I was checking out the reviews for Dan Barker’s new anti-God book and saw this:
In the foreword, Richard Dawkins explains that he got more flak for one particular sentence in the God Delusion than the rest of the book combined: “The God of the Old Testament 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.”
Apparently, Dawkins wanted to write a book defending the sentence but didn’t know the bible well enough. Who better to take up the mantle than an ex-preacher? So Dan Barker did the job, with one chapter for each description in that sentence. The result is a highly readable smackdown of biblical proportions.
LOL. So Dawkins made a specific claim in his book and didn’t know how to defend it? I’m shocked. Shocked, I say. And yes, an ex-preacher (who also is co-president of the FFRF) would be the perfect choice to cherry pick and take things out of context for a blazing display of confirmation bias. Dawkins fires his arrows and Barker is there to paint targets around whatever they land on.
I wonder if they’ve ever paused to consider that it would not be hard to make most of that description fit…..Richard Dawkins. ;)