Why, I can't help wondering, is God thought to need such ferocious defence? One might have supposed him amply capable of looking after himself.
Interpretation
The quote questions the need to defend God, suggesting that a powerful being wouldn't require protection.
In this quote, Richard Dawkins provocatively raises the question of why humanity feels compelled to defend the existence or reputation of God, implying that a deity, if truly omnipotent, would not need such defense. It reflects on the nature of belief and the human tendency to protect ideals that may not need safeguarding, highlighting the complexities and contradictions inherent in religious faith.
In practice
During a debate on religious belief, one might use this quote to illustrate skepticism regarding the defense of God.
No educated person believes the Adam and Eve myth nowadays, but it's surprising how many parents think that it's somehow fun to pass on this falsehood to their children...I would want to argue that the truth of evolution is more interesting and more poetic
If the history-deniers who doubt the fact of evolution are ignorant of biology, those who think the world began less than ten thousand years ago are worst than ignorant, they are the deluded to the point of perversity.
The population of the U.S. is nearly 300 million, including many of the best educated, most talented, most resourceful, humane people on earth. By almost any measure of civilised attainment, from Nobel prize-counts on down, the U.S. leads the world by miles.
When you make machines that are capable of obeying instructions slavishly, and among those instructions are 'duplicate me' instructions, then of course the system is wide open to exploitation by parasites.
Even if not a single fossil has ever been found, the evidence from surviving animals would still overwhelmingly force the conclusion that Darwin was right.
The bitter hatreds that now poison Middle Eastern politics are rooted in the real or perceived wrong of the setting up of a Jewish State in an Islamic region. In view of all that the Jews had been through, it must have seemed a fair and humane solution. Probably deep familiarity with the Old Testament had given the European and American decision-makers some sort of idea that this really was the historic homeland of the Jews.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
Certainly one of the highest duties of the citizen is a scrupulous obedience to the laws of the nation. But it is not the highest duty.
Cursed be the verse, how well so e'er it flow, That tends to make one worthy man my foe.
A virgin can conceive. A dead body can walk again. Your leprosy can be cured. The blind can see. Nonsense. It’s not moral to lie to children. It’s not moral to lie to ignorant, uneducated people and tell them that if they only would believe nonsense, they can be saved. It’s immoral.
For benefits return benefits; for injuries return justice without any admixture of revenge.
…but there they lay, sprawled across the field, craved far more by the vultures than by wives.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.