Richard Dawkins praises the Bible…is he an ignorant barbarian?

Remember that Richard Dawkins wrote:

The God of the Qur'an is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Oh, right, no, ok, he would never utter any such thing (which is why the New Atheist movement is conceptually discredited).

He wrote that about the “God of the Old Testament.” Yet, if you read The God Delusion, the fact that Richard Dawkins praises the Bible will come as no surprise.

Of course, if you are anything like me (and, pray that you are not) you listened to it—the 11 CD audio book, and believe you me; if there was any such place as Purgatory I would certainly deserve time off for enduring that bit of noise pollution. Also, FYI: being a modern sort of chap, I would listen to it and when I came upon something that I wanted to quote and comment upon, which I did A LOT, I would then go to the free online text version and simply copy, paste and discredit (here is but one parsed example).

But did, and does, Richard Dawkins really praise the Bible? Yes, indeed. To him the Bible is a beautiful bit of literature that contains within it the most horrible concepts that ever occurred to humanity’s evolving brain.

In the chapter subsection of The God Delusion titled Religious education as a part of literary culture, Richard Dawkins states, “I must admit that even I am a little taken aback at the biblical ignorance commonly displayed by people educated in more recent decades” that he ought include himself amongst the ignorant is more than evident (find such evidence within the essay Richard Dawkins - Planting God More Firmly on His Throne and The Apostle Thomas : Patron Saint of Scientists?).

He continues:

The King James Bible of 1611 — the Authorized Version — includes passages of outstanding literary merit in its own right, for example the Song of Songs, and the sublime Ecclesiastes (which I am told is pretty good in the original Hebrew too). But the main reason the English Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source book for literary culture…Here is a quick list of biblical, or Bible-inspired, phrases and sentences that occur commonly in literary or conversational English, from great poetry to hackneyed cliche, from proverb to gossip.

Be fruitful and multiply • East of Eden • Adam's Rib • Am I my brother's keeper? • The mark of Cain • As old as Methuselah • A mess of potage • Sold his birthright • Jacob's ladder • Coat of many colours • Amid the alien corn • Eyeless in Gaza • The fat of the land • The fatted calf • Stranger in a strange land • Burning bush • A land flowing with milk and honey • Let my people go • Flesh pots • An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth • Be sure your sin will find you out • The apple of his eye • The stars in their courses • Butter in a lordly dish • The hosts of Midian • Shibboleth • Out of the strong came forth sweetness • He smote them hip and thigh • Philistine • A man after his own heart • Like David and Jonathan • Passing the love of women • How are the mighty fallen? • Ewe lamb • Man of Belial • Jezebel • Queen of Sheba • Wisdom of Solomon • The half was not told me • Girded up his loins • Drew a bow at a {342} venture • Job's comforters • The patience of Job • I am escaped with the skin of my teeth • The price of wisdom is above rubies • Leviathan • Go to the ant thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise • Spare the rod and spoil the child • A word in season • Vanity of vanities • To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose • The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong • Of making many books there is no end • I am the rose of Sharon • A garden inclosed • The little foxes • Many waters cannot quench love • Beat their swords into plowshares • Grind the faces of the poor • The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid • Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we shall die • Set thine house in order • A voice crying in the wilderness • No peace for the wicked • See eye to eye • Cut off out of the land of the living • Balm in Gilead • Can the leopard change his spots? • The parting of the ways • A Daniel in the lions’ den • They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind • Sodom and Gomorrah • Man shall not live by bread alone • Get thee behind me Satan * The salt of the earth • Hide your light under a bushel * Turn the other cheek • Go the extra mile • Moth and rust doth corrupt • Cast your pearls before swine • Wolf in sheep's clothing • Weeping and gnashing of teeth • Gadarene swine • New wine in old bottles • Shake off the dust of your feet • He that is not with me is against me • Judgement of Solomon • Fell upon stony ground • A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country • The crumbs from the table • Sign of the times • Den of thieves • Pharisee • Whited sepulchre • Wars and rumours of wars • Good and faithful servant • Separate the sheep from the goats • I wash my hands of it • The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath • Suffer the little children • The widow's mite • Physician heal thyself • Good Samaritan • Passed by on the other side • Grapes of wrath • Lost sheep • Prodigal son • A great gulf fixed • Whose shoe latchet I am not {343} worthy to unloose • Cast the first stone • Jesus wept • Greater love hath no man than this • Doubting Thomas • Road to Damascus • A law unto himself • Through a glass darkly • Death, where is thy sting? • A thorn in the flesh • Fallen from grace • Filthy lucre • The root of all evil • Fight the good fight • All flesh is as grass • The weaker vessel • I am Alpha and Omega • Armageddon • De profundis • Quo vadis • Rain on the just and on the unjust

Every one of these idioms, phrases or cliches comes directly from the King James Authorized Version of the Bible. Surely ignorance of the Bible is bound to impoverish one's appreciation of English literature? And not just solemn and serious literature. The following rhyme by Lord Justice Bowen is ingeniously witty:

The rain it raineth on the just,And also on the unjust fella.But chiefly on the just, becauseThe unjust hath the just's umbrella.

But the enjoyment is muffled if you can't take the allusion to Matthew 5: 45 (‘For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust’). And the fine point of Eliza Dolittle's fantasy in My Fair Lady would escape anybody ignorant of John the Baptist's end:

‘Thanks a lot, King,’ says I in a manner well bred,‘But all I want is ‘Enry ‘Iggins’ ‘ead.’

P. G. Wodehouse is, for my money, the greatest writer of light comedy in English, and I bet fully half my list of biblical phrases will be found as allusions within his pages…
What is true of comic writing in English is more obviously true of serious literature. Naseeb Shaheen's tally of more than thirteen hundred biblical references in Shakespeare's works is widely cited and very believable.
The Bible Literacy Report published in Fairfax, Virginia (admittedly financed by the infamous Templeton Foundation) provides many examples, and cites overwhelming agreement by teachers of English literature that biblical literacy is essential to full appreciation of their subject…
Let me not labour the point. I have probably said enough to convince at least my older readers that an atheistic world-view provides no justification for cutting the Bible, and other sacred books, out of our education.

Such are the reasons why Richard Dawkins has taken part in the King James Bible Trust’s YouTube Bible project for which he read a chapter from the Song of Solomon and stated, “not to know the King James Bible, is to be in some small way, barbarian.”

Now, with particular regard to the King James Bible Richard Dawkins elucidates, “I think it is important to make the case that the Bible is part of our heritage.” And this is the same atheist who refers to himself as a “cultural Christian” as he places upon himself and spiritual/psychological band-aid of enjoying Christmas carols and all of the tinsel with which children are likewise fascinated.

Yet, of course, his statement was:

I think it is important to make the case that the Bible is part of our heritage, and it doesn't have to be tied to religion. It's of historic interest; it's of literary interest. And it is important that religion should not be allowed to hijack this cultural resource.

Do you see what happens when atheism becomes a worldview? “Religion” produced the Bible and is now not allowed to “hijack” it!?!? Is not the fact, rather, that “Religion” produced the Bible and atheism should not “hijack” it!?!?

The lesson to be learned is to discern what activist atheist such as Richard Dawkins mean when they praise the Bible, etc. It is always a front, a facade, a charade and lurking in the background is the premise: anti-Bible, anti-Judeo-Christian sentiments.
This was likewise evidenced when Daniel Dennett encouraged the teaching of religion in public schools (also see here). They want to present the Bible, “religion,” God, etc. from a point of view of their worldview: that they are vestiges of our evolutionary past. You may recall that Sam Harris wrote the following regarding his unreasonable Reason Project, “With the input of the right scholars, we are confident that the Reason Project website will quickly become the preeminent place for scriptural criticism on the internet.” Well, that is what made the Reason Project a seriously funny project—who are “the right scholars”? Obviously, those anti-Judeo Christians with whom he agrees.

Note the following observation by Scott P. Richert:

Of course, the Bible, generically or in the King James Version, isn't "tied to religion"; it both flows from and underlies Christianity. To speak of the King James Bible as a "cultural resource" begs the question. It is a document created by a Christian culture—a document that is itself a translation of a document created by a Christian culture. And just as the New Testament is a living record of a Christian church that preexists the writings of the gospels and epistles, and yet is shaped by those very same gospels and epistles, the King James Version has a similar relationship to the English-speaking Christian world.
In other words, the King James Version is the product of a Christian culture—a product that also shaped the future course of that particular Christian culture. To regard it as merely of "historic" and "literary" interest and to attempt to untie it from the very real Christian culture that shaped it and was shaped by it is to do what Dawkins accuses believers of doing: "to hijack this cultural resource."
Faith without works is dead; but if we might invert this phrase and take Saint James' words in a more mundane direction, without faith works such as the King James Bible are dead as well. The literary and historical influence of the King James Version did not flow merely from the lyrical quality of the translation's prose; it arose from the faith that created the King James Bible and was sustained by it.
Strip away that faith—"hijack this cultural resource" for merely secular ends—and the literary and historical interest and influence of the King James Bible will disappear as well.
Of course, Richard Dawkins is no fool (except for the kind who says in his heart, "there is no God"); he knows exactly what he's doing. Convince Christians that the Bible "doesn't have to be tied to religion," and you give them a convenient excuse for falling from the Faith, yet maintaining its cultural artifacts. You can have your King James Bible and your abortion, too.

Indeed, this is tantamount to attempting to divorce true, lasting, and firmly premised ethics from the Judeo-Christian God/worldview/theology/culture/literature from when it was specified.

You see, as per evolution as a worldview: natural selection takes the best of the previous generation, incorporates it into the next generation and discards the rest.
In like manner, as per atheism, Richard Dawkins wants to un-naturally select the best of the superstitious phase of our evolution, the best of that which it produced (arts, philosophy, ethics, etc.) and discard the rest.

However, me thinks that he goes too far, far enough so that he smashes the foundation upon which the products rests. He wants to highjack those products as an evolutionary triumph yet, he in divorcing them from when they came he is leaving us with that which has not produced any such thing: atheism.

Ultimately, this essay’s title turns out to be too generic and inaccurate. Richard Dawkins does not praise the Bible, he does not praise its contents, what he praises is the Authorized King James Version—the 1611 version, he does so for its literary excellence and he does not consider it particularly exceptional at that as he imagines that other peoples of other languages feel the very same way about their sacred texts.

Who would have thunk it? Richard Dawkins is a King James Only advocate! Well, at least for very different reasons than those offered by Christian King James Only advocates. A further note on the 1611 Bible’s non-exceptionality as we recall that stating that “the Bible is part of our heritage” was a backhanded way to slap it out of Judeo-Christian hands, “it doesn't have to be tied to religion…religion should not be allowed to hijack this cultural resource.”

When in The God Delusion he wrote that “the English Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source book for literary culture” the very next sentence read, “The same applies to the legends of the Greek and Roman gods, and we learn about them without being asked to believe in them.”

When he wrote, “teachers of English literature that biblical literacy is essential to full appreciation of their subject” the very next sentence read, “Doubtless the equivalent is true of French, German, Russian, Italian, Spanish and other great European literatures. And, for speakers of Arabic and Indian languages, knowledge of the Qur'an or the Bhagavad Gita is presumably just as essential for full appreciation of their literary heritage. Finally, to round off the list, you can't appreciate Wagner (whose music, as has been wittily said, is better than it sounds) without knowing your way around the Norse gods.” (incidentally, Adolf Hilter certainly did not think that Wagner’s music is better than it sounds as he was quite a fan and inspired by the tales of Norse gods, etc. see From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist - Responding to Richard Dawkins on the Issue of Atheism, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Communism and Nazism and Adolf Hitler's Birthday Present - Joe Keysor, "Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Bible").

When he wrote, “an atheistic world-view provides no justification for cutting the Bible, and other sacred books, out of our education” the very following sentence reads, “And of course we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions of, say, Judaism, Anglicanism or Islam, and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals, without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions. We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage.”

And we are back at the point of him going too far, far enough so that he smashes the foundation upon which the products rests. Urging us to “give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage” is tantamount to giving up counting while not losing touch with mathematics. It is like giving up sight while not losing touch with colors. Or, giving up our sense of smell while not losing touch with aroma.