# I pit Richard Dawkins, Victor Davis Hanson and people like them **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 4, 2012, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708 "2012-03-04T06:24:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/41 "2012-03-04T17:30:27Z")
> [@rachelellogram](#): > > Theologians are trying to glean a better understanding of past and present beliefs & practices of religion. Is theology any less legitimate than the study of secular fiction or more-generalized anthropology? I say no. I say yes they are “less legitimate”, because they are so heavily invested in believing in and justifying baseless dogma. A scholar of secular fiction who insisted that _Star Wars_ was historically true and spent his life trying to justify that conclusion would be a bad scholar, an idiot…and the scholar-equivalent of a theologian. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/42 "2012-03-04T17:34:21Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Yeah and I probably know more about the US Constitution than probably 99 percent of Americans. Still does not make me an expert and if I write a book about it, it will rightly be considered inferior, even though it relates directly to my area of expertise (law). Being well read on something might improve a person’s ability in dinner conversations p, it doesn’t entitle them to hold themselves out as experts as the gentlemen (and others) in thOP have done nor should their opinions be treated as such. So despite knowing more about the Constitution than 99% of people, we shouldn’t listen to any criticisms you have about it? (Besides I would argue Dawkins is not merely at a 99% cutoff but likely much higher) All you’re doing is saying “He’s not an expert and therefore we shouldn’t listen to him.” What does make someone an expert? It’s ultimately pretty arbitrary. You don’t need to know everything about a subject in order to criticize vital premises. What matters are the arguments. If you think Dawkins should stop talking about religion, give some hard reasons why instead of whining about his background as a biologist. What details is he missing as a non-expert that would completely overturn his arguments? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/43 "2012-03-04T17:51:26Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > What matters are the arguments. If you think Dawkins should stop talking about religion, give some hard reasons why instead of whining about his background as a biologist. What details is he missing as a non-expert that would completely overturn his arguments? This… The only way to approach this is to give a clear example of where he is wrong. AK84’s concerns have been raised many times in relation to Richard Dawkins in general and “the God Delusion” more specifically. So this has been discussed many times. Not once have I seen a reasonable example given. I’d like to see one, _Dawkins_ in particular would like the chance to correct any errors made or clarify any confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/44 "2012-03-04T19:09:49Z")
The problem with Richard Dawkins and his writings/pronouncements on religion is **not** primarily that he’s not an expert. It’s that he has blind spots and prejudices, that keep him from being fair to religion(s) and, in some cases, from understanding religion(s) and religious people. > [@rachelellogram](#): > > I know for a fact that he worked his ass off, although we lost contact after he converted from atheism to Eastern Orthodoxy (more my doing than his). Heh. I had to re-read that; for a minute there, I thought you were taking credit for his conversion (which would have been an interesting story) rather than for losing contact. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/45 "2012-03-04T19:20:27Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Yes, I think that Dawkins should stop talking about religion when the fundamentalist religionists stop talking about evolution. Beautiful. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/46 "2012-03-04T19:22:13Z")
How would one become an expert in theology and religion, then? By studying it, reading about it and discussing it a lot? Dawkins appears to have done a lot of that. If he’s getting factual things wrong, then that’s bad, but he mostly talks about belief and gives opinions on it and the way it’s formed, not about particular portions of the Bible. By getting a qualification in it? Well, most people who get a qualification in theology or religion are religious, which kinda makes them biased, and those who have lost their faith after getting such qualifications are most likely not accepted as experts by those of their own faith. People with those qualifications are more likely to be able to say where in what text something is claimed, or what the Nicene Decree actually is, and various other things, but that doesn’t mean they’re the only arbiters of belief. If the only arbiters of belief are believers then there’s not much room for debate. I agree with the gist of your pitting, though. A better example would be Bill Bryson. Seems like a lovely man and a very good writer, but I wish he didn’t think he was qualified to write about every single topic - he gets too many factual things wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/47 "2012-03-04T19:23:30Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > The problem with Richard Dawkins and his writings/pronouncements on religion is **not** primarily that he’s not an expert. It’s that he has blind spots and prejudices, that keep him from being fair to religion(s) and, in some cases, from understanding religion(s) and religious people. I’m not stipulating that he doesn’t understand religious people, but you don’t need to understand religious people to argue against a religion. A religion is ultimately a set of factual claims. Christianity claims that God created the universe and that sin exists, and that an afterlife exists and so on. It doesn’t take minute understanding of their dogma to point out that there is no evidence for their assertions being true. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/48 "2012-03-04T19:40:52Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > The only way to approach this is to give a clear example of where he is wrong. AK84’s concerns have been raised many times in relation to Richard Dawkins in general and “the God Delusion” more specifically. So this has been discussed many times. Not once have I seen a reasonable example given. > I’d like to see one, _Dawkins_ in particular would like the chance to correct any errors made or clarify any confusion. Terry Eagleton’s [review of _The God Delusion_](http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching) is a good description (by a fellow non-believer) of how Dawkins’ ill-informed zealotry results in sweeping generalizations rather than cogent criticisms of religious belief as a whole. As a lifelong atheist myself, I look at Dawkins the way moderate theists must regard some of their fundamentalist sects: I appreciate his publicly sticking up for the beliefs that we share, but I find his rancor and clumsy overstatement to be somewhat tedious and embarrassing. It’s a free country and he can write whatever he wants about religion, but most of it is not particularly admirable or impressive (or original, if it comes to that). One particular eye-rolling example of Dawkins’ doofishness on the subject is something I remember from his (otherwise generally excellent) _Greatest Show on Earth_, which IIRC he was citing from _The God Delusion_. He described some Christian monastic community writing in a loophole to their “fast days” (i.e., meatless diet days) regulations which would ordinarily allow them to eat fish but not meat on those days. The loophole allowed for some occasions when meat could be served on a fast day as long as it was lowered into a well first and “fished” up out of it, to make it ceremonially equivalent to fish. _“They must think God is awfully easily fooled”,_ hee-hawed Dawkins. Although I don’t follow any religious dietary laws myself and consider them all fundamentally arbitrary and from my perspective essentially pointless, Dawkins’ particular criticism of this one is just stupid. Obviously, the monks who established this exception in their dietary laws didn’t really imagine that an omniscient omnipotent God could be fooled into thinking that they weren’t eating meat as long as they drew their shin of beef or whatever it was out of a well first. Equally obviously, they were requiring that ceremonial procedure not as a way to “fool God” but to remind **themselves** of the continuing importance of the laws, even if for whatever reason they allowed some modifications to them. In other words, the fishing-up-the-meat rule is not to say “Yo God, this is actually a fish and not a shin of beef so we cool, right?”, but rather to say “Remember brethren, we have undertaken for the purposes of spiritual discipline not to eat meat on this day. Although we permit this exception to the rule, that does not mean that the rule may be disregarded at whim or that our spiritual discipline isn’t to be taken seriously.” As atheists, we may not agree with either of those attitudes, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be able to tell them apart. Dawkins’ inability or unwillingness to apply that kind of understanding and empathy to the beliefs of religious people is what makes him in general a clueless buffoon when it comes to seriously analyzing religious doctrine. I grudgingly give him a pass on his ignorant clowning primarily because the religious zealots who attack his scientific popularizations tend to be much more egregious (not to mention dangerous) clueless buffoons than he could ever be. ---
**Author:** ![Docta\_G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Docta\_G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Docta_G)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/49 "2012-03-04T19:52:08Z")
I’m a professor of philosophy–iif I agree with Dawkins, do his views suddenly gain credibility as a result? It’s the line of reasoning that matters, not who makes it. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/50 "2012-03-04T19:52:58Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Terry Eagleton’s [review of _The God Delusion_](http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching) is a good description (by a fellow non-believer) of how Dawkins’ ill-informed zealotry results in sweeping generalizations rather than cogent criticisms of religious belief as a whole. > > As a lifelong atheist myself, I look at Dawkins the way moderate theists must regard some of their fundamentalist sects: I appreciate his publicly sticking up for the beliefs that we share, but I find his rancor and clumsy overstatement to be somewhat tedious and embarrassing. It’s a free country and he can write whatever he wants about religion, but most of it is not particularly admirable or impressive (or original, if it comes to that). > > One particular eye-rolling example of Dawkins’ doofishness on the subject is something I remember from his (otherwise generally excellent) _Greatest Show on Earth_, which IIRC he was citing from _The God Delusion_. He described some Christian monastic community writing in a loophole to their “fast days” (i.e., meatless diet days) regulations which would ordinarily allow them to eat fish but not meat on those days. The loophole allowed for some occasions when meat could be served on a fast day as long as it was lowered into a well first and “fished” up out of it, to make it ceremonially equivalent to fish. _“They must think God is awfully easily fooled”,_ hee-hawed Dawkins. > > Although I don’t follow any religious dietary laws myself and consider them all fundamentally arbitrary and from my perspective essentially pointless, Dawkins’ particular criticism of this one is just stupid. Obviously, the monks who established this exception in their dietary laws didn’t really imagine that an omniscient omnipotent God could be fooled into thinking that they weren’t eating meat as long as they drew their shin of beef or whatever it was out of a well first. Equally obviously, they were requiring that ceremonial procedure not as a way to “fool God” but to remind **themselves** of the continuing importance of the laws, even if for whatever reason they allowed some modifications to them. > > In other words, the fishing-up-the-meat rule is not to say “Yo God, this is actually a fish and not a shin of beef so we cool, right?”, but rather to say “Remember brethren, we have undertaken for the purposes of spiritual discipline not to eat meat on this day. Although we permit this exception to the rule, that does not mean that the rule may be disregarded at whim or that our spiritual discipline isn’t to be taken seriously.” As atheists, we may not agree with either of those attitudes, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be able to tell them apart. > > Dawkins’ inability or unwillingness to apply that kind of understanding and empathy to the beliefs of religious people is what makes him in general a clueless buffoon when it comes to seriously analyzing religious doctrine. I grudgingly give him a pass on his ignorant clowning primarily because the religious zealots who attack his scientific popularizations tend to be much more egregious (not to mention dangerous) clueless buffoons than he could ever be. I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. The point of the above mentioned snippit is that the theists believe really stupid shit. And then they bend over backwards so they can justify the really stupid shit so that it doesn’t actually hinder them. These monks are contorting themselves mentally to get around a rule they don’t like. There is nothing profound or elegant about trying to game the system. It’s just self-satisfied rules-lawyering. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/51 "2012-03-04T19:56:12Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > In other words, the fishing-up-the-meat rule is not to say “Yo God, this is actually a fish and not a shin of beef so we cool, right?”, but rather to say “Remember brethren, we have undertaken for the purposes of spiritual discipline not to eat meat on this day. Although we permit this exception to the rule, that does not mean that the rule may be disregarded at whim or that our spiritual discipline isn’t to be taken seriously.” As atheists, we may not agree with either of those attitudes, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be able to tell them apart. It seems to me that the rule can always be disregarded at whim by the simple expedient of dropping whatever you want down a well and then retrieving it. If they want their adherents and outsiders to take their injunctions seriously, they should probably seriously mean their injunctions. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/52 "2012-03-04T20:02:00Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. The point of the above mentioned snippit is that the theists believe really stupid shit. And then they bend over backwards so they can justify the really stupid shit so that it doesn’t actually hinder them. These monks are contorting themselves mentally to get around a rule they don’t like. > > There is nothing profound or elegant about trying to game the system. It’s just self-satisfied rules-lawyering. Well, that says more about your own dislike of religion than about anything that these or other theists actually do or do not believe. Saying “Oh, all religious doctrine is just self-satisfied rules-lawyering” is no more insightful or accurate than saying “Oh, all online video game-playing is just a pathetic attempt to substitute for real-world activities and social interactions on the part of the socially inept”. Contemptuous blanket dismissal of an entire complex activity or intellectual approach seldom provides a valid assessment. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/53 "2012-03-04T20:09:21Z")
> [@Inner Stickler](#): > > It seems to me that the rule can always be disregarded at whim by the simple expedient of dropping whatever you want down a well and then retrieving it. If they want their adherents and outsiders to take their injunctions seriously, they should probably seriously mean their injunctions. Actually, writing a specific loophole into regulations allowing for a particular exception is the very **opposite** of “always disregarding a rule at whim”. Yes, I know that you, like **Lobohan** and Dawkins, are jumping to the conclusion that this is just an example of moral slackness and failure of principle and patting yourselves on the back for being able to see through it. But as I noted, that says more about your dislike of religion in general than about the merit or complexity of any particular religious belief. Naturally, if you hate and despise unequivocally any belief structure that is not founded on strict rational-materialist principles, you’re going to assume the worst possible interpretation of any view within that belief structure. But that is in itself a fundamentalist mindset that isn’t likely to convince anyone who doesn’t already share it. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/54 "2012-03-04T20:30:19Z")
You’re talking a lot but all you’re saying is respect others’ inane beliefs or you’re an intolerant sadsack. ---
**Author:** ![Nancarrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@Nancarrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nancarrow)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/55 "2012-03-04T20:31:14Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …I don’t trust that Richard Dawkins. I don’t want anyone I know to grow up joining one of those “star cults.” I see what you did there. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/56 "2012-03-04T20:33:30Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > You’re talking a lot but all you’re saying is respect others’ inane beliefs or you’re an intolerant sadsack. Shouldn’t we? After all, eating meat that was put down a well isn’t hurting anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/57 "2012-03-04T20:34:25Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, that says more about your own dislike of religion than about anything that these or other theists actually do or do not believe. Not at all. I dislike religion \*because \*it’s nonsense. > [@](#): > > Saying “Oh, all religious doctrine is just self-satisfied rules-lawyering” is no more insightful or accurate than saying “Oh, all online video game-playing is just a pathetic attempt to substitute for real-world activities and social interactions on the part of the socially inept”. Contemptuous blanket dismissal of an entire complex activity or intellectual approach seldom provides a valid assessment. Religious doctrine is as important as video games, I’d agree with that. It solves problems that don’t exist and makes people do stupid things. Pretending that religions are profound doesn’t actually make it so. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/58 "2012-03-04T20:37:11Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > Shouldn’t we? After all, eating meat that was put down a well isn’t hurting anyone. If someone wants to drop their big mac down a well before eating it, I don’t give a fuck. If they tell me that they don’t eat meat on Fridays, and I say, what about that big mac you ate last Friday, and they say, oh, I had to fish it out of the well so it’s ceremonially not meat any more, I’m going to roll my eyes. [Related cartoon on my feelings about respecting religious opinions.](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_aDuIU3QxCM8/S9w7LA_wvnI/AAAAAAAAACw/OKTtdSkT5ic/s1600/Respect.cartoon.gif) ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/59 "2012-03-04T20:37:15Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Terry Eagleton’s [review of _The God Delusion_](http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching) is a good description (by a fellow non-believer) of how Dawkins’ ill-informed zealotry results in sweeping generalizations rather than cogent criticisms of religious belief as a whole. Eagleton’s review was “the courtiers reply” from start to finish. It was woeful, one tiny example. > [@](#): > > Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. No he doesn’t. All one has to do to uncover this is to actually read the book. or how about > [@](#): > > Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously No, no, no. He doesn’t imagine that at all. He address the religious claims that that is what god does. It isn’t his claim at all. He is pushing them to either back it up or admit there may be no interventionist god…and so then what? Now if Eagleton is getting such basic stuff wrong, and the review is shot through with such examples…_things that are actually there in the book in black and white!_…then I question his ability to critique it. It is worse than inept, to paraphrase a great man, it is so bad it isn’t even wrong. > [@](#): > > It’s a free country and he can write whatever he wants about religion, but most of it is not particularly admirable or impressive (or original, if it comes to that). By his own admission this is not original. It is all simple, basic and clear. Again, this seems to be a recurring theme, that was a central reason for writing the book. Don’t judge his arguments by weighing the amount the words in comparison to theology. There’s only one winner in that category, similarly there’s only one winner in actually making a practical point. > [@](#): > > …In other words, the fishing-up-the-meat rule is not to say “Yo God, this is actually a fish and not a shin of beef so we cool, right?” He doesn’t claim that is how they think. He is making a point about religion being mutable when it suits us. man-made and man-moderated. If anything it is sarcastic rhetoric. You might not like the style but the point is perfectly valid. Look at the gymnastics involved in circumventing dietary restrictions. Either god is fooled and therefore not omnipotent, doesn’t see it and is therefore not omnipresent, or doesn’t care. In which case the dietary laws are meaningless anyway other than acting as a moral and ethical Rorsach test. In other words we all get to make it up for ourselves (like the monks do). That…is \*precisely \*the point Dawkins makes over and over and over and over again. > [@](#): > > Dawkins’ inability or unwillingness to apply that kind of understanding and empathy to the beliefs of religious people is what makes him in general a clueless buffoon when it comes to seriously analyzing religious doctrine. I grudgingly give him a pass on his ignorant clowning primarily because the religious zealots who attack his scientific popularizations tend to be much more egregious (not to mention dangerous) clueless buffoons than he could ever be. [xkcd]Well the important thing is that you’ve found a way to feel superior to both of them/xkcd] You’ve just swallowed the religious apologist lines about Dawkins haven’t you? You don’t seem to like him and that is colouring your filtering of the points that he makes. Oh, and “seriously analysing religious doctrine” tell me, what would that look like? Aren’t you just dragging up the courtiers reply as well? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/60 "2012-03-04T21:08:16Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > One particular eye-rolling example of Dawkins’ doofishness on the subject is something I remember from his (otherwise generally excellent) _Greatest Show on Earth_, which IIRC he was citing from _The God Delusion_. He described some Christian monastic community writing in a loophole to their “fast days” (i.e., meatless diet days) regulations which would ordinarily allow them to eat fish but not meat on those days. The loophole allowed for some occasions when meat could be served on a fast day as long as it was lowered into a well first and “fished” up out of it, to make it ceremonially equivalent to fish. _“They must think God is awfully easily fooled”,_ hee-hawed Dawkins. If this seems to you a particularly egregious example of Dawkins’ “overstatement”, I’ll have to conclude that you’re overstating your case. If Dawkins was using this story to claim that all religion is jam-packed with similar hypocritical foolishness, you’d have a point. But excusing the fished-up meat dodge on the grounds that it’s just “ceremonial” strikes me as much less defensible than Dawkins’ take on the matter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708.md?page=4)