Did Dawkins Blink?

Writing in the WSJ, Meghan Cox Gurdon reviews Richard Dawkins’s new science book for young folk:

…That young people might come to see poetic magic in the scientific method and the natural world is not, however, sufficient for the author of “The God Delusion,” the 2006 best seller. A crusading atheist, Mr. Dawkins has ridden his hobbyhorse into the children’s section of the bookstore. There is no doubt that he hopes to relieve young readers of any primitive vestigial religious belief to which they might cling.

In each chapter, dramatized by Dave McKean’s colorful graphic artwork, the author recounts the “made-up” and “fun” stories of various religious traditions. We are invited to smile at the idea of miracles and to regard as charmingly quaint such colorful individuals as the Hopi spider-woman goddess, the Tasmanian god Dromerdeener and the famous “Jewish preacher” who turned water into wine. Mr. Dawkins ranges widely across all manner of religious belief, so it is worth noting that he never mentions Muhammad or Islam. Perhaps he did not want to offend.

Tsk, tsk, did Dawkins blink?

On the other hand, reading the conclusion of the review made me warm to the book despite that lapse:

His tone throughout alternates between real delight over how things work and avuncular pity for the people who persist in seeing an author behind the machinery of the universe. Mr. Dawkins is rather like a subversive relative who comes to dinner and, while father is banging on about the Divine Plan, catches the attention of the teenagers at the table and rolls his eyes. There is no plan, winks Mr. Dawkins, nor any divinity. There is just the “magic” of the universe unfolding. If that is the view you wish your children to have of the cosmos, then “The Magic of Reality” will suit you very well.

Update

It seems like the answer to the question whether Dawkins blinked is no. Thanks to Prasad in the comments for the heads-up. According to a commenter (or should that be commentator: I never know) on Richard Dawkins’s site, the book includes this passage (on p.247) :

People who would laugh at the idea that a pumpkin could turn into a coach, and who know perfectly well that silk handkerchiefs don’t really turn into rabbits, are quite happy to believe that a prophet turned water into wine or, as devotees of another religion would have it, flew to heaven on a winged horse.

The chap on the winged horse was, of course, you know who.

So, apologies, Professor — and well played.

This entry was posted in Science & Faith and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Did Dawkins Blink?

  1. Matt Foss says:

    Blaspheming Islam can be hazardous to one’s health. Maybe it’s not yet time to take that fight to the children’s section.

  2. prasad says:

    I haven’t read the book, and don’t know how equal-opportunity it is, but it takes some chutzpah to accuse Dawkins of taking on the water-to-wine thing but not Islam when the sentence in question is the following:

    “People who would laugh at the idea that a pumpkin could turn into a coach, and who know perfectly well that silk handkerchiefs don’t really turn into rabbits, are quite happy to believe that a prophet turned water into wine or, as devotees of another religion would have it, flew to heaven on a winged horse.

  3. Andrew Stuttaford says:

    Prasad, It looks as if you are correct. Judging by the extract you cite, Dawkins did indeed not blink.

    http://richarddawkins.net/comments/877117

    Good for him! I will update the post.

  4. RandyB says:

    OT, seeking a link

    On another board, I’m reading comments about the new film No Dinosaurs in Heaven about post-Dover attempts to re-introduce Intelligent Design into public school curiccula. Two of the state laws specifically mention global warming as an analogous contentious issue on which scientists are alleged to be in consensus.

    What I’m seeking is an essay about how both the right and left wings have re-defined science as something that’s inherently done from an ideological perspective, explaining how a Christian looking at fossils and seeing ID, comes from the same epistimological basis as claiming that a science likes physics needs more wise Latinas to examine it from all perspectives.

Comments are closed.