| Share on Facebook |
Facing uncomfortable truths
By Douglas Murray
In a recent Al-Jazeerah interview, Richard Dawkins was asked his views on God. He argued that the god of "the Old Testament" is "hideous" and "a monster", and reiterated his claim from The God Delusion that the God of the Torah is the most unpleasant character "in fiction". Asked if he thought the same of the God of the Koran, Dawkins ducked the question, saying: "Well, um, the God of the Koran I don't know so much about."
How can it be that the world's most fearless atheist, celebrated for his strident opinions on the Christian and Jewish Gods, could profess to know so little about the God of the Koran? Has he not had the time? Or is Professor Dawkins simply demonstrating that most crucial trait of his species: survival instinct.
To answer the question, it is worth considering recent events in Denmark. In Copenhagen, on 5th February, a well-known critic of Islam - in the same way Professor Dawkins is a critic of Judaism and Christianity - narrowly survived an attempted assassination.
'Like' The Poached Egg on Facebook! Follow @ThePoachedEgg Donate to TPE! Lars Hedegaard is a journalist, historian and founder of the Free Press Society. After the worldwide uproar caused by the Danish Mohammed cartoons in 2005 he became the foremost defender of the rights of Danish writers and artists to express their opinions without fear of intimidation and murder.
Since the cartoons affair there have been numerous plots by Islamist extremists to kill politicians, editors and others. On New Year's Day 2010, one of the cartoonists, Kurt Westergaard, was visited at his home by a Somali-trained Islamist who attempted to ritually decapitate him with an axe. Westergaard escaped to the "panic room" which the security forces had installed in his house…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO CONTINUE READING >>>
Facing uncomfortable truths | The Jewish Chronicle
RECOMMENDED APOLOGETICS RESOURCES FOR FURTHER READING:
Shop at Amazon and help support The Poached Egg or donate now!
This is the first time I read this blog, but it will most likely be my last if this is the kind of cheerleading they try to pass off as apologetics. Either you take Dawkins at his word that he doesn't know enough about Islam to answer the question or you don't. If you do, the entire article has no value to someone with a sincere interest in apologetics. If you don't, and you decide to believe without evidence that Dawkins was lieing because he didn't feel he had the freedom to safely express himself, then this event still doesn't have apologetic value. What this article really seems like to me is "hey that guy I don't like because I disagree with him was forced to be humble for his own safety, lets revel in it instead of saying something salient to address the issues we disagree about with him." Apologetics is supposed to be a respectful intellectual exercise, not an ad hominem dive into schadenfreude.
Posted by: edross | 02/28/2013 at 07:11 PM