Religion
Related: About this forumChief Rabbi Lord Sacks and Richard Dawkins debate deity
By Jonathan Kalmus, September 13, 2012
Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks has described the opening of atheist evolutionist Richard Dawkins’s God Delusion book as “antisemitic” and profoundly misrepresenting Judaism.
Professor Dawkins, the first holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, refuted the claim as “ridiculous” and said the string of names he called the God of the Old Testament, from misogynistic, masochistic and an “ethnic cleanser”, were to be taken as a joke.
The exchange came during a filmed hour-long debate at a BBC Religions and Ethics festival at Salford’s MediaCityUK.
Lord Sacks told the academic: “Richard, I don’t think you have fully understood or appreciate that there are Christian atheists and Jewish atheists, and you are only a Christian atheist, and because you read the Bible in a Christian way, you have become prejudiced. That is why I didn’t read your opening to Chapter Two as a joke but as a profoundly antisemitic statement.”
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/80594/chief-rabbi-lord-sacks-and-richard-dawkins-debate-deity
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
mike_c
(36,270 posts)The only relevant meaning I can glean from this statement is that some atheists live in cultures whose religious traditions are predominantly shaped by one or another of the worlds major religious delusions, but I think the rabbi has little clue otherwise. While raised in a predominantly christian culture, I am not in any way a "christian atheist." I reject all superstitions equally. I will admit to perhaps having a special distaste for christianity, but that's likely because my nose was rubbed into it so forcefully during childhood. However, I utterly reject the notion that that makes me a "christian atheist."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Dawkins described the god of the old testament as a
The rabbi's point is that this is a typically Christian reading of the old testament and has been used for centuries to promote fear, hatred and bigotry towards Jews.
This as opposed to a Jewish reading of it, which would give a different perspective.
christians in past used the killing of Jesus as the excuse for being antisemitic. What Dawkins said is rather more modern and I am sure there are many differences in the christian old testament vs. the Torah. Not believing that the Torah, christian old testament and christian new testament does not make one antisemitic or antichrisitian but the believers would probably think differently since they will take offense of any criticisms against their religion.
More rhetorical for cbayer since she won't respond to this post.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 14, 2012, 04:52 PM - Edit history (1)
Just as a matter of general interest, there are actually very few differences. The Christians reordered the books so as to end with Malachi, which they consider to prefigure Christ, and changed a few verses here and there to the same purpose but otherwise they are pretty much alike.
After all, the OT was added to the Christian canon to add weight and majesty. Much alteration would have been suspect and detracted from that purpose.
The Jews adapted the Christian system of notation for verses to simplify interdenominational disputation. The similarity is so great that it's not unheard of for Jewish intellectuals to cite the KJV.
*Later: should have mentioned the books divide a little differently. Trifle. Also should have mentioned that the Torah is just part of the Hebrew scriptures.
edhopper
(33,488 posts)condemns children to the fourth generation for their great grand parents sins.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Commands genocide.
15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
And approves selling your children into slavery.
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
And saying so makes you an antisemite? No saying so makes you an atheist. The Rabbi thinks any attack on the Jewish faith is antisemitism. He doesn't get is it an attack on the core beliefs of his religion and questioning the validity of that faith.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)To be honest, I think these *debates* serve only one purpose and that is to feed the egos of the debaters.
I was just trying to explain why the rabbi made a distinction between an atheist coming from a christian perspective as opposed to one coming from a Jewish perspective.
edhopper
(33,488 posts)The Rabbi is full of shit.
I understand you were giving what you thought was the Rabbi's POV. I was responding to that. Not thinking it was your opinion as well.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Jim__
(14,063 posts)HarveyDarkey
(9,077 posts)I'd rather see the entirety of it, but thanks.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)and the link is to THE JEWISH CHRONICLE ONLINE. THe article was one sided and did not give Dr. Richard Dawkins side of the story. A total waste of time.
Stephen Jay Gould was correct in stating that atheists should not debate the religious. The religious will twist and lie about the atheist's positions.
on edit: I linked to the BBC site and heard the short clip of the debate where the Rabbi called Richard Dawkins antisemitic. The Rabbi went to the nuclear option with the antisemitic statement. Talk about disingenuous.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)I'm trying to find the comedy and laugh at it instead. He's right -- those attempts at debating are futile.
Jim__
(14,063 posts)He also says that he is not concerned that Dawkins is antisemitic; but rather that he is using an antisemitic stereotype.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)
Jim__
(14,063 posts)rexcat
(3,622 posts)It is the same damn thing.
Jim__
(14,063 posts)"I was concerned that he was using an anti-semitic stereotype, which has run through a certain strand of the Christian reading of what is called the 'Old Testament' as a result of which thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Jews, died in the Middle Ages because that's how people spoke about the God of the Old Testament."
A person can use a steroetype that is embedded in their culture without even being aware of it. That is what Sacks claims Dawkins is doing. He explicitly states that he does not consider Dawkins to be antisemitic.
rug
(82,333 posts)rexcat
(3,622 posts)not bias on anyone's part.
on edit: and how does your comment to me add any quality dialog to this topic?
onager
(9,356 posts)Which is funny. Since the Pharyngula crew are his bestest buddies EVAH when they're talking about sexism in the atheist/skeptic community.
rug
(82,333 posts)A fascinating crew.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)not wanting to contribute any "substance" to the dialog. Rug can be snarky at times just like the rest of us!
The Rabbi is wrong, simple as that. His views are an attempt to censure criticism of a book that should now be regarded as profoundly racist and supremacist about others. This was not exceptional at the time, but just look at how the Hebrew Bible portrays 'Cannanites' and Samaritans. The Yahwists who wrote the book accused others of practices such as child sacrifice when this was part of some branches of the cult of Yahweh. It refers gleefully to the slaughter of women and children all in God's name. This was standard for the time in which it was written. It is not standard now. That progress is due to the development of our moral understanding, and that growth has little to do with religion. The parts of the book that Richard Dawkins was referring to were written long before Rabbinic Judaism started anyway. Thousands of years of human effort, (mostly male effort) has gone into 'explaining away' all the nasty bits of the Hebrew Bible. Why not accept like Humanistic Jews do that this is just a book that reflects its time, the events in it are not always true, and they are not morally correct. The Rabbi needs to accept that if he wants the kudos of hanging with his new science chums he will be expected to bring evidence to the table to back up what he says, and the mis treatment of minorities including, but not restricted to Jews, (Gays, Atheists, other Christians) by Christians is not explained by what he says. A last thought, the writers of most of the Hebrew Bible did not call themselves Jews, they were Hebrews, or Israelites. RD is discussing their concept of God, not the God that modern branches of Judaism beleve in. Therefore RD can in no way be accused of anti-semitism. The Rabbi should rethink and apologise.
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)davidb19766
(15 posts)Seriously...
Yesspam
(2 posts)All true, all true.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)
Meshuga
(6,182 posts)I missed this conversation at the time and now that I discovered it I would like to chime in.
First I have to write a couple of disclaimers since I did not watch the debate (I only read quotes from the debate in articles) so I am not sure where the rabbi stands on beliefs and what his take is on the Hebrew bible.
I also read "The God Delusion" a while back and there is a lot of detail that I have forgotten so my take on it could be distorted. I would like to read it again but I remember cringing (at the time I read it) about other stuff which did not include Dawkins take on what he refers as the OT god. Jews are not told to believe in the OT god and recognizing this OT god as a god concept from ancient people is not hard for Jews. So I thought not of it at the time.
I don't think Dawkins is anti-Semitic (he has not shown any hatred toward Jews to deserve such accusation) but, out of ignorance, he did use material from the Talmud and the Hebrew bible that anti-Semites have been using for centuries to justify pogroms and that is used to this day by hate groups.
However, the part that made me cringe the most were the instances (which happened more than once in the book) where Dawkins referred to a so called "Jewish lobby" that is small but can still influence US government. I am not sure the words he actually used but I will look it up. I believe (if I can remember correctly) that he was making a point that while Jews are a small minority and can influence US policy, atheists (a minority as well) can't organize in the same way to influence policy. In any case, Jewish power to influence is an OLD OLD myth. I am sure he meant to say "Israel lobby" instead but Israel Lobby is not a Jewish lobby. It certainly and obviously includes Jews but it is not Jewish. If religious Jews had a powerful Jewish lobby in America influencing policy, we would have much different policies right now since the vast majority of religious Jews fall on the progressive side. We have voting stats that show this is a fact.
Anyway, from what I read, the rabbi did not call or believe that RD is an anti-Semite I the same way that I don't think Dawkins is an antisemite. Saying that the rabbi call RD an antisemite is a straw man.
I agree that Rabbinical Judaism have for centuries been disqualifying the ugliness in the Hebrew bible throughout Rabbinical texts. But you don't have to be a humanistic Jew (as you seem to imply) to recognize that the Hebrew Bible is a book written with the morals and values of its time. The Rabinnical texts themselves recognize that and so do religious Jews. Assuming that they can't is incorrect. Go to a Torah class provided by conservative and reform shuls around the country and you will see by the language used that Jews recognize this.
Pharisaic Judaism (Rabbinical Judaism) is the only Judaism that survived with the destruction of the temple. Biblical Judaism that used the Hebrew bible and rejected the oral law died with the fall of the temple 2000 years ago. Well if we count kareites (a tiny minority) biblical Judaism didn't die completely but Rabinnical Judaism does not look at the Hebrew Bible for religious guidance.
So IMO Criticizing Dawkins choice of material and words regarding Judaism is fair. But even the rabbi explicitly recognized that Dawkins is no anti-Semite. RD is just ignorant regarding Judaism for the most part and should be careful with his words and stick with the facts and knowledge especially when facts and knowledge are so important to him. Otherwise his opponents will focus on these errors when trying to disqualify Dawkins. In the same way that Dawkins easily and correctly disqualifies the ignoramuses who dare to challenge him on revolutionary biology, ethology, and science in general.
