|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Archbishop of Canterbury and Richard Dawkins
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
There is to be a dialogue on Thursday.
quote:
Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny will chair a dialogue between the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and Professor Richard Dawkins on the subject of "The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin." The event will be held in the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford University, and will be hosted by the Sofia Europa Group of the Theology Faculty.
A webcast of the discussion will be screened live on the homepage of this website www.archbishopofcanterbury.org on Thursday 23rd February 16:00-17:30, and will also be available after the event.
Placing bets anyone? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 22. June 2012, 08:42: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
I expect Dawkins will eat a baby and ban Christians from everything.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I expect Dawkins will eat a baby and ban Christians from everything.
Typical nonsense from an atheist. Dawkins would only do that if he were the Bishop of Bath and Wells.
Seriously, I hope some dialogue takes place instead of the non-response to the opposition's points that can all too often occur in debate.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
If Abp Rowan did as well as he did in the debate with Simon Jenkins (the other one) which I attended, then he will come out rather well by comparison.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
Wouldn't it be great if one of them actually convinced the other to change sides?
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
Wouldn't it be great if one of them actually convinced the other to change sides?
In other news, Porky sprouted wings and quickly flew up the sky right when the butcher was just about to bring him to kingdom come.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
Wouldn't it be great if one of them actually convinced the other to change sides?
About 1m10s into this video....
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
It sounds misconcieved.
Williams is not a scientist. Dawkins is not a philosopher (although he seems to consider himself one these days).
I fear that Williams will talk thoughtfully, learnedly and probably somewhat abstrusely about the nature of faith, whereas Dawkins will punch below the belt as he frequently does, and in the eyes of most people "win" the debate.
Surely Dawkins debating with Warsi or Williams debating with Grayling would be a better pairing.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I'd rather see Dawkins debate with Eric Pickles. I might even be glad to see him win.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I fear that Williams will talk thoughtfully, learnedly and probably somewhat abstrusely about the nature of faith, whereas Dawkins will punch below the belt as he frequently does, and in the eyes of most people "win" the debate.
I think you're spot on with Williams, but what's all this about punching "below the belt"? I've never noticed Dawkins doing such a thing, and I'm not even quite sure what you mean by it, but you claim he does it frequently.
Can you give some examples?
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Well, he does eat babies and ban Christians from everything, or so I've heard.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Just as the Archbishop poisons everything and brainwashes the masses into Delusion ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I saw a debate between the two of them about a year ago - it was most civilised with both people being polite and Dawkins acknowledged that not all Christians are fundamentalists and Williams admitting that some of him co-religionists embarrassed him.
Glad to hear it.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, he does eat babies and ban Christians from everything, or so I've heard.
Little clue: if you have to use a joke twice in a thread it probably wasn't that funny the first time.
To be honest, Dawkins just isn't a very balanced proponent of atheism. I'd rather hear Williams debate with someone still within spitting distance of reality.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Stop it! all this talk of eating babies, you're making me feel snackish, and it's Ash Wednesday! quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny will chair a dialogue between the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and Professor Richard Dawkins on the subject of "The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin."
It's an interesting subject. I remember a tv programme a couple of years ago that asked the question, "Are chimps people?" There were contributions from a number of scientists and, I think, a solitary philosopher. The philosopher alone seemed able to think past the idea that a "person" was identical with being a member of the species homo sapiens*. Conversely, I noticed in the news today that there are calls (by scientists this time, not philosophers) for dolphins to be accorded human rights.
It'll be interesting to see what the archbishop and the scientist make of it.
*(Or whatever we're calling ourselves these days.)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
Wouldn't it be great if one of them actually convinced the other to change sides?
I believe there was a storyline very similar to this in Drop The Dead Donkey (I think that's what it was on). They brought on a hardcore religious person and a hardcore atheist to debate the existence of God and they both changed their minds at the last minute. That would be a very interesting thing to see with these two.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It sounds misconcieved.
Williams is not a scientist. Dawkins is not a philosopher (although he seems to consider himself one these days).
I fear that Williams will talk thoughtfully, learnedly and probably somewhat abstrusely about the nature of faith, whereas Dawkins will punch below the belt as he frequently does, and in the eyes of most people "win" the debate.
Surely Dawkins debating with Warsi or Williams debating with Grayling would be a better pairing.
What you mean presumably is that Dawkins will make clear and understandable statements whilst the Archbishop will waffle and baffle.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calvin Beedle
Shipmate
# 508
|
Posted
Posted by Cod
quote:
Williams is not a scientist. Dawkins is not a philosopher (although he seems to consider himself one these days).
I hear this a lot about Dawkins but does it really matter? Most of us are not philosophers but whenever we analyse concepts or critique arguments we are doing philosophy. Should we stop because we're not qualified? If Dawkins is wrong about the question of God, & lots of us think he is, then the job is to look at what he's saying and provide reasons for our disagreement. Pointing out that he's not a philosopher doesn't prove that he's wrong.
--------------------
There has been an alarming increase in the number of things about which I know nothing
Posts: 71 | From: Kent, the garden of England | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calvin Beedle:
Pointing out that he's not a philosopher doesn't prove that he's wrong.
Quite right, but I think you've missed the point.
It is a question of the level at which an issue is engaged with. The thing that struck me most about The God Delusion was how many of the footnotes were just web links - i.e. merely popularist views. One wonders how he would respond if a research student of his delivered a paper with similar footnotes. I'm sure that Oxford University could save a lot of money if research simply meant citing wikipedia.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
What about The God Delusion led you to believe it was a research paper? And why would a weblink equate to popularist views, rather than (for example) an easily accessible way to point to evidence and further reading for a wide audience without referring to dusty and obscure academic papers? I haven't read the book, although I intend to do so, but your complaints make no sense.
(Two days, and still no evidence of Dawkins punching below the belt at all, let alone frequently. How odd.)
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calvin Beedle
Shipmate
# 508
|
Posted
Posted by Johnny S
quote:
It is a question of the level at which an issue is engaged with
I agree but it seems to be a fairly common repsonse now to point out that Dawkins is not a philosopher as if that wins the argument. I've come across this in a few conversations.
Of the course the level of engagement is important but it's woth remembering that the God Deslusion is a popular book not an academic work. Of course that doesn't excuse sloppy thinking or simply being downright wrong but it does mean that it won't cover every possible theological or philosophical viewpoint. If it handles the ones that it does cover badly then by all means critique it.
--------------------
There has been an alarming increase in the number of things about which I know nothing
Posts: 71 | From: Kent, the garden of England | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calvin Beedle:
I hear this a lot about Dawkins but does it really matter?
Yes. quote:
Most of us are not philosophers but whenever we analyse concepts or critique arguments we are doing philosophy. Should we stop because we're not qualified? If Dawkins is wrong about the question of God, & lots of us think he is, then the job is to look at what he's saying and provide reasons for our disagreement. Pointing out that he's not a philosopher doesn't prove that he's wrong.
It merely means that a simple elementary undergraduate course in Philosophy would point our all the gaping holes in his arguments. As would a simple class in logic. One cannot go 'ooh lookie, Religious-fundies argue this and this is poor logic!' and then argue the reverse using the virtually the same logic while sounding smugly superior about the fact that you're not a Religious-fundie, and thus you can't be accused of flawed logic or philosophy, because the only people who use bad logic, are, of course, theists.
[ 23. February 2012, 13:46: Message edited by: MarsmanTJ ]
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
...a simple elementary undergraduate course in Philosophy would point our all the gaping holes in [Dawkins's] arguments.
Go ahead.
(Perhaps, rather than doing all of his arguments, you might like to limit yourself to, say, fifty or so, to begin with.)
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calvin Beedle
Shipmate
# 508
|
Posted
I'm can see your point about the smug thing MarsmanTJ but I'm having a hard time understanding why it matters that Dawkins is not a philosopher. You've said that it does but haven't gone on to provide a good reason. As I've said pretty constantly in my posts it's the arguments that matter. Non-philosophers are not the only people who make mistakes in logic &/or arguments. I've read some pretty spurious stuff from people who should know better including philosphers.
--------------------
There has been an alarming increase in the number of things about which I know nothing
Posts: 71 | From: Kent, the garden of England | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
What about The God Delusion led you to believe it was a research paper?
Nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
And why would a weblink equate to popularist views, rather than (for example) an easily accessible way to point to evidence and further reading for a wide audience without referring to dusty and obscure academic papers? I haven't read the book, although I intend to do so, but your complaints make no sense.
As part of my job I have contact with several Universities and Colleges in Sydney. One College is mostly 16-19 year olds studying for Child Care and Secretarial qualifications. It is a great college but its qualifications are still at school level and are most commonly a stepping stone to further qualifications.
At this college the students are formally warned that essays will not pass if citations are mostly from the web. The lack of Peer review, amongst other things, is the reason given.
So if you are saying that The God Delusion is written at a level below that of your average 16 year old Child Care student then I quite agree. And therefore the collective response of society to it should be to pat Richard on the head and tell him to come back in 5 years when he has thought a bit more about it.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calvin Beedle:
I agree but it seems to be a fairly common repsonse now to point out that Dawkins is not a philosopher as if that wins the argument. I've come across this in a few conversations.
In such instances I agree with you entirely. It is merely a cop out from the Christians involved.
quote:
Originally posted by Calvin Beedle:
Of the course the level of engagement is important but it's woth remembering that the God Deslusion is a popular book not an academic work. Of course that doesn't excuse sloppy thinking or simply being downright wrong but it does mean that it won't cover every possible theological or philosophical viewpoint. If it handles the ones that it does cover badly then by all means critique it.
But that is the point. It does handle the points badly and has received bad reviews from those 'in the field' as it were.
The substantial point I was making earlier though was about the footnotes. I think you misunderstood what I meant. There is nothing wrong with writing a popular book appealing at a popular level. A comic book version of this stuff would be a worthwhile addition to the debate (seriously). However, it was Dawkins himself who put in all the copious footnotes. Why have footnotes for each chapter if you intend this to be at a popular level?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Meanwhile, back on the original topic, the BBC report that they managed to be nice and polite to each other, and nothing very much happened.
Did anyone watch it?
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
Actually it wouldn't surprise me if Dawkins did have some private doubts. Many of the most notable converts from atheism to Christianity spend years being its biggest critics before caving in.
Agnostics on the other hand tend to go round in circles. To be as anti God as Dawkins is you must at least be thinking deeply about the subject. Which begs the question why ?
What he will discover is that many of the theological views he puts forward in his books are not good theology, and are often taken completely out of context with little knowledge of what Christianity is supposed to be.
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I would love to hear from anyone who was there. It sounds like it was an interesting evening indeed.
Did anyone faint when the air went out of the Sheldonian when Dawkins said he is really an agnostic?
Seems that as per the OP, it's possible to watch it on the Archbishop's website at the moment.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
Wouldn't it be great if one of them actually convinced the other to change sides?
I believe there was a storyline very similar to this in Drop The Dead Donkey (I think that's what it was on). They brought on a hardcore religious person and a hardcore atheist to debate the existence of God and they both changed their minds at the last minute. That would be a very interesting thing to see with these two.
The trouble is ++++Rowey would be out of a job, whereas Dawky would just have egg on his crucifix
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Despite some weird and seemingly almost choreographed hate-responses in the reviews, this was a good if light reponse to Dawkins' thought ... I doubt if Williams was far from McGrath in his responses.
Actually, I agree with some of the responses in the reviews.
I didn't think that McGrath did a good job here - especially in tone.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Actually it wouldn't surprise me if Dawkins did have some private doubts. Many of the most notable converts from atheism to Christianity spend years being its biggest critics before caving in.
Wish on. It seems to me that many Christians are so hostile to atheists (especially ex-christians) because they are scared stiff they might follow. But if they convince themselves that the atheist isn't at heart an atheist, or was never really a pukka christian, or has private doubts and may become religious, they can downsize the risk to their own faith.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Actually it wouldn't surprise me if Dawkins did have some private doubts. Many of the most notable converts from atheism to Christianity spend years being its biggest critics before caving in.
Wish on. It seems to me that many Christians are so hostile to atheists (especially ex-christians) because they are scared stiff they might follow. But if they convince themselves that the atheist isn't at heart an atheist, or was never really a pukka christian, or has private doubts and may become religious, they can downsize the risk to their own faith.
I would have thought both those things are possible. And while we're at it, the frequently observed zeal of the convert (on both sides) probably belongs in here somewhere.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I would love to hear from anyone who was there. It sounds like it was an interesting evening indeed.
Did anyone faint when the air went out of the Sheldonian when Dawkins said he is really an agnostic?
Given that he said that in his book the God Delusion, it shouldn't have been much of a surprise.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Did Dawkins do better than when he debated with former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Giles Fraser on Radio 4?
quote:
The author of the God Delusion could not recall the full title of Charles Darwin's 'The Origin Of Species' during a discussion with Giles Fraser, Former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, over a poll conducted for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) which found that self-identified Christians didn't go to Church, or read the bible.
Dawkins said an "astonishing number couldn't identify the first book in the New Testament." But his claim that this indicated self-identified Christians were "not really Christian at all" was challenged by Fraser, who said the poll asked "silly little questions" to "trip" people up.
Giles Fraser: Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of 'The Origin Of Species', I'm sure you could tell me that.
Richard Dawkins: Yes I could
Giles Fraser: Go on then.
Richard Dawkins: On The Origin Of Species.. Uh. With, Oh God. On The Origin Of Species. There is a sub title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.
Giles Fraser: You're the high pope of Darwinism… If you asked people who believed in evolution that question and you came back and said 2% got it right, it would be terribly easy for me to go 'they don't believe it after all.' It's just not fair to ask people these questions. They self-identify as Christians and I think you should respect that.
OUCH!
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Actually it wouldn't surprise me if Dawkins did have some private doubts. Many of the most notable converts from atheism to Christianity spend years being its biggest critics before caving in.
Wish on. It seems to me that many Christians are so hostile to atheists (especially ex-christians) because they are scared stiff they might follow. But if they convince themselves that the atheist isn't at heart an atheist, or was never really a pukka christian, or has private doubts and may become religious, they can downsize the risk to their own faith.
That is undoubtedly true in some cases. I remember being unreasonably shook up when I heard that Jonathan Edwards (former triple jump world record holder and erstwhile host of Songs of Praise) lost his faith. I didn't have any hostility towards him but it was certainly disconcerting to see what can potentially happen to any one of us. This was early on in my return to faith so perhaps I was less prepared than now. Perhaps not.
The larger point I want to make is that this unease, or maybe it's outright fear in some cases, isn't unique to Christians. It seems to be a rather natural emotional response that people feel towards those that leave the inner circle. This, or something close to it, happens in relationships, sport, politics and just about ever walk of life. Indeed, it wasn't that long ago that I happened to be talking to an atheist who absolutely denied the that C.S. Lewis was ever an atheist because "real" atheists can't be swayed by the lies of religion unless they had a weak mind, which he evidently gave Lewis at least that much credit for. I guess this chap subscribed to a form of naturalistic predestination or some such. Maybe he was a Calvinist in a previous life.
Have you ever encountered a hostility towards former atheists?
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Richard Dawkins: On The Origin Of Species.. Uh. With, Oh God. On The Origin Of Species. There is a sub title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.
Giles Fraser: You're the high pope of Darwinism
I like the title "high pope of Darwinism".
I know it's a thing people say without thinking but I do find the invocation of Divine Aid a tad ironic ....
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Yes, I think language we use often gives a lot away.
I've always thought that Dawkins' earlier book Climbing Mount Improbable should have had the subtitle - "Atheism fails Occam's razor."
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Actually it wouldn't surprise me if Dawkins did have some private doubts. Many of the most notable converts from atheism to Christianity spend years being its biggest critics before caving in.
Wish on. It seems to me that many Christians are so hostile to atheists (especially ex-christians) because they are scared stiff they might follow. But if they convince themselves that the atheist isn't at heart an atheist, or was never really a pukka christian, or has private doubts and may become religious, they can downsize the risk to their own faith.
I personally think this is probably true of many Christians. Though I also think it's probably manifested more as a secret fear than an outright hostility.
I also think it cuts both ways; that there are non-believers who feel they, too, have too much to lose should they lose their belief that god/God doesn't exist, or have a significant doubt that God might be true in some way.
But I think that both positions are completely natural to us as humans.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Did Dawkins do better than when he debated with former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Giles Fraser on Radio 4?
quote:
The author of the God Delusion could not recall the full title of Charles Darwin's 'The Origin Of Species'... Dawkins said an "astonishing number couldn't identify the first book in the New Testament." But his claim that this indicated self-identified Christians were "not really Christian at all" was challenged by Fraser, who said the poll asked "silly little questions" to "trip" people up.
OUCH!
I'm no apologist for Dawkins but I don't think there's any comparison between Dawkins not remembering the full title of 'The Origin of Species' and a Christian not knowing that the Bible begins with the book of Genesis.
Darwin's work was tremendously important in the development of the theory of evolution, yes, but much has been written and researched since then (and the full title of 'The Origin of Species' is rather long!). But the Bible is the holy book of Christianity; am I being an elitist snob in expecting a Christian to know the one-word answer to 'what is the first book of the Bible'? Was Giles Fraser saying that 'What is the first book of the Bible?' is a silly little question intended to trip people up? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
JJSchmidt
Shipmate
# 16864
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But the Bible is the holy book of Christianity; am I being an elitist snob in expecting a Christian to know the one-word answer to 'what is the first book of the Bible'? Was Giles Fraser saying that 'What is the first book of the Bible?' is a silly little question intended to trip people up?
The question was 'what is the first book of the New Testament'.
If you don't actually *read* the Bible, even going to Church every week, it's certainly possible you wouldn't notice.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JJSchmidt:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But the Bible is the holy book of Christianity; am I being an elitist snob in expecting a Christian to know the one-word answer to 'what is the first book of the Bible'? Was Giles Fraser saying that 'What is the first book of the Bible?' is a silly little question intended to trip people up?
The question was 'what is the first book of the New Testament'.
If you don't actually *read* the Bible, even going to Church every week, it's certainly possible you wouldn't notice.
It was also a multiple choice question with the choices being Matthew, Genesis, Acts of the Apostles, Psalms, and don't know. Only 35% of the people who identified as Christians could answer the question correctly.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
It was also a multiple choice question with the choices being Matthew, Genesis, Acts of the Apostles, Psalms, and don't know. Only 35% of the people who identified as Christians could answer the question correctly.
I would have thought that most people, Christian or not, would be familiar with the childhood prayer,
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,
Bless the bed that I lie on
which gives you the answer.
Dawkins fumbling for a moment to recall the rather lengthy subtitle of one out of many scientific works, and then getting it more or less right - that doesn't begin to compare.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I think what's entertaining about it is Dawkins confidently announcing that he could tell Fraser the full title and then fumbling it. If he'd said up front that he didn't know, followed by a spiel about how it's not a Holy Book, science doesn't have Holy Books and so on, then he'd have successfully rebutted the question. He didn't. As it is, he dropped himself in it.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I would love to hear from anyone who was there. It sounds like it was an interesting evening indeed.
Did anyone faint when the air went out of the Sheldonian when Dawkins said he is really an agnostic?
Given that he said that in his book the God Delusion, it shouldn't have been much of a surprise.
Oh, but apparently it is, especially if you stick your fingers in your ears every time he speaks. And if he'd said anything different, he'd have been castigated as unscientific and dogmatic.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think what's entertaining about it is Dawkins confidently announcing that he could tell Fraser the full title and then fumbling it. If he'd said up front that he didn't know, followed by a spiel about how it's not a Holy Book, science doesn't have Holy Books and so on, then he'd have successfully rebutted the question. He didn't. As it is, he dropped himself in it.
I think that's a much fairer comment. But he probably thought he could remember it, and in fact eventually did. More or less...
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
