Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is Richard Dawkins truly an “embarrassment” to new atheism? Or an accurate representation?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

We’re told at Huffpo UK that Richard Dawkins is being labelled an embarrassment to atheism, after a clash with a priest on BBC Radio4, over a poll his own foundation had commissioned, which he trumpeted as showing that Christians don’t know much about their faith: [AUDIO]

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.

The correct full title of Darwin’s famous book, not that it would usually matter, is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

The problem here is Dawkins is not your corner cube atheist. He made his name and fame, never mind his living, fronting Darwinism.

So it’s not anywhere near the same thing as the average self-identified Christian not knowing the name of the first Gospel in the New Testament. It’s more like William Lane Craig not knowing. But Craig would know that, wouldn’t he?

But is Dawkins truly an embarrassment to atheism? Well, he would be to traditional atheists, who were often learned. But to new atheists, probably not.

New atheists don’t believe that the mind even exists. They couldn’t care less about the empirical evidence for Darwinism as opposed to other ways evolution can happen. Usually, they don’t even know about the well-attested other ways and don’t care when their Darwinian claims fail.

And why should they care when they can enforce the teaching of Darwinism, their creation story, through legislatures and courts?

Dawkins’ ignorance illustrates the new atheists’ growing cultural power: Whatever they claim Darwinism is at any given time can be forced on the entire education system – even if their own “high pope” is ignorant of the details. The message is clear: Accountability is for losers.

Comments
Hi bornagain77 No, of course a memory test would not required, but how many of the people that you personally know that love Jesus would have trouble naming Genesis as the first book of the Bible, or in agreeing that Jesus is the Son of God? Even one? I just disagree that "self-identification" is a valid test, even by Biblical standards. Those who really believe in something are much more likely to have a working knowledge of it, don't you think? That is the point I believe Richard Dawkins was making. Jesus himself was much more stringent than "self-identification", and I think you know several of the passages that will come readily to mind (e.g. "Not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord'..." I happen to disagree on most things Richard Dawkins says, but here I find myself in surprising agreement. I say there's much more truth than error here.SCheesman
February 19, 2012
February
02
Feb
19
19
2012
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
New atheists don’t believe that the mind even exists.
I keep seeing this from News but can't figure out where it's coming from - does anyone know?
They couldn’t care less about the empirical evidence for Darwinism as opposed to other ways evolution can happen.
The link given discusses HGT. What makes you think they oppose HGT?
So it’s not anywhere near the same thing as the average self-identified Christian not knowing the name of the first Gospel in the New Testament. It’s more like William Lane Craig not knowing.
That's an odd comparison. I did find the audio humorous, but mostly out of empathy - I've seen the full title of Origin countless times, and have read the book, but I doubt I could give the full title (word for word) at a moment's notice (and I'd be willing to bet no one else here could have either. Although he does make it worse by saying he COULD remember the title). It's a bit harder to remember than "The Gospel of Matthew" (didn't even have to look that up!). But the reason it's an odd comparison is because Christianity is based (at least to a large extent) on the Bible. The only reason for reading Origin is out of historical interest. One can be a perfectly good knowledgeable evolutionary biologist without ever having cracked open Origin. I doubt most astronomers can give the full title of Copernicus's work "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres" (that I had to look up), nor have read it.goodusername
February 19, 2012
February
02
Feb
19
19
2012
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
SCheesman, this issue could go really deep, but I really have to side on the favor of grace over works; i.e. if it is a memory test that is required for being a ‘true’ Christian, instead of the ‘gift of grace’ from God,,,
Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–
,,,Then is this following guy the only guy in the whole world who is actually a Christian???
The Gospel According to Luke,, recited from memory – Bruce Kuhn – video – University of California, Santa Barbara http://vimeo.com/35834513 The Acts of the Apostles - Recited From Memory - Bruce Kuhn http://vimeo.com/35814436
And if he missed a few words (isn't perfect) in his recitation does he miss out on heaven?,, While I certainly don't promote ignorance of the bible, it seems this type of litmus test for Christianity quickly leads into the grace vs. works controversy (and we all know the result of that controversy! :) Verse and Music:
Ephesians 2:9 not by works, so that no one can boast. Natalie Grant - Alive (Resurrection video) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX
bornagain77
February 19, 2012
February
02
Feb
19
19
2012
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
I had a lot more to say, but after forgetting the captchka the first time and getting it wrong the second time I didn't feel like typing it all in yet again. Is there no way to get back what you just wrote!? There things aren't supposed to punish you, are they?SCheesman
February 19, 2012
February
02
Feb
19
19
2012
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
I agree with Richard Dawkins on this one.SCheesman
February 19, 2012
February
02
Feb
19
19
2012
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
Priceless!!! Someone hand Dawkins a towel to wipe the egg off his face. ;-)Blue_Savannah
February 19, 2012
February
02
Feb
19
19
2012
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
For thise who are puzzled by the expulsion of materialist posters from UD, bornagain77's post provides a succinct answer.Axel
February 19, 2012
February
02
Feb
19
19
2012
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
Surely, the definitively pointed and concise analysis of the almost praeternatual (ironically) folly of Dawkins and materialism's benighted myrmidons. Well spoken bornagain77.Axel
February 19, 2012
February
02
Feb
19
19
2012
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
Not to defend Dawkins and any of his diatribes against Christianity, but why would Dawkins be considered more of an embarrassment to atheism than atheism itself is an embarrassment to atheism??? It is a worldview that derives its primary strength from ignorance and deception of people. Moreover materialistic atheism denies the ultimate reality of meaning, beauty, purpose, reason, good and evil, and even logic, while at the same time using those very 'things' to try to make its case that atheism is true. No Dawkins comes nowhere near embarrassing such a bankrupt philosophy as the atheistic philosophy itself does its own self destruction very well. Dawkins is merely the gullible front man who has swallowed that hogwash hook, line and sinker. As far as being honest about their gullibility, I find that Will Provine does a far better job than Dawkins!
Dr. Will Provine - EXPELLED - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpJ5dHtmNtU
bornagain77
February 19, 2012
February
02
Feb
19
19
2012
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
The only thing missing is the baseball cap perched on his head, sideways. Before long, it will be as impossible to satirise him, as it has been, the US Republicans, since the voting machines became the private property of some of the Republican-party's corporate sponsors. Monty Python goes global. Well, in the US-UK Axis.Axel
February 19, 2012
February
02
Feb
19
19
2012
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Dawkins STILL Gets "Origin" Title Wrong POST-Interview! - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCtifNoIsJ4bornagain77
February 19, 2012
February
02
Feb
19
19
2012
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Dawkins is Kevin on steroids, so the composition of that peer-group you cite might well have figured in one of Harry Enfield's scripts.Axel
February 19, 2012
February
02
Feb
19
19
2012
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
The linked Huffpo article asserting Dawkins as an embarrassment to atheism can't bode well for attendance expectations to the soon-coming atheist "Reason Rally", of which Dawkins is supposed to be a major speaker. http://www.reasonrally.org/speakers-2/ Also worth noting is the absence of any serious scholars, unless one is willing to consider a YouTube activist, a rock band, high school student and some obscure bloggers as being scholarly. Oh wait, PZ will be there, so it will be an atheist rally with plenty of foul language.Bantay
February 19, 2012
February
02
Feb
19
19
2012
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
It seems to be a form of recidivism, which would be perfectly consonant with our psychopathic, corporate culture; a reversion to the transmission of tribal lore through story-telling, although in Dawkins' case, with the added dimension of a religious mythology akin to the Aborigine's Dream Time - although without its fundamental, spiritual underpinning.Axel
February 19, 2012
February
02
Feb
19
19
2012
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply