Barash States it Plain

Given all the semi-coherent venom coming from people like Michael Ruse and Jacques Berlinerblau lately, I’d say the Chronicle of Higher Education is lucky to have David Barash in its stable of bloggers. This recent post is a most welcome affirmation:

Two decades ago, I wrote a book proposal for a volume to be titled “The Atheist’s Bible.” It was embraced by a major publishing house but not by my wife, who worried that such a book, appearing in the Age of Endarkenment then known as the Reagan Administration might well subject our children to ostracism, verbal abuse and even possible physical risk. I backed down, returned the advance, and have regretted it ever since.

That is my sole discomfort vis-à-vis the New Atheists: Envy. They have said, and said magnificently, pretty much what I wanted to but didn’t.

And skipping ahead a bit:

One thing I do know, however, is that the alleged criticism of the New Atheists that I have seen has been remarkably devoid of substance, thereby comparing unfavorably to The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell, God is Not Great, and The End of Faith, each of which spelled out numerous, specific and detailed criticisms of the currently regnant theological poppycock.

Well said! Go read the rest.

Comments

  1. #1 Collin Brendemuehl
    April 21, 2011

    … Age of Endarkenment then known as the Reagan Administration might well subject our children to ostracism, verbal abuse and even possible physical risk.

    I never before thought of you as being paranoid. Partisan, yes. But this is a new low. Some re-evaluation of what you are accepting as Well said! and affirmation might be in order.

  2. #2 Reginald Selkirk
    April 21, 2011

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Middle-Aged Atheists, New Atheists, Old Atheists, Religion, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris.

    Let’s hear it for the Middle-Aged Atheists

  3. #3 Rieux
    April 22, 2011

    Colin @1 is full of it, but I do think a change-up of post-title wording could be in order. This makes two “X Sttates It Plain” posts this month.

  4. #4 KeithB
    April 22, 2011

    Why? Maybe this is becoming a Jason codeword like Ed Brayton’s “Dumbass of the Day” and “Badass of the day”.

  5. #5 Jason Rosenhouse
    April 23, 2011

    Rieux —

    As KeithB notes, my use of the title “X States it Plain” is usually my way of heading a post in which I am mostly just quoting someone else who I think said something important in an especially cogent way. Sorry if my repetitive titles bothered you. :(

  6. #6 Bayesian Bouffant, FCD
    April 25, 2011

    Where “X States it Plain” is interpreted to mean “X Agrees with Jason.”

  7. #7 Lenoxuss
    April 27, 2011

    re #1, in case it’s somehow not clear, the quoted Barash isn’t saying that the ostracism, etc would somehow be coming directly from the Reagan administration. That would be a tad paranoid. He’s commenting on the cultural climate of the time. And if you think that outspoken atheists and (potentially) their children would not get death threats in the 1980s, you’d be mistaken. Heck, it can still happen today.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.