Richard Dawkins Clashes With Giles Fraser On Radio 4 Over Atheist Poll (AUDIO)

[rug]

Huffington Post UK
Dina Rickman
First Posted: 14/02/2012 10:52
Updated: 14/02/2012 11:54

Richard Dawkins has been labelled an "embarrassment to atheism" after clashing with a priest in a debate on BBC Radio 4.

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/14/richard-dawkins-giles-fraser-radio4-athiesm_n_1275468.html?ref=uk

[immoderate]

1. Proof of god. There ya go.

--imm

[dmallind]

2. The two however are not analogous

The Origin of Species (from memory something about favored and survival?) is a seminal and important breakthrough that however is many decades out of currency for a working evolutionary biologist. Even for its limited academic value today, there is none contained in its title.

The Bible on the other hand is to Christians anything from the inerrant word of god Almighty to at worst a vital pillar of the faith that informs their current and future life eternal. And Dawkins' questions were about its central contents. He did not ask how many chapters there were in the Book of Mark (from memory, 16 - and it's not my belief. I do however know far more of the Bible than the OoS).

[ChadwickHenryWard]

9. The full title is

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." It's not really that hard. I am actually quite surprised that he couldn't remember it, considering that he has dedicated his life to studying Darwin in general and that book in particular. His knowledge is extensive enough to prefer the first edition of the six printed editions in citations. I've actually been thinking for a while that his age must be catching up with him. He is a seventy-year-old retiree, after all.

His point that popular knowledge of the Bible is generally lacking, of course, stands.

[dmallind]

12. Difficulty is not the issue - relevancy is

And Darwin, for all his importance in history, is not even a cursory text in modern evolutionary biology. The creation of all the universe by God, and the story of his covenants with his believers, are just a teensy bit more central to today's Christianity than that.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

15. Actually, I just read the full transcript, and he got the title exactly right.

So I take it back. It's not at all an indication of his age. It's just a bizarre attempt at a gotcha moment by Christians who can't make a solid argument.

[Goblinmonger]

3. I think the sub-title of Darwin

is much different than the first book of the bible. But I agree not knowing that book doesn't make you a non-christian.

And I'm still unsure how this makes him an "embarrassment to atheism."

[Moonwalk]

4. Labeled an embarrassment to atheism by who? And why is this embarrassing?

Last edited Sat Feb 25, 2012, 03:24 PM - Edit history (1)

As pointed out, we've an apples and oranges comparison here. Why should any atheist have memorized anything by Darwin as a a religious person would be the Bible? Darwin is not a religion and he's certainly not god. In fact, what we know about evolution has "evolved" a lot since Darwin. So why is this such a "gotcha"?

Not being able to quote Darwin is not the same as failing to understand evolution, why it works, and what facts it's based upon--as being unable to quote the Bible, especially when presenting such as a tenet of faith, *might* be failing to understand the word of god.

[goateeki]

16. Tenant / Tenet

"tenant of faith"

Tenet: a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession

Tenant: one who holds or possesses real estate or sometimes personal property (as a security) by any kind of right

[Moonwalk]

17. Not my fault. Spell-checker changed it when I mis-typed it. My fault for not noticing...

...but I do know the difference. I've seen this happen before with my spell-checker--it assumes tenant not tenet if my typing fingers mix up some letters. Usually I catch it. This time I didn't.

[1ProudAtheist]

5. In Order For One To Have "Faith"

one must disregard the truth. There is no "belief" without faith, and there is no faith that contains truth.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Incorrect: the "embarrassment to atheism" remark was by a blogger, back in 2010

It's just that the blogger tweeted a link to his old post today, after the broadcast. And, given that the blog describes Dawkins as "snarling" and "frothing-at-the-mouth", it's clearly wrong. People may object to the ideas, claims and words Dawkins uses, but he never snarls, frothes etc. A sneer is the worst it gets.

I notice that Alex Deane and Mark Wallace, the 2 Twitterers who actually seriously criticise Dawkins, are both right wing - the former calling himself the 'Atheist Conservative', and the latter the former Campaign Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance and Campaign Manager of The Freedom Association (that basically makes Wallace the British equivalent of Grover Norquist), calling Fraser an 'Occupy-luvvy' and saying Dawkins and Fraser are both 2 of his least favourite public people.

So what we have here is a couple of bloggers who already didn't like Dawkins saying so, again. This is not news, or anything new.

And, by the way, the number of self-identified Christians who could pick 'Matthew' out as the first book of the NT (from Matthew, Genesis, Acts, Psalms, Don't Know, or Prefer not to say), was 35%. Don't know got 39%. Survey here: http://c3414097.r97.cf0.rackcdn.com/IpsosMORI_RDFRS-UK_Survey_Topline_15-02-2012.pdf

[Lint Head]

7. The "powers that be" over the Christian religion are dying to embarrass Richard Dawkins.

It's typical that a so-called religious scholar would use one thing like not remembering a phrase or part of a title to "prove" Dawkins is full of it. Dawkins has never said that Christians are not Christians because they can't quote scripture. His point is that a lot of Christians who profess to being so have not even read the Bible. Not remembering the first book of the Bible is just an example. A survey or a sample is just that. The same way an average person on the street cannot name the Vice President of the United States.

It seems it's OK and acceptable for Christians to attack atheists. But when an atheist questions Christianity, that evolved sense of survival of the fittest kicks in immediately.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. More surprising: only 28% of Christians said belief in the teachings of Christianity was a reason

they thought of themselves as Christian (they could select as many reasons as they wanted; 72% said because they were christened/baptised; 38% because at least 1 parent was Christian; 37% because they went to Sunday School; 21% because they went to a Christian-run school; 19% because they go to church; and another 19% because they used to go to church. 13% said because their spouse or partner is Christian).

The "first book" question was the only one that actually tested 'Christian knowledge' in that way; all the rest are about beliefs, habits, where they get their morals from, and similar opinions.

[edhopper]

10. Wait

He knew the title was "On the Origin of Species" but could not remember the full subtitle, and this means ?????
What does this have to do with the veracity of hi argument against the existence of God?
This is a trivia question and that the good reverend used it as a gotcha question shows the weakness of his position.
He is an embarrassment to the Christians IMHO.

Also, if Fraser is conflating Darwin with atheism, is he disagreeing with the discoveries of Darwin. Is he saying that Darwin is the atheist bible? And the Holy Bible is for Christians?
As a modern man, he should accept the Darwin as much as he does his bible. If not he has lost the argument before he begins.

[dmallind]

11. They TRY to make this analogous to his own point about the lack of religious knowledge among Xians

Even though the subtitle of a long-surpassed work and the story of the divine origin of the entire universe are hardly equal in importance to their respective advocates.

You'll notice the godbotherer did not ask him about the actual biology, while he asked believers about the actual religion.

[darkstar3]

13. Why are apologists so skilled at slipping false equivalencies into conversation?

I think it's because they get a lot of practice at fallacy.

[Ron Obvious]

14. It's revealing of their mindset

It's very revealing of their mindset. It's the same as when they try to smear Darwin or claim he converted on his deathbed. Even if true, who cares? Scientific models don't stand or fall on the say-so of somebody claiming revealed wisdom. But religious ideas do, and if this is how you get your view of the universe, you apparently assume everyone else does also.