"For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words," Stephen Pollard crowed recently in a widely read column in Britain's Daily Telegraph. "Atheists' arrogance is their Achilles' heel, as cringe-making radio performance has proved."
The performance in question has Dawkins stumbling, uncharacteristically, when pressed to give the full title to Darwin's major treatise "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" (1859). His awkward attempt quickly lit up the Internet, not least because it took place on national radio, with millions of Britons listening. Not that many people off-the-cuff would likely recall the full title of Darwin's book, including its contentious subtitle: "or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." But it is surprising that Dawkins, of all people, would forget the part of the title that captures Darwin's key argument, his emphasis on "natural selection."
The transcript of the interview -- which quickly went viral -- has Dawkins floundering: "On the Origin of Species...Uh... with ..., oh, God, On the Origin of Species. Um. There is a sub-title ... Um ... with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."
On his website, Dawkins declared that he'd been "ambushed" by the question. And, granted, the full title is a lot more difficult to recall than the name "Matthew" for the opening Gospel to the New Testament, as Dawkins was trying to convey. He was seeking more broadly to imply, from the fact that so many Britons call themselves "Christian" without remembering that author or consistently attending church, that their self-description shouldn't be thought very meaningful. Certainly, not enough to warrant their being called "Christian" in the first place.
You can see how that could quickly become contentious, not least with Dawkins seeming to set himself up as judge and juror over who gets to call themselves devout at all. Even Dawkins's supporters winced online over the awkward, unforgettable moment on digital radio, especially when he invoked "God" in struggling to remember the title to Darwin's book. Granted not in a devout way, but it's not quite the word you expect to hear from the man who gave us "The God Delusion" or who regularly calls believers "faith-heads."
While Dawkins wrestles with the fall-out from that fumble, he might venture to revisit Darwin's "Autobiography," including the famous passages where Darwin writes eloquently, with great humility, about his own blind spots. It's also the place, we should note, where Darwin talks about the "beauty" of "New Testament morality," even as he adds that "its perfection," for him at least, "depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories."
"I cannot presume to throw the least light on such abstruse problems" as the "First Cause," Darwin writes late in life, including whether the evolution of humanity was "the result of blind chance or necessity.... The mystery of the beginnings of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
Dawkins, of course, is far from content about others adopting such positions -- he's strongly implied that that they're tantamount to "wishy-washy fence-sitting." The problem is, he then assumes a position of certainty from which to judge and alas sneer at everyone else further along the continuum. It's a deeply unattractive position, not least because it's wholly unconducive to the aims of genuine secularism, for which liberty of belief, including for religious self-definition, is actually -- and very properly -- considered a key principle.
Granted, that doesn't always settle the power and often-unwanted effects of religion in the public sphere. Nor does it resolve the determination by many Christians to evangelize -- and the fact that in doing so they too are presuming to judge others.
But as Julian Baggini correctly pointed out in The Guardian, after Dawkins's disastrous interview, "allowing the free expression and discussion of religion is as much a non-negotiable tenet of secularism as maintaining the neutrality of the core institutions of civil society. It may be unfair to criticise secularists for being 'militant' or 'aggressive,' but we are often ham-fisted and heavy-handed. If secularism has come to be seen as the enemy of the religious when it should be its best friend, then we secularists must share at least some of the blame."
What the government is prohibited from establishing is *ritual*. It cannot establish *belief* in your mind (although in public schools I suppose it is trying to do just that). Neither can it successfully prohibit mere belief.
What the government is actually restricted from is establishing *RITUAL* (and accompanying taxes to pay for rituals); and the government may not prohibit your own RITUAL. Not supposed to anyway.
As atheists theoretically have neither a belief nor a ritual, there is nothing for the first Amendment to apply to.
Religious *practices* are protected. If you have no practice, you also have no protection, but neither is it relevant -- the government is not permitted to impose one upon you.
So any First Amendment protection for atheists is incidental, a side effect of government not being permitted to impose ritual. But protection for believers IS personal and direct.
That is indeed the intention, but "Atheism" is not supposed to be a "religion matter".
Thus, religious protection for atheists is incidental to the fact they have (in theory) no "religion".
It is like protection from murderers because there aren't any murderers. One can claim to be "protected" but in fact there is no threat.
Or I might say I have a magical amulet that protects me from the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Since I have never seen the Flying Spaghetti Monster, shall I say the amulet is effective?
In fact, it *does*, but isn't supposed to. It is a true and genuine "ism" with beliefs, evangelists, websites and so on. It is these aspects of atheism that trigger First Amendment protection.
For instance, what seems much more important to me is the ability for some to understand that the symbols they use to name values are indeed symbols. This is a more mature way of understanding one's language. It takes the humility of seeing how your own language has its limitations. An easy way to learn this is to speak a different language. So a "Christian" who can speak "atheist" or "Muslim" or "Jew" has a better perspective on his or her own language.
On the other hand, there are those who are monolingual. I call extreme monolinguals: "fundamentalists." I don't mean to speak of any particular group which uses that name. I'm referring to a way of understanding language where someone so believes the truth of their own language that they, in effect, deify it. Yes, many of the atheistic comments on Huff Post, as well as many comments coming from more expected places, portray an unhesitating deification of their own language.
Try an actual conversation with someone with a different language.
We all speak a common language when it comes to "truth". There can not be more than one "truth". Or, simply different truths that apply to the same situation. That is the trouble Christians have with Dawkins because he is self-contradictory.
When, Dawkins makes statements that religion is the root of all evil. How is that even possible for him to believe? For an atheist to believe in "evil" he must also believe in "good" which assumes the existence of both. If we are the products of evolution and God does not exist...then, "good" or "evil" does not exist either. Both, then would be merely the constructs of man attempting to control and manipulate societal behavior. Those constructs only make sense if God exists.
If Dawkins is correct that evolution just occured through random mutations then there is no objective morally right or wrong. And, more importantly nothing to hold us to that standard.
So, with this one small example of several problems wrong with Dawkins it doesn't matter whether I am speaking "atheist" or "Christian". A person has to be at least bi-lingual to understand the problem.
Yep, I noticed that too.
"name values are indeed symbols. This is a more mature way of understanding one's language"
And yet, you are applying your own semantics as if they are global. "mature way"? It's just different. Many people, most probably, are NOT going to accept that words are symbols and this is an argument that has been going on for hundreds of years.
"someone so believes the truth of their own language that they, in effect, deify it."
There's a word for that: Pedantic. I am such. But I am also a computer programmer where EVERY word is merely a symbol and can easily be replaced by almost any other word and the program still works exactly the same.
But that flexibility burdens communication. I would much rather words mean what they say, and mean the same to everyone, but (sigh) that cannot happen because people just are not the same. I mean REALLY not the same when it comes to processing words.
These Christians responded to questions about the strength of their personal beliefs indicating a belief ("completely" or "to some extent") in the following categories: "heaven" = 63%, "the power of prayer" = 63% & "fate" =64%. 41% indicate a belief in "hell" ("completely" = 18%, "to some extent" = 23% = 9
Only 17% of the respondents expressed a belief that "Christianity is the only true way to knowing God." 6% responded that they do not believe in God (atheist Christians?).
71% believe in Jesus' resurrection (given 2 choices: either "physical" or "spiritual".
15% of respondents reported never having read the Bible "independently"
Only 8% do not see the Bible as a guide to morality (3% that it is not & 5% don't know)
Only 2% did not learn about Christianity as a child
14% responded that being a Christian means to them that "it gives hope in an afterlife"
I note these responses to items on this questionnaire because IMO these statistics tend to counter some stereotypes atheists have about Christians. I recognize that Christians in Britain are not typical or representative of all 2.1 billion Christians around the world.
I am actuallyr rather surprised that it is only 6 percent. Atheist Christian -- indeed. As others here point out, many reasons exist for a person to be "Christian" and it might not even mean the same thing to each person.
How many Mormons do not believe that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be? Quite a few I dare say; but in a little western town you'd better keep that nonbelief to yourself.
Also these questions do not seem to allow shades of certainty or doubt. I am not 100 percent sure of very much of it, but also a lot more than 0 percent sure of most of it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/23/atheist-jews-judaism-without-god_n_978418.html
I think that it would be very interesting to conduct research on atheist Christians to understand this phenomenon & to learn about why they self-identify as Christians.
Who is that that you claim does not "allow" shades of doubt? Is there some sort of belief-police somewhere that we should know about?
Would you also agree that these statistics counter some stereotypes that some Christians have about their fellow Christians?
Why's that surprising? That part of the title was only in the original edition, mind you, and was struck from later editions. Nor is it used when citing Darwin's book. It is truly a piece of scientific trivia.
What is utterly NOT surprising is that Dawkins, who understands Darwin as well as any living person, cares more about the thesis than its title, while people who don't understand the theory focus on the only part they can understand: the cover.
Something else that is surprising: considering how many hours Dawkins has spent in front of a microphone, this one "senior moment" is acknowledged by his detractors as his greatest failure. That's an amazingly GOOD track record that none of his opponents can match.
This works both ways of course. Dawkins is the authority on Darwinism, but not an authority on Christianity and the author of it, unfortunately, is not easily found to ask. One can only ask authorities of certain flavors of Christianity and leave it to them to decide what their words mean.
And moreover, now that science admits it doesn't know the name with perfect clarity and that not all scientists agree what it should be called, religion is free to claim the book's name is truly a matter of faith. Evangelicals may now refer to it as "On the Origin of Species and God's Undeniable Role in Creating Adam from Mud".
"It shows that most UK Christians have very little in common with the Christian lobbyists claiming to speak on their behalf. The constant calls from Christian lobby groups to deny full rights to gays, to grant Christians exemption from certain laws, to outlaw abortion, to maintain privileged access to political influence and generally to put Christianity at the heart of UK public life simply do not reflect the views and wishes of the majority of UK Christians."
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644942-rdfrs-uk-ipsos-mori-poll-2-uk-christians-oppose-special-influence-for-religion-in-public-policy
"It shows that most UK Christians have very little in common with the Christian lobbyists claiming to speak on their behalf. The constant calls from Christian lobby groups to deny full rights to gays, to grant Christians exemption from certain laws, to outlaw abortion, to maintain privileged access to political influence and generally to put Christianity at the heart of UK public life simply do not reflect the views and wishes of the majority of UK Christians."
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644942-rdfrs-uk-ipsos-mori-poll-2-uk-christians-oppose-special-influence-for-religion-in-public-policy
Why do I need to do that? Should I return and report after having done so or are you going to take it on faith that I will comply with your orders?
Dawkings reportedly referenced God as an exclamation, "oh God!" upon realizing he could not remember the title of the holy book of evolution.
He could have said, and perhaps should have said, "oh Flying Spaghetti Monster!"
But no, he invoked the VERY THING he has dedicated his life to eradicating!
That is priceless/precious/amusing. More than amusing. Maybe slightly less than priceless but that reference is to the credit card advertising series that used this phrase.
If you are speaking of Dawkins; there is nothing to "knock down". He has his followers; I am not one of them. He has his detractors, I am not one of them, either; although I do find some amusement in the symmetry of him being "hoist by his own petard."
I use the name Dawkins as an example of an evangelical atheist. I am delighted for the Dawkins of the world, without whom religion might well eventually fizzle. He keeps the flame alive and helps maintain the distinction of atheism as a true "ism" -- a set of beliefs rather than a set of non-beliefs.
I suppose the only thing missing is a hymn book and it probably exists just not designated for non-worship non-services on not-sabbath.
I find myself slipping into recollection of the TRDB-BSRJ unclub, Tundra Running Drift Busting Bourbon Slurping Ratchet Jaws; it had no elections, it had an unPresident, an unSecretary -- roles up for grabs by anyone that wanted them, unBylaws that anyone could ignore, and so on. We did have quite a lot of fun with it.
So people here reason that religious people are wrong because they can't prove the existence of God but jump to the defense of a man who can't prove there is no such thing as deity in any capacity. They go on to say that the question was unfair because naming a books title in its entirety is an absurd way to prove his beliefs yet he pointed out that you can't really be a true member of your religion if you can't name the first book of their testament from memory on the spot. When that is addressed then it becomes, well he doesn't worship Darwin and the Origin of Species isn't a holy book. So now, the only way for the book and the belief to actually count is if it is a holy book and a religious belief.
Sorry, you all are simply fishing to make your point of view correct and are narrowing down the pool so that it fits your way of thinking.
Tell me, what is wrong with someone like me who keeps her religious views to herself (unless asked) and doesn't go out to convert people believing and practicing my religion? Why is that worthy of such disdain though it cannot be completely proven to be completely untrue? I believe in science and I also believe that there is more to life than what we know and can see.
No, that was just one of many questions in the survey. You might want to read it; a link is posted below.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/645007-what-is-the-proper-place-for-religion-in-britain-s-public-life
"Ministers justify such impositions by appeals to the 72% of the population who, according to the 2001 census, are Christian. But was this impressive figure inflated by people who, though they self-identify as Christian in the census, aren't really religious at all? No decent liberal could object to non-religious people choosing to call themselves Christian on the census form. It's their choice and, as a cultural Anglican, I can even sympathise. But we can object if the consequently inflated number of "Christians" is used to justify illiberal imposition of religiously inspired policies."
By "such impositions" on public policy, Dawkins is talking about the 26 unelected bishops who sit in the House of Lords. It's his sole example of the "justif[ication] of illiberal imposition of religiously inspired policies" in the piece you quote, and vast numbers of Britons (including me), devout or not, support a change in policy and, indeed, full disestablishment. Even so the "illiberal imposition of religiously inspired policies" is very obvious hyperbole.
Finally, there's still the big interpretive problem surrounding "though they self-identify as Christian in the census, [they] aren't really religious at all." It's still Richard telling them what they really believe and how they ought to self-identify. He's extrapolating others' beliefs from their religious literacy and church attendance, but, despite some Christians and nonbelievers wishing otherwise, neither clearly is a reliable marker of how people self-identify. Hence my focus on the issue of "religious self-definition" in the piece above.
This is completely ridiculous. You and Giles Fraser are merely giving disestablishment a sound bit, mere lip service, as if to say "Stop doing surveys into who practices and beliefs Christianity Dawkins, you arrogant Atheist! Us Britons are the good guys, we support disestablishment, stop trying to study our religiosity. People's religiosity isn't to be questioned!"
"It's still Richard telling them what they really believe and how they ought to self-identÂify."
Richard didn't tell them what they really believe, Richard ASKED THEM what they really believe and they told him. The survey asked several questions on why people census-identified as they did, what they believe about heaven, astrology, God, Jesus, etc. Richard is just reporting the results.
"despite some Christians and nonbelieveÂrs wishing otherwise"
Tough. You wish otherwise. Richard and I wish to have a survey and draw conclusions. Get over it. Live and let Richard, I, and others live. It's just data anyways. What's not to wish about having data? Or do you find ignorance to be bliss? It's just data...
An interesting use of language invoking meta-meanings. The only thing that could be wrong about "theism" is not describing it correctly.
*Within* theism exist a huge number of beliefs and claims; each identifiable set of which is its very own "ism". Within each of those ism's will be claims, beliefs, actions.
To say "theism is wrong" makes as little sense as trying to force "0.5" into an integer. You end up with 0, or 1, or some other creative number -- but it just *became* wrong by the very act of trying to make it something that it is not.
"Theists should get better arguments."
Perhaps, but so should atheists. Sooner or later out comes the fool's errand -- prove God. That's up to God. It isn't my job and you can no more prove to me your own mother than you can prove (or disprove) God.
You must allow for all sorts of nonsense if that is how you view facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU
There is no requirement upon Christians to be able to have any of the books of the Bible memorized. The only requirement is that they believe in Jesus Christ.
I have a B.A. Degree in Religion. I read and write both Hebrew and Greek. I have translated several books of the O.T. from Hebrew to English and several books of the N.T. from Greek to English. Does that make me a better Christian than the man who can't tell me what the name of the first book in the New Testament is? Absolutely, NOT! As a child, I had the advantage of learning Cajun french and I knew many scriptures from memory in french. Then, my family moved to an area where Hispanics were in the majority. I attended a Parochial school. We learned Spanish alongside with English. I learned many scriptures from memory in both Spanish and English...as well as , the catechism. From 1st grade through 10th grade I was in a Bible memory course. Does that make me a better Christian? Absolutely NOT!
It's not what we know...it's what we believe that matters to God.
Meaningless. No requirement by any person is met by all people. That is to say, one person will define Christian, but so will another in a different way, and a third in a third way, and so on.
However, one ought to profess being one to claim the right to define it.
Dawkins, not being a Christian, cannot make a credible definition of Christian.
It was his method of showing Christians to be foolish and uneducated; but it evidently backfired.
Reading comprehension problem, or unabashedly false statement?
That's what all the fuss is about here and why I posted. It's also why Dawkins was asked to state Darwin's title in the first place. To claim later (as he did) that he was "ambushed" by the question is frankly absurd, as he was clearly engaged in the exact same practice in his polling.
Darwin was a scientist, not Dawkins's god, and Darwin's book is not Dawkins's bible.
Dawkins would also be able to explain the science of evolution, in excruciating detail. Both as it was understood by Darwin, and as it has been advanced since Darwin. Do you think the people that could not even name the first book in the New Testament could instead tell you about the contents of that book? Really?
Pretty different from Christians and the Bible, yes?
Perhaps. Only you can say what you choose to find credible.
However, after insulting others about their inability to do this thing, to find oneself with the same failure to recall the name of your own holy book is the epitome of hypocrisy.
But other than that...