- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Kauffman posits his position as a departure from Dawkin's position. He even goes so far as to reference Dawkin's book THE GOD DELUSION.
However, Kauffman, for whatever he might say, is a Reductionist. He tipped his hat when he gave praise and embraced the worldview of Spinoza. He reinforced this when he identified himself as a secular humanist.
What's especially funny is that Dawkins specifically addresses the points made by Kauffman (look at the first chapters and last chapter of his book). Dawkins is infuriated by people like Kauffman on the grounds that their attempts to reinterpret God only reinforce the dogmatic views of believers. (is it a coincidence that 90% of the American population believes in a monotheistic God and that Americans know nothing about science?).
Kauffman's real agenda is to recreate God into a non-transcendent being. He is misguided (although undoubtedly well-meaning) and he seems utterly unaware of how condescending his views are. Essentially, Kauffman thinks the religious masses cannot handle losing the God they so desperately cling to so he tries to re-appropriate their love of God into a love of nature. Dawkins also proposes (last chapter of GOD DELUSION) a kind of 'religion' based on a love of the ceaseless wonders of the universe. However, Dawkins takes out the 'God' part, because he understands that as long as religious believers have 'God' they will never let go of the aspect that explains His appeal; that appeal is directly tied to the belief in an afterlife and that insidious and incredibly dangerous 'everything happens for a reason mantra'.
Kauffman needs to give people more credit and be honest!
