iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

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

Richard Dawkins Giles Fraser

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

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.

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.

Fraser warned against "culture wars" in Britain which "ape the nastiness" of America.

The exchange prompted Dawkins' name to trend on twitter, with even self-professed atheists criticising the professor.


Owen Jones
Right, that's it. Richard Dawkins is so irritating I'm converting to evangelical Christianity. Creationism and the full whack.


Alex Deane
Giles Fraser just demolished Richard Dawkins in a comprehensive way which rarely actually happens in public discourse


Adam Bienkov
Richard Dawkins couldn't name the full title of The Origin of Species, therefore God exists

He was even described as an "embarrassment to atheism".


Mark Wallace
On today's topic of Dawkins and "militant secularism", here's my piece on why he is an embarassment to atheists

Mr Roger Quimbly
1  of  8
PLAY
FULLSCREEN
ZOOM
SHARE THIS SLIDE 
MORE SLIDESHOWS NEXT >   |   < PREV

Are the UK"s Christians religious enough? (mp3)
FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

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 D...
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 D...
Related News On Huffington Post:
 

Read more from Huffington Post bloggers:

 
 
  • Comments
  • 987
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (12 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Leboazz
118 Fans
22:09 on 10/02/2013
I mean, this guy Richard Dawkins is an ethologist and evolutionary biologist, who is a well-published author on those subjects! That's like asking the Pope what the title of the Bible is, and he doesn't know!
Permalink  |
photo
Hufflechuff
22 Fans
09:16 on 10/02/2013
The problem of course is that Dawkins has read more than the one book.

And I suppose at least he knows who wrote every part of "The Origin of Species..."
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
James Clovispoint
262 Fans
04:39 on 07/02/2013
Dr. Dawkins with his fellow academics, Sam Harris, the late C. Hitchens, V. Stenger, and Michael Shermer and even Dr. Kraus, have attacked religion from every angle possible, but from outside the box.
What they haven’t understood is that religions contain the elements of their own demise. But, one must look for them in the box and not out of the box.
As long as religions proclaim truths and even the Truth, they set themselves up for disproval, rejection and destruction.
It is a paradox that they contain the elements of their own demise.
Scriptures give a list of reasons for which their proclamations cannot be considered valid. One obvious set of self-destructive “divine inspirations” is the set of godly attributes.
The second set of self-destructive deductions is linked to the first. It is the very school of philosophy, misnamed Theology, that derives directly from the interpretations and affirmations of the scriptures themselves.
Lastly, religions all speak of tolerance and interfaith dialogue. A religion either has a truth or the truth or it has none. If one religion has the truth, all others have none. Dialogue would only mean that the persons involved would try to convert the other(s) to their truth. Dialogue in such cases is hypocrisy. There is no compromising on the truth.
Permalink  |
aphoriac
48 Fans
16:50 on 07/02/2013
"What they haven’t understood is that religions contain the elements of their own demise."

Religion seems to be remarkably persistent despite containing these supposedly self-destructive elements. Perhaps you're missing something.

Interfaith dialogue doesn't have to be hypocrisy - it can just be an agreement to disagree. Even if I'm convinced of a certain truth - say that the Earth is round - I can acknowledge your right to believe something else and put limits on the means by which I try to convince you of your error. Furthermore, our disagreement on this one point, important as it is, doesn't necessarily mean we disagree about everything.
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
James Clovispoint
262 Fans
02:56 on 07/02/2013
The fulll title is, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
Dr. Dawkins forgot "by Means of Natural Selection, or ", which is not so bad.
But, what is embarrassing is the fact that he was caught at his own trap; “est prit qui croyait prendre”.
Permalink  |
newshound620
Still here
152 Fans
21:28 on 05/02/2013
Dawkins is still great and a worthy opponent of religion.
Permalink  |
Johnhei
1 Fans
06:14 on 28/05/2012
Adding to the confusion was yet another earlier statement by Richard, who declared that "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." Meaning, Richard observed what he hasn't observed.

No surprise than that you discover that the Darwinian Wonderland is a place where the improbable and impossible happens all the time, and always in reverse. Where an effect is not only be far greater than the cause, but actually opposite to the cause. It's a place where cosmic chaos transformed itself into order; non-reason transformed itself into reason; no information produced complex DNA coded information; no intelligence produced intelligence; non-consciousness produced consciousness; no conscience developed a conscience; And uncaring cosmic events and ruthless uncaring natural selection produced loving, caring altruistic human beings. And all these 'natural' miracles supposedly occurred without a miracle worker. Which everyone has to concede was "really" miraculous.

Thus, The Greatest Show on Earth was orchestrated without a Grand Conductor, said Richard. And this amazing outcome was achieved even thought "mindless" mutations and "blind" natural selection didn't have the foggiest notion of where anything, and everything, was evolving to, or even why. With Dawkins having no possible way of ever scientifically verifying, either by experiment or observation, that evolution happened one way, and not another way, or even whether evolution actually happened at all. The (non)belief faithful are simply to assume that "Evolution did it!", rather than God.
Permalink  |
newshound620
Still here
152 Fans
21:30 on 05/02/2013
There's a simpler explanation: religion is the greatest plague of all time.
Permalink  |
photo
Hufflechuff
22 Fans
09:07 on 10/02/2013
The human race has not been observing evolution long enough to be able to say 'we have observed with our own eyes creature A develop into creature A+'. This is because evolution is a very slow process over thousands and millions of years. But evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence and observations. We know, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is true.

If we apply the same logic to both sides of your argument then we would have to conclude that we haven't observed God creating anything either.
Permalink  |
last brit standing
0 Fans
00:20 on 06/05/2012
I certainly think Giles Fraser, along with most others in the Church of England, is a disgrace to Christianity.
Permalink  |
Johnhei
1 Fans
14:46 on 10/02/2013
As for the comment that "we haven't observed God creating anything either." I would point out that both "theism" and "materialism" are founded on ideological presuppositions and "metaphysical" beliefs. It is impossible to directly observe God creating. Rather the existence of God is inferred from the existence and dependent nature of the universe, along with its superbly structured form. In the same way as a car maker is inferred from the existence of cars. It is equally impossible to scientifically establish the metaphysical beliefs of philosophical naturalism and materialism, on which Darwinism operates. Namely, that ALL REALITY is solely the result of natural processes and causes alone, to the exclusion of God and the supernatural. Substantiating this nonsensical godless religious dogma is another thing entirely. As it would necessitate having a knowledge of all that exists, and all that can exist. Of course, one would need to be God to achieve this.

Science is well short of providing a VERIFIABLE naturalistic "Theory of Everything". As the CERN physicists have discovered. As reported by New Scientist. (Dec 2012, p.9), even the Higgs is now suffering an "identity crisis". Moreover, there are a vast multitude of unresolved issues central to science that remain unsolved. For example, there is absolutely no naturalistic answer even in sight to resolve the ultimate nature of existence, matter, light, energy, life, consciousness, quantum reality and much else.

So, any assertion that God is unnecessary or irrelevant is meaningless.
Permalink  |
anavt
1 Fans
00:25 on 20/02/2012
To all those non-theists who are (sarcastically) saying that this incident proves that God exists or refutes evolution -- you have missed the point entirely! Do you really not get it?

Let me explain the point to you: Giles Fraser was *holding Richard Dawkins accountable to a standard essentially parallel to his own*, i.e., if naming the books of the Bible is a litmus test for determining who is truly a Christian, then knowing the full title of the Origin of Species is a litmus test (and a much lighter one at that) for determining who truly believes Darwin's theory of evolution.

Richard Dawkins questions whether people who self-identify as Christians and yet cannot -- on the spot -- name some of the books that constitute the Bible, are truly Christians.

The principle (which Fraser quickly picked up on) implied by Dawkins, knowingly or not, is this: If a person esteems a book that is representative of his/her views, then the said person must remember the book's title and divisions.

Fraser very rightly asked Dawkins to name the sub-title of the Origin of Species.

Dawkins struggle deserves to be placed on the FAILBLOG.ORG website.
Permalink  |
photo
Juana Oner
0 Fans
19:45 on 18/02/2012
Gotta say, that is a piece of priceless irony. As is the fact that he said "oh, God" when he couldn't remember. We must pray for this man, though, that he will come to know the joy and peace of faith in Christ. Especially since his soul is in peril.
Permalink  |
photo
SirCweldrik
71 Fans
09:11 on 19/02/2012
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL What a joke this is. Thank you, I have not laughed so much in weeks !
Permalink  |
photo
Liam Astley
1 Fans
23:02 on 19/02/2012
I use "God" and "Jesus" all the time as mild profanities, and I'm an atheist. Their use in that way is cultural, not religious. Surely religious people should be less likely to take their Lord's name in vain, not more likely? Saying "Oh God" doesn't make you a closet believer any more than dropping the F-bomb means you think you're about to have sex
Permalink  |
annette8898
1 Fans
14:12 on 22/02/2012
Then please don't. I love the irony of the fact when an atheist is under pressure- they resort to religious lingo. Surely, if we have evolved so well on our own, we can by now come up with alternative expletives that don't offend religious people. Or perhaps not.
Permalink  |
photo
Ara Bilgin
0 Fans
17:36 on 18/02/2012
Rubbish. Just because Prof. Dawkins could not remember the full title of Darwin's book, evolution has been refuted!! Is not this by itsel proof of how helpless, childish and stupid these "religionists" are?
A Bilgin
Izmir, Turkey
Permalink  |
grdnk9
0 Fans
13:55 on 18/02/2012
All this nonsense ignores the fact that there is no evidence for evolution, which is based on supposition and opinion,I don't think either are scientific parameters.Although we have mammalian bodies,we should act on instinct and not reason or emotion ,if evolved apes.I recommend 'god, darwin and this age of darkness' by Dave Holt. No intention to convert but the debate is interesting.
Permalink  |
photo
Colin Mo
33 Fans
 
20:06 on 18/02/2012
There is no debate on evolution. It is an accepted theory with as much evidence as there is for a round Earth. And before you ask, I recommend hitting Google Scholar.
Permalink  |
deezee1
5 Fans
17:35 on 20/02/2012
yet not one instance of a new function has been observed in the lab experiments in which they induce mutation - all mutations have resulted in loss of function. WHere does the actual information for design come from? Dawkins et all says from random chance. He talks about the situation of if you gave a monkey a type writer - then by chance it would produce shakespeare. Trouble is - in real life when they tested this with computerised monkeys - after 5 million years they had not even produced the first line of the one of the sonnets. Information from rubbish - well only in the mind of an evolutionary scientist.
Permalink  |
photo
Anthony Neilsen
0 Fans
16:21 on 07/03/2012
Or better yet, how about YOU having a look for all those scientists who don;t believe evolution can account for what we see in nature? A lot of scientist are walking away form this oh so dumb 'theory.'
Permalink  |
photo
HisScaliness
91 Fans
16:00 on 23/09/2012
There is actually plenty of evidence for evolution, thus proving the Apostle Paul right in asserting that men need FAITH for salvation.
Permalink  |
sutstf
0 Fans
07:42 on 18/02/2012
I must say, what catches my eye the most in this thread, mainly from those criticising prof dawkins, is the complete inability of many of the posters to spell simple words correctly, yet they feel qualified to rubbish both him and his career.
still, if they have god on their side, they must be right.
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
phoo-doo
47 Fans
11:26 on 18/02/2012
Or the simple ability to use capitalizations correctly. Its pathetic isn't it?
Permalink  |
sutstf
0 Fans
14:00 on 18/02/2012
and the sporadic use of the apostrophe is endemic.
Permalink  |
newshound620
Still here
152 Fans
21:34 on 05/02/2013
It's.
Permalink  |
alessa
0 Fans
01:38 on 18/02/2012
"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."

So Dawkins, the atheist, invoked God to help him recall the full title?
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
648 Fans
09:14 on 20/02/2012
Alessa, if you really believe he 'invoked God' what does that say about your powers of reasoning?
Permalink  |
photo
HisScaliness
91 Fans
16:02 on 23/09/2012
It says a lot about his/her powers to grasp the full meaning of the word "irony".
Permalink  |
photo
Liam Astley
1 Fans
23:22 on 17/02/2012
This argument is based on a fallacy, and it's embarrassing that the article does not point that out. Christianity and atheism are not comparable belief systems, Darwin is not some sort of prophet and his books are not holy texts. An atheist does not need to remember all the details of scientific texts, because it is not necessary to somehow "prove" God doesn't exist with science. The burden of proof is on those who claim God does exist, and given that their proof is based entirely on their holy books then it's not unreasonable to expect them to have actually read it
Permalink  |
photo
Francisco Belard II
10 Fans
22:42 on 19/02/2012
This!
Permalink  |
Erwin Bredy
0 Fans
14:45 on 20/02/2012
The burden of proof is also on does who claim God doesn't exist. Whether you are proving or disproving evidence is necessary. If evidence is necessary then any claim most from a scientific perspective must have proof.
Permalink  |
photo
Liam Astley
1 Fans
15:01 on 20/02/2012
By that logic I should also have to disprove unicorns, dragons, leprechauns, UFOs, psychic powers, witchcraft and the Tooth Fairy. Not to mention all the gods that aren't the Christian one. I don't have to disprove something if there's no apparent evidence for it existing
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
phoo-doo
47 Fans
14:22 on 17/02/2012
Aren't some of you, who claim to be specialist in this field, at least slightly embarrassed that you are so incapable of defending it with any evidence? In fact, doesn't it also bother you that we have have been studying literally trillions of generations of bacteria for decades, and yet they always can only end up with more bacteria? How slow is your process, would 10 trillion be enough to show a change? A quadrillion? Because you are starting to run out of time if the world is only 4 billion years old and it has to make all the life we see, and a trillion generations isn't even enough to change a simple bacteria.
Permalink  |
photo
Colin Mo
33 Fans
 
16:30 on 17/02/2012
Embarrassed? No. Annoyed that people coming from a standpoint of embarrassing ignorance tell us we are wrong? Most assuredly.

The rise of the eukaryotic cell from prokaryotic happened millions of years after the first occurrence of life. It was a rare, possibly unique event, so it's unlikely to ever be recreated.

In science, the comment 'we don't know' is the default position. I can say a science education only serves to increase your awareness of how little we know as a species. We've barely even started, and to be honest, I think we've done quite well. There's so much work still to do.

Getting back to the original article, the reason Prof Dawkins was on the radio show was to highlight how drastically reduced Christian beliefs have become in society. It's likely it will be functionally extinct in a generation, possibly two.
Permalink  |
Erwin Bredy
0 Fans
14:44 on 20/02/2012
what evidence do you have that this occurred?
Permalink  |
newshound620
Still here
152 Fans
21:39 on 05/02/2013
This argument you're having with phoo-doo is ultimately irrelevant. No god, never was.
Permalink  |
 
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (12 total)