. . . over one sinner that repenteth" and all that sort of thing. Well, I know the quote is not a precise fit for the event but it was the one that leapt to mind when I heard the news. According to The Telegraph a few days ago, 'Archbishop' Richard Dawkins engaged in a long debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury in the course of which he admitted that he was not entirely, absolutely, completely, convinced that there was no God:
There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.
Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs, referencing the seven point scale of belief that he sets out in his book The God Delusion.
The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
It was not reported at the time but I have it on good authority that Canterbury's beard shot out horizontal to the floor, and that several members of the Humanist Society required first aid! When challenged as to why, therefore, he did not call himself an agnostic, he replied that he did. At this point, I am led to believe, the scene resembled a Bateman cartoon with devout atheists rocking back on their heels with eyeballs threatening to burst from their sockets!
You see, that's one the very few advantages of living long - you get to see sundry chumps change their minds. Even if, in this case, it is only 0.1 of his mind!
I almost feel sorry for the poor sod these days. He has allowed himself to become the rhetoric champion of the New Atheists and sundry radical sixth formers, but this brings him up against professional theologians and others who intellectually outclass him. A bit like the primary school gang leader who finds himself egged on by his old mates when he gets to mix it with the big boys.
Terry Eagleton's review is an absolute joy.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
It starts with the immortal line
" Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
Bliss!
Posted by: Whyaxye | Wednesday, 29 February 2012 at 20:04
I think you mean, "Even if, in this case, it is only 0.0143 of his mind!" It's a 7-point scale so you need (7.0 - 6.9) / 7.0.
Now that I've proven myself, I'd like to add that Dawkins has always said it would be unscientific of him to say "I am certain God does not exist", because he is trained to doubt everything. He has said that the default position is that God does not exist, that is, in the absence of positive information, there is no need of a concept like a supernatural being to explain the universe. That's an important point. If you are sick, assume there is no God to help you, and just take your medicine.
Posted by: Dom | Thursday, 01 March 2012 at 02:18
Dom, you are a mind-reader, or you would be if I had a mind to read! Yesterday, as I wrote that post I thought to myself, hang on, 0.1 isn't correct and if I don't get it right that DM will be in like Flynn to correct me - obviously you pipped him to the post! So I actualy reached for my calculator but for the life of me I couldn't work out how to do the maths! Pathetic or what?
As to the nature of God, Dawkins (and others - me, too, sometimes)) always fall into the trap of using anthropological language. I guess it's a throwback to our early school teachings on Christianity. When I remember, I prefer to describe God as 'the prime mover'. That is suitably neutral and fairly accurate in that energy was the first requirement to kick start this universe of ours. The notion of an old man with a beard is strictly for the kiddies, and atheists who sneer at it simply waste their breath. Anyway, the Church of Latter-day Agnostics welcomes yet another convert!
Posted by: David Duff | Thursday, 01 March 2012 at 09:13
My problem with Dawkins isn't that he is an atheist (I am one myself) it's that he seems to jump from concluding God does not exist (which is a matter for scientific debate) to concluding that religion is bad. This is not science - just pure personal political preference.
I distinctly recall him writing that one of the reasons that he dislikes religion is that it promotes conservative social values. Again, nothing to do with science.
Posted by: MarkyMark | Thursday, 01 March 2012 at 10:06
"it promotes conservative social values"
He should try telling that to the Methodists who were one of 'the onlie begetters' of the Labour party!
Posted by: David Duff | Thursday, 01 March 2012 at 13:23
If there is email in the afterlife David I will make you first on my contact list. You will then be the messenger! A peaceful one I hope. Aye.
Posted by: Jimmy | Friday, 02 March 2012 at 23:48
All your messages, Jimmy, will be passed on with a 'Glasgie kiss'. Can't get more peaceful than that!
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 03 March 2012 at 09:16