Re: Dawkins on Radio4
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.
To put it as clearly as I can:
The Bible is the foundation of belief for Christians. It is meant to be the inerrant Word of God. It is meant to be the foundation of their morals, ethics etc. They are meant to - and many claim they really do - live by the Bible.
Those people who make those claims, who then cannot identify the name of the first book in the NT? Well, yeah. I’m inclined to agree with Dawkins that it’s a bit ridiculous.
In contrast, Charles Darwin’s book ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ is a: a much longer title to attempt to remember, b: isn’t the basis for atheism (in fact, it has nothing to do with atheism at all), c: isn’t the basis for anyone’s morals or ethics, d: isn’t a book people live by, e: isn’t claimed as a book people live by, f: doesn’t have any ‘holy’ significance, g: isn’t seen as inerrant, h: isn’t even entirely accurate anymore and scientists readily admit that fact, i: isn’t considered immune to criticism, j: basically it isn’t at all comparable to getting the basics of the Bible incorrect when you claim to be a devout Bible believer…
I’ve seen a few tweets suggesting that Dawkins has made a fool of himself and atheism with this failure to remember the annoyingly Victorian title of Origins. I am of the mind that these people should stop and think before making such ridiculous tweets.
Origins has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism has nothing to do with Origins.
Yes Dawkins set himself up for it when he said he could remember the whole title and then couldn’t, but he did not disgrace atheism, only his own memory whilst under pressure.
Failing to remember the full title of Origins is not the same as failing to remember the title of the first book in NT because the comparison is illogical.
Those other people who are also now declaring atheism defunct because of one man’s failure of memory, are being completely ridiculous.
Just my tuppence worth on the subject.
~Mooglets
