Dawkins vs. James Wood Redux...

[onager]

A few days ago, Mr. rug posted a Guardian article by James Wood, where he attacked Gnu Atheists (again). The thread is somewhere down there.

Turns out Wood did the same thing almost exactly 2 years ago, in a New Yorker article, "God in the Quad." In that one, he accused Richard Dawkins of - among other things - wanting to flatten Europe's ancient cathedrals.

Dawkins is on the record as saying he actually likes cathedrals and religious music. I'm beginning to suspect that Wood goes after Dawkins periodically just to get a fatter paycheck. As someone who has been paid for writing myself, I'm pretty sure the pay scale at The New Yorker is better than The Quarterly Review of Academic Mental Masturbation.

When Jerry Coyne linked to Wood's article on his blog (Why Evolution Is True), Wood himself responded:

As the author of the piece under discussion, might I comment on the commentary? Anyone remotely familiar with my writing (I am the author of a novel called “The Book Against God,” for goodness sake) will know that I am an atheist, and proud to call myself one (I grew up in a household both scientific and religious — a rather Victorian combination).

Ah! He's an ATHEIST! The problem seems to be: James Wood is the right kind of atheist, but Dawkins is not:

As I made quite clear in the piece, I am on the side of Dawkins and Hitchens if I have to be, but I dislike their tone, their contempt for all religious belief, and their general tendency to treat all religious belief as if it were identical to Christian fundamentalism.

Tone!?! Their fucking TONE?!? Jebus H. Crisco on a trailer hitch! I am forever indebted to the person who came up with "tone troll." Because for all his high-falutin' phraseology, that's all Wood is on this topic.

Coyne's response said it a lot better than I could:

Religion is more than just an “enormous illusion.” It is an enormous illusion that has the potential to do – and is doing — substantial harm to our world. Because of religion, women are being oppressed, people are getting stoned to death for adultery, HIV-infected people in Africa are being urged to abstain from condoms, people are killing each other over trivial differences in “sacred” works of fiction, and our own country was, in effect, a theocracy. In America we’re still dealing with the remnants of medieval theology in questions about abortion, stem-cell research, and euthanasia. Our world may well end in a paroxysm of religious conflict.

Many of the faithful don’t just hold their beliefs privately, but insist on inflicting them on others. This situation, and its attendant irrationality, is what motivates the “new atheists,” and this motivation is precisely what Wood ignores. Instead, he cavils about subtle points of theology — and cathedrals.

In the other thread, I called Wood/Eagleton (Woodleton?) "ivory-tower academics." For that I was compared to George Wallace, right after being admonished for making an ad hom argument. (I wasn't making any argument in that case, just stating my opinion.)

And...George Wallace? Sheesh! You pikers! Compare me to Stalin, at least!

Coyne had some great words on that subject, too:

I went to Harvard, and am not keen on Harvard-bashing. Still, Wood’s “critique” smacks of an ivory-tower disconnect from the harsh realities of the world — and from real faith as it is lived and practiced. Instead of dealing with these, he wants to score debating points, and to assert a smug moral superiority over both atheists and the faithful.

A-theist-men!

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/the-new-yorker-takes-a-swipe-at-everyone/

[darkstar3]

1. Fitting.

In a forum where "tone" is constantly invoked, a professional writer who spews pages of dreck about tone (to get paid) is going to be quoted sooner or later.

[rug]

2. Lol.

[trotsky]

3. LOL indeed.

Once again we refer to the XKCD gem: