Over on Alternet, Terrence McNally has posted a very good interview with biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins, possibly the best I've read since the publication of Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and the ensuing furor. Dawkins has come under fire from many quarters, notably Deepak Chopra (whose livelihood may be on the line) and R.J . Eskow, a Huffington Post writer who seems well-intentioned but a little sloppy in his arguments, especially when he calls Dawkins and others "fundamentalist atheists." There have been a few vigorous dissents here on dkos as well, like this diary, which successfully demolished series of straw men created by the author. And of course, no serious discussion of Dawkins and atheism could ignore the South Park episode devoted to just that subject. Actually a serious discussion could ignore it effortlessly, but someone's going to mention it, and I thought I'd be first.

By and large, however, the Kos Kommunity seems to be much more open to the arguments of thoughtful atheists than other progressive fora scattered throughout the Internet. That's why I thought some of you would be interested in what Dawkins actually says on many of the more contentious issues raised, not just by his book, but by his life's work. Here are a few gems to get you hooked.

On the "anger" evinced by atheist apologists:

That's a very curious misperception. We get accused of being angry or of being intolerant, but, if you were to look at critiques of one political party by the other... when Democrats criticize Republicans, or Republicans criticize Democrats, nobody ever says, "You're being intolerant of Republicans, or angry." It's just normal, robust argument. People have gotten so used to the idea that religion must be immune to criticism that even a very mild and gentle criticism of religion comes across as angry and intolerant. That's yet another piece of consciousness raising that we've got to undertake.

On why "live and let live" may not be the best approach to the religious faith of others:

Why not live and let live? Why not just say, "Oh, well, if people want to believe that, that's fine." Of course, nobody's stopping people believing whatever they like. The problem is that there's not that much tolerance coming the other way. Things like the opposition to stem-cell research, to abortion, to contraception -- these are all religiously inspired prohibitions on what would otherwise be freedom of action, whether of scientists or individual human beings.

On Bush's claim to a personal relationship with God:

Yes. Your president is told by God to invade Iraq. It's a pity, by the way, that God didn't tell him there were no weapons of mass destruction.

(That one's my favorite.) On the essential role of religion in formulating morality:

That's an appalling thing to say, isn't it? It suggests that the only reason we have morality -- the only reason we don't kill and rape and steal -- is that we're afraid of being found out by God. We're afraid that God is watching us, afraid of the great surveillance camera in the sky. Now, that's not a very noble reason for being good.

There's much more, and it's all good, and it answers many of the arguments that have been hurled at Dawkins from every corner. The conclusion of the interview is especially moving. There is little doubt in my mind that it takes intellectual courage and discipline to openly proclaim atheism in this religiously compromised country. What do you think of Dawkin's proclamations?