No rational case for God = increasingly desperate attacks on atheists

[ManMachine]

Gray comes across as someone who is miffed because his books didn't sell as well. Gray is simply trying to equivocate atheism and religion in order to continue his well known disgust of the human species without troubling himself with having to distinguish between groups of its members.

Which Christian values do you claim atheists are ignorant of? This sounds a bit like the 'atheists don't really understand religion canard.

Scientists' criticism of religion is largely a philosophical debate. Scientists, like many others, will however use scientific discovery to inform their opinion. Complaining that scientists don't use science in their criticism is similar to saying a plumber doesn't use plumbing to hang a ceiling fan.

Sorry Cato, I missed your post in the melee.

I don't think Gray has any axe to grind, he has a good relationship with Dawkins, who has provided cover quotes for his works. Dawkins decided to go into the popularise market, as is his prerogative, while his scientific works are still required reading in evolutionary genetics his popular philosophy is not on the reading list of most philosophy curriculum. Gray, on the other hand, is still considered a philosophical academic, notwithstanding his journalism and pop philosophy books his academic work is broadly well regarded and read, if not always agreed with.

Gray's approach to atheism and religion is more subtle then you give him credit for, he is not attempting to equivocate atheism and religion, he is attempting to demonstrate that they are both human constructs and ultimately function to serve many of the same human needs and are subject to the same corruptions and distortions. In this sense you could accuse him of being a reductionist but he is not suggesting that those human needs are in themselves irreducible or simple.

Gray himself identifies some of those values in the article, I'll leave that to him, he puts it across better than me. He is not saying 'atheists don't understand religion', that's not an accurate reflection of his philosophy, what he is saying is that the religious and atheists (and other social groups) fail to acknowledge humanity with all its inherent flaws, and consequently develop idealised - and he even goes as far as to say in some cases delusional - notions.

He is most critical of liberalism (both theistic and atheistic), which he views as the root of most of the incongruities he identifies.

I would challenge your statement that 'scientists' criticism of religion is largely a philosophical debate', I don't agree. I would suggest that intellectual criticism of religion is a largely philosophical debate, not all scientists are intellectual, it doesn't follow that a person good at scientific endeavour is a good philosopher.

I think you misunderstood Gray's point on science. He uses Dawkins' 'memetic theory of religion' as an illustration that when scientists choose to apply scientific thinking (in this case Darwinian) outside its proper sphere, it makes no sense. He is not saying science should not inform people nor that it should not be used in its proper context. As you suggest, plumbers should plumb.

MM