Atheist leans over backward to find something contrarian to say about religion because of finding Dawkins too simplistic on the subject. Douglas Murray, in The Spectator. (It sounds like something piping hot and fresh from 2009, but oh well.)
These new atheists remain incapable of getting beyond the question, ‘Is it true?’ They assume that by ‘true’ we agree them to mean ‘literally true’. They also assume that if the answer is ‘no’, then that closes everything. But it does not. Just because something is not literally true does not mean that there is no truth, or worth, in it.
Schopenhauer said that truth may be like water: it needs a vessel to carry it. It is all very well to point out — as Dawkins did again the other night — that Adam did not exist. But to think that this discovery makes not just the story of Eden but the narrative of the crucifixion and resurrection meaningless is to rather startlingly miss a point. You can be in agreement with Professor Dawkins that Adam did not exist, yet know and feel that the story of Eden speaks profoundly about ourselves.
Oh come on. The story of Eden? Speaks profoundly about ourselves? Really profoundly, more profoundly than most stories, to say nothing of psychology or history or journalism?
No it doesn’t. It’s a crude little story, taking up all of 13 verses, and its “profound” speaking amounts to saying obey imaginary rules from imaginary gods, and by the way you’re supposed to be ignorant. What’s profound about that?
People do talk such bullshit about this kind of thing. It’s the old magic of reputation – priests are always saying The Fall is a profound story, so because repetition trumps truth, lots of people believe it. It’s crap. Shake off the prestige of the story and look at it without mystification. It’s not profound. It’s the theocratic version of The One Forbidden Thing. It has a talking snake. Next contestant please.