Yesterday I saw a very special event held in the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford Oxford
I never really liked Richard Dawkins, he is a bit too reductionist for my taste and also too arrogant – he could give David Starkey a run for his money! However, he was quite civil during yesterday’s discussion. What struck me most about him was that he seemed a bit slow on the up-take. For example, when a questioner asked an admittedly confused question about the imperfections of the universe (children dieing early in life and such like) he only made the obvious point when he spoke for the second time (having had five minutes or so to think about it), namely that it is the whole point of Natural Selection to weed out the unfit! I kept thinking, why don’t you make the point, come on, do yourself justice! On other occasions, too, I wondered why he gave such a poor account of himself. Considering his reputation it was a poor show.
The Archbishop did what one has come to expect of him. Very civilised, very learned, very subtle, so much so that most of his congregation probably missed his points. Personally I feel he could have stated more clearly the basics of Christianity. For example, when Dawkins said that he did not see why Believers insisted on cluttering up the elegant and simple theory of evolution Darwin had developed by bringing God into the picture, surely the obvious riposte by a Believer would have been, God is in the picture not because he is needed to make a theory work but because he exists!
Don’t get me wrong, I believe in the theory of evolution and don’t think God created humankind. But belief in God is different from belief in a theory. I believe in evolution and natural selection because it explains the facts as I understand them, but I believe in God because I have encountered him. I believe that he is a real being out there, just like my friends and relatives are out there. I don’t have a theory that other people exist, I know they do. Of course it can be argued that I can’t really know that others exists, I may just be a brain in a bowl of nutrients having my cells stimulated by scientists of an evil race of non-humans or whatever, but this is true for anything and everything I think I know. I am not saying that Dawkins should also believe in God, I am saying that he should understand that people don’t ‘introduce God into a theory’ – they think they know he exists, and therefore assume that he must be part of the theory. Dawkins gives the impression that he is so sold on his own theory that he can’t comprehend alternative theories – the hallmark of a fanatic, in my opinion.
I think Anthony Kenny gave the best account of himself. He did what I was taught all those years ago by the most honourable and decent men I ever encountered, the Philosophers of Portland State University – he did real Philosophy. Time and again he cut through the wooliness of Dawkins and pierced the clouds of learned obscurity that emanated from the Archbishop and got straight to the point. It was a pleasure and a joy to see him in action, a rare treat even in Oxford
If anyone wants to watch the event, it is freely available, just use the link below. You may need to copy and paste it, somehow Blogger doesn't like it when I try to paste links - still have much to learn!
http://fsmevents.com/sophiaeuropa
