, as well as his classic professors, understood the reference. It would be amazing to one person in a college classmates these days who knew those facts.

[GordonHide]

27. I have no problem with this move to put bibles into schools.

I understand that the bible has created more atheists than any other publication. I don't know what the fuss is about. Apart from anything else I think my grandchildren, avid readers, assume that school books are boring and prefer to get their reading materials elsewhere.

I confess that I haven't read the bible but I don't believe I have any difficulty understanding literary allusions to it.

[LeftishBrit]

29. All children do need to know about the Bible, whether they believe in it or not

It actually does have an important impact on our history, language, literature and culture in general (not so sure about our democracy).

'Gove believes that the Bible is a guide to morality'

In the case of Tory ministers like Gove, their Bible is Mammon!

[dmallind]

30. back in my day, every *student* got a free one. It's a great way to spread atheism.

The more people who read the thing themselves, the more nonbelievers you'll get. Worked for me.

And yes, the KJV is foundational to standard written English as well as a trerasure trove for literary allusions, symbolism and metaphors. Can't imagine anyone complaing about a school library having one.

Seems strange that no-one yet however has pointed out that he is an English citizen speaking about an English program. There is no separation of church and state in British basic law, so gleeful strawmen of imaginary atheist opposition would be moot regardless.