Melvyn Bragg finds that A.C. Grayling, a Consulting Editor for Interlitq, is “a great explainer of philosophy” but finds his discussion of religion “disgraceful”

A.C. Grayling

A.C. Grayling

In “‘Legal or illegal, I will do it’: Melvyn Bragg says he’ll kill himself rather than succumb to dementia”, Melvyn Bragg is quoted (Alasdair Glennie, Daily Mail, 05.05.13) as finding the discussion of religion by A.C. Grayling, a Consulting Editor for Interlitq, “disgraceful”:  He said: ‘The intellectual slackness and terrorism of these atheists, people who I otherwise respected – Richard Dawkins as an explainer of zoology is peerless, and AC Grayling is a great explainer of philosophy. ‘But when they start discussing religion, it’s disgraceful. Religion is basically a great body of knowledge, and we don’t have many bodies of knowledge.

Melvyn Bragg

Melvyn Bragg

About these ads

3 comments so far

  1. […] Melvyn Bragg doesn’t like the way A C Grayling and Richard Dawkins talk about religion. […]

  2. David Longhorn on

    If you use explosives to blow yourself and random strangers pieces in the name of religion, you’re a terrorist. Lord Bragg claims that if you attack religion verbally or in print in a way he doesn’t approve of, you’re morally equivalent to a mass murderer. This suggest to me that Lord Bragg is a pompous fool who lacks the moral imagination to grasp the reality of extreme violence.

  3. Albert Bakker on

    I hope for his sake comments like these by mr. Bragg are not a sign of the onset of dementia. Now if Dawkins is a terrorist I probably should expect a couple of stealth helicopters circling over my house any minute now for the above sentence alone.

    I already resented the epithet of “militant” always attributed to Professor Dawkins, which seems to me to me beyond ridiculous and now, apparently because the word truly has lost it’s meaning as a consequence of this grotesque misuse of language, if you dare to critique religion and the nastiness that comes of it, you are now a “terrorist.” So what’s next in store in the pre-Godwin nasty word department to try to shut up criticism of “great bodies of knowledge?”

    Religion isn’t a body of knowledge of course, unless the meaning of “knowledge” is as easily subvertible and semantically mirrored as “terrorist” or as is more widely used “militant.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 209 other followers

%d bloggers like this: