Dawkins Rebukes Cameron, Calling Bible 'An Appalling Moral Compass'

[cleanhippie]

Richard Dawkins has challenged David Cameron’s assertion that the UK needs to return to Christian ideals, calling the Bible “an appalling moral compass”.

On Friday, in a speech to celebrate the 400th birthday of the King James Bible, the prime minister said the New Testament had helped give our country "a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today,” adding that we should "actively stand up and defend" these Christian values. However, speaking to Sky News, Dawkins, a renowned, scientist, author and atheist, said that Cameron is wrong to suggest the Christian Bible is going to “help us with our morals and our social wellbeing.”

“The Christian bible will help us with our literature,” said the author of The God Delusion. “It should therefore be taught in schools in literature classes, but it’s not going to help us with our morals, far from it.”

“The bible is a terrible moral compass, if you think about it. Of course, you can cherry pick the verses that you like, which means the verses that happen to coincide with our modern secular consensus, but then you need to have a rational for leaving out the ones that say stone people to death if they break the Sabbath, or if they commit adultery. It’s an appalling moral compass.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/12/17/richard-dawkins-david-cameron-bible-moral-compass_n_1155246.html

[MarkCharles]

1. Looking at the entire King James Bible, which is what ...

this anniversary is all about, Dawkins is right. One has to pick and choose to find the parts one wants to live by.

And there's so much that is simply NOT true or factual, not even reasonable to a modern world. Why would anyone choose that self-contradictory book of all the books and writings there are to use to teach any system of morality?

[Boojatta]

3. The choice was made long ago.

Isn't it simply a matter of historical fact that the King James Bible has influenced the values of the UK?

For example, people in the UK don't believe everything that they read. Perhaps the King James Bible played a role in that.

Meanwhile, there are Mormon splinter sects that don't accept the prohibition on polygamy (a prohibition in the New Testament and accepted by today's main LDS church). Do you believe some abusive practices within those splinter sect communities might have some connection to their unwillingness to accept the prohibition on polygamy?

[MarkCharles]

4. " simply a matter of historical fact that the King James Bible has influenced the values of the UK?"

Oh, like opposing the American Colonies? Occupying their Massachusetts Bay Colony? Rejecting the Articles of Confederation? Endorsing and supporting slavery?

Which of those "values" of the UK, in the last 400 years are you referring to?

The King James Bible was used since 1612?

Try to remember the period of American colonization and the Revolution, and even the war of 1812 as part of those "values in the UK", okay?

A credible democratic system of government in the UK came about, after several internal "battles", (and I'm not talking just Northern Ireland here, which battled well into the 20th century, all under the KJV Bible) for scores of years after the American Revolution.

Some moral values system that King James Bible provided the Brits and the Americans!

[LeftishBrit]

2. Well, Toryism is an appalling moral compass!

I am not concerned about Cameron being in any way theocratic; he isn't, and won't be. Indeed, the only religious figure, with whom Cameron has much in common, is the Vicar of Bray!

However, I am very concerned about the fact that he is a Tory, and I HATE Tories.

[skepticscott]

5. The Bible is a moral compass

that points in every direction. Or, if you prefer, in no direction.

[Sal316]

6. It's funny he says this "you can cherry pick the verses that you like"...

...then turns around, in the same quote, does exactly the same thing.

Text without context is pretext for a prooftext. People like Dawkins and the "God hates Gays" people are guilty of it.

[darkstar3]

7. Name me one person you wouldn't immediately dismiss as a fundie who doesn't "cherry pick."

[Sal316]

10. Dietrich Bonhoeffer

More modern?

How about Marcus Borg (although I don't agree with his views on the resurrection), Brian McLaren, Phyllis Tickle, Anne Lamott, Frank Viola, Len Sweet....

How about a couple dozen theologians I've met, spoken with, corresponded with, and even am friends with. Smart people, all with excellent training in exegesis, biblical scholarship, and linguistics. We don't all agree, but they don't cherry pick.

[darkstar3]

12. Really? So these people adhere to the laws of Leviticus,

accept the fact that Jesus flatly stated that he came only to the Jews, and believe that women should be silent in the church?

No, of course not. I haven't read much of their work, but those positions in this day and age would be ridiculous.

Now tell me this: Do they believe that Jesus was in any way divine? Do they believe he was sent for the salvation of man? Do they believe that he was resurrected?

If the answer is yes, then that would mean that they choose to take certain verses in the Bible as more literal, and more directly meaningful than others, using a rubric that shifts with time and is inconsistent across even prostestant faiths. Sounds an awful lot like "cherry picking" to me.

[Sal316]

15. That's not what you asked.

You said 'no cherry picking'...which, judging by the response above means "must take everything literal without exception or else I'll accuse them of cherry picking".

That's pretty much the same view as the "God hates gays" crowd.

Congrats on being as theologically deep and exegetically rigorous as them.

When you're interested in having an actual discussion about scripture and theology, feel free to ask.

Until then, I'm out. People who interpret every word of the bible as literally true without any room for discernment are ignorant. Ignorant of history, ignorant of literature, and ignorant of language.

Text without context is pretext for a proof-text....which, btw, you've just shown proof-texting is your MO.

[darkstar3]

19. So now you're trotting out a straw man, not to mention ad hom?

I just told you in the post above what I meant by cherry picking. Now, in order to provide yourself an out, you're attempting to tell me that "cherry picking" only means what you want it to mean, and therefore you're not guilty. That's called a straw man argument.

Also, from your third paragraph on, you're doing nothing but engaging in ad hom. Worthless.

Let's see if you'll bother to answer this point: You gripe about people who interpret "every word of the Bible as if it is literally true", yet you simply have refused in the past to state, categorically, that you don't think any part of the Bible is literally true. Based on your username, I'd say it's a fair bet that you interpret Jesus' divinity as literally true. How does that not put you squarely in the path of the stones you throw?

In summation: Do you interpret any part of the Bible as literally true, and if so, how does that make you "better"?

[humblebum]

17. Oh, the old "Jesus flatly stated that he came only to the Jews" argument. Then why did also say

to preach his words to all nations? I think you are the one cherry picking.

[darkstar3]

20. Cherry picking is taking one part of the Bible as true,

such as believing that Jesus was in any way divine, while at the same time attempting to explain away other, more inconvenient, parts of the Bible as metaphor, or meant only for the 1st century people.

As for your contradiction, it's not my book, so I don't have to come up with a reason to defend the fact that Jesus contradicts himself. That's your job. All I have to do is say "hey, guess what, the Bible is loaded with contradictions" and then stand back and watch the fireworks.

[humblebum]

22. When you start cherry picking as you most certainly are doing, if you are quoting

any book about anything, then it becomes your argument and your responsibility to defend your own statement. Your POV is consistent with that of many atheists - In so many words, "i cannot understand it therefore it is wrong or false."

I would seriously advise you to learn more about the history of atheism - your own history, so you are able to defend yourself more effectively in that area, and then worry about others' beliefs.

[darkstar3]

23. So now you're trying the ad hom as a dodge too, huh?

[humblebum]

24. So now you're trying to use "the old ad hom as a dodge" charge as a dodge? nt

[cleanhippie]

26. You seem to be lacking coherence.

[humblebum]

32. My concern is why ds3's post was hidden? I found nothing offensive about slurring words. God only

we have seen much more offensive things than that. Perhaps the poster that is supposedly being offended should have a say in the process. Unless there's something that I missed, there might be a danger of too much regulation here.

[cleanhippie]

34. On that we Re in complete agreement. There IS a definite bias toward

Non-believers having posts hidden while similar ones are left when directed AT mon-believers.

[humblebum]

35. I have had a few hidden in the past week. nt

[cleanhippie]

36. Really? Which ones?

I seriously have not noticed that. Will provide links so I can see for myself?

[humblebum]

38. Well here are two, but I think there's one more.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=inbox&view=7111

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=inbox&view=10284

[cleanhippie]

39. Can you link to the ACTUAL posts, please. Your links are to your inbox and I cannot see that.

click the link in your inbox then click the link to the post you responded to, that way I can then actually see the post that was hidden. Or just link to the OP and I can find it that way.

[deacon_sephiroth]

30. soooooo, now you're using the old, "dodge the callout of your dodge with a dodgey reveral eh?"

I've seen it a million times.

[laconicsax]

8. Giving an example of a behavior isnt the same as engaging in that behavior. n/t.

[Sal316]

16. Ok, you're right.

Dawkins only cherry picks sometimes.

But he is guilty of proof-texting... just as big an intellectual sin.

[laconicsax]

18. But is it as big a sin as quote-mining?

Or is that one allowed by your Sophisticated Theology^TM

[iris27]

21. How could one do anything BUT proof-text with a document comprised of

66 books and thousands of verses, written ostensibly over thousands of years? By definition, any single sermon or "Gospel Reading of the Week" is thus a proof-text.

[humblebum]

9. Yes, atheism has provided such a wonderful moral compass for humanity, too.

And yes this is sarcasm.

[darkstar3]

11. It has never been asserted that atheism should provide a moral compass

In fact, it's impossible for a simple lack of belief in deities to provide much of anything in the way of guidance. Yet atheists have morality. That should tell you something about the source of morality.

[humblebum]

13. Oh! You mean its just a way of knowing? nt

[darkstar3]

14. That sentence doesn't even make sense.

And if nonsense is all you have left, I'll take your original point as "easily brushed off."

[humblebum]

33. Well, some do consider morals as a way of knowing, i.e.

Mores are the standards by which a social group determines what constitutes acceptable behavior, ideas, and beliefs.

[LeftishBrit]

29. It's just the lack of one particular type of belief. That's all.

[cleanhippie]

27. Show me one example of anyone claiming it does.

That's right, you can't.

Fail.

[LeftishBrit]

28. No one ever said it does.

Atheism just means lack of a belief in God(s); it does not in itself provide any sort of moral compass, good or bad.

[deacon_sephiroth]

31. Couldn't be much worse

not that "I don't believe in that" is a moral compass.... but if you want to reporesent atheism as something it's not representing itself to be, then we can go there anyway.

since I'm still honoring Hitchens rather heavily this month, I'd like to share his 10 commandments with you. Again, this is not Atheism as a whole, just one atheist giving his thoguhts on the matter and amazingly he manages to do a damn sight better than the origonal.

[Boojatta]

37. Didn't Hitchens complain that commandment #10

pertains to thought alone, and then create his own commandment #2 that forbids a thought?