Dawkins looks a little bit silly

Sorry to indulge in Schadenfreude, but if it was ever justified, this is the moment:

Fraser: Richard, I'm sure you could name the full title of On the Origin of Species?

Dawkins: Yes, of course. 

Fraser: Go on, then.

Dawkins: On the Origin of species by, errr, selection, oh, um, (mumble, mumble), oh God, it's got quite a long subtitle [getting very cross], I, um...

Justin Webb: Pretty close!


What's so delicious about this is that Giles Fraser was accusing Professor Dawkins of creating a whole load of ridiculous and impossible conditions that people must fulfill before he will allow them to be "Christian". His point was that we could do the same thing for atheists and it would be equally ridiculous, because nobody would be allowed to be called an atheist unless, for example, they could name the full title of the Origin. A point which Dawkins then kindly demonstrated for him.


Comments

Steve Day (therevsteve) said…
Far be it from me to appear to defend Ricard Dawkins ... but fair's fair: he did manage to come out with "preservation of favoured races" which is not quite as bad as you have put it.
I think Giles Fraser was over-egging the "self identification" a bit as well - like Dawkins, I am troubled by someone who doesn't attend worship, read the Bible, or believe Jesus was the Son of God, but nevertheless ticks the "Christian" box. What does "Christian" actually mean in those circumstances?
February 14, 2012 at 12:02 PM
Charlie said…
Yes, of course, I was being a little unfair to him, but it's all in the context :)

As to the question of what Christian means in these circumstances, that could be a very interesting one if it wasn't being used by Dawkins (or the people he is criticising) to try and score points.

An equally interesting question raised by Giles Fraser's points, is the one of who has the right to tell people whether they are Christian or not. You and I may have a clear idea in our head of what a "real" Christian looks like, but if someone who doesn't fit the description comes along and says they are one too, how do we deal with that, without sounding like Richard Dawkins?
February 14, 2012 at 7:27 PM
Battersea Boy said…
I was particularly impressed by the way the Almighty came to Richard Dawkins' rescue, in that it was only after he had invoked an "arrow" prayer with his cry, "O God" that his memory was restored and he was able to recall almost the full title.
February 15, 2012 at 7:47 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Delia Knox - Miracles and healing, cynicism or wonder?

Today the story of Delia Knox has jumped out of Christian subculture into the mainstream UK media, with this story on the Daily Mail website. Knox is filmed leaving her wheelchair after being prayed for at the Bay of the Holy Spirit Revival in Mobile, Alabama. Watch the 13 minute video embedded there, if you can. Most people will have one of two reactions to this: either you will be deeply moved, or you will find yourself overwhelmingly cynical about the whole thing. The second of the two seems to be the reaction of choice for Mail Online readers, who queue in droves in the comments section to pour scorn on the whole thing. Why are people sceptical about spiritual and miraculous healing? Mostly because they simply don't believe it. The prevailing secular atheist worldview has no slot available for this kind of thing - it simply doesn't happen (although a more thoughtful and informed atheist might allow for some kind of psychosomatic factor in healing). But even among those w...
Read more

let the vicar have a day off

I began writing this on Tuesday, my usual day off. Not normally a day when I would be hunched over the keyboard, but this week I had the time because I'm luxuriating in a whole week off. A perfectly usual experience, except in the case of vicars, when the idea of a "week off" becomes quite complex and problematic. Last week on Twitter I intercepted someone's tweet who had spotted a clergy friend who was enjoying an entertaining day out. His reply was along the lines of "blimey, what it is to be a vicar and live the life of Riley" etc. I have no complaint against this person, who is a good guy and obviously meant no harm. It was just a variant on the age-old witticism that every parish priest hears on a more or less weekly basis, "of course you only work on Sundays, don't you?" There are a few versions of this, my personal favourite being "not another holiday?" if one takes leave at any time within about a year of having previously d...
Read more

lessons from the Cornwall B&B case

Comment is called for on the judgement in the case of Peter and Hazelmary Bull , because it is a significant one, and because of the Cornish connection. While some of the responses have been predictable and stereotyped, most commentators have recognised that Judge Andrew Rutherford has treated the Bulls with respect, even though he has found against them. The case turned on the principle that Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, as civil partners, were entitled to the same rights under law as a married couple. This meant that the Bull's argument that they would equally discriminate against an unmarried heterosexual couple was not accepted, because Hall and Preddy were, for the purposes of this case, married. This is a tricky one. The Bulls didn't really have a strong case, but it's difficult not to have sympathy for them. They come across in the media as a harmless couple just doing what seems right to them. It's also hard to shake off the sneaking suspicion that they have be...
Read more