Atheistic (or is it agnostic?) angst meets Anglican fudge

In a much publicized debate at Oxford University, Richard Dawkins admitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury that he could not be sure God does not exist. I don't think the outspoken atheist (who, in the course of the discussion, said he preferred to be called an agnostic) was persuaded by the eloquent arguments of the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Dr Rowan Williams. It is more likely that Dawkins was contaminated by exposure to Anglican fudge. Here's a video of the debate from the Archbishop's website.

Of Dawkins, it can only be said that when it comes to a belief as pivotal as the existence of God, the slightest degree of doubt can be perilous. If you cannot be absolutely certain God does not exist, you are best advised to err on the side of caution. It should be noted that uncertainty on the part of Dawkins is nothing new. His infamous bus campaign a few years ago didn't exactly inspire people to embrace unbelief with gusto. Beneath the surface, the good professor is far more angst-ridden than he will ever let on.

Now, as far as ++Rowan is concerned, much of what he said was, predictably, incoherent and irrelevant. You cannot say, on the one hand, that human beings evolved from non-human ancestors but, on the other hand, are still "in the image of God." That is directly counter to the creation narrative, however "literally" one takes it (more about that shortly). The basic doctrine that human beings fell because of sin from a state of perfection to a state of corruption simply cannot be reconciled with the idea that human beings evolved from a lower form of life.

It must also be noted, sadly, that ++Rowan is not a particularly able defender of biblical authority. He said the Genesis account of creation was not to be taken literally. How many times do we have to go down this road? Let's go over the basics one more time.

The Bible is a (divinely inspired) work of literature. Even ++Rowan accepts the divine inspiration part. How else is a work of literature to be "taken" (that is, "read") if not "literally," that is, as a work of literature?

To say that one does not "take the Bible literally" is to say that one does not "take" the Bible as literature. If the Bible is not "taken" as literature, how is it to be "taken" at all? How seriously can a work of literature be "taken" if it is not "taken" as a work of literature?

So, when discussing the Genesis account of creation, it is utterly foolish to say, "This should not be taken literally." Yes, there is a deeper truth being conveyed through this divinely inspired literary work which may require an interpretive method that goes beyond wooden literalism, but to appreciate that truth, one must first appreciate the Genesis account precisely as a divinely inspired literary work. In other words, we must first "take" that account "literally."

The Friday Funnies: Dr. Terry Tommyrot destroys the "Dawkins Delusion"

"Does Richard Dawkins exist? Many people would say yes. Terry Tommyrot thinks otherwise. In a revealing interview on "The Big Questions", Dr. Tommyrot explains how belief in Richard Dawkins is, in fact, a harmful delusion, and how it can be explained scientifically."

You can't make this stuff up: Dawkins sues disciple

Mark Hemingway (I'm giving him and his wife way too much airtime lately) calls our attention to this wonderfully amusing nugget about our favorite atheist.

Josh Timonen was one of a small coterie of young protégés around Richard Dawkins, sharing his boss's zealous atheism. But now he and the evolutionary theorist have fallen out spectacularly. Professor Dawkins's charity has accused Mr Timonen of embezzling hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The two atheists had become close in recent years, with Dawkins, the best-selling author and Emeritus Professor of Biology at Oxford University, even dedicating his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, to him. But Mr Timonen and the Dawkins foundation are now preparing for a legal wrangle.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, has filed four lawsuits in a Californian court alleging that Mr Timonen, who ran its online operation in America, stole $375,000 (£239,000) over three years. It is claiming $950,000 in damages, while Mr Dawkins is suing him for $14,000 owed to him personally. Mr Timonen strongly denies the allegations.

In the 18-page complaint filed in a Los Angeles court, the foundation claims that Mr Timonen said the website he was running was just "squeaking by," making only $30,000 in three years, when in fact it was grossing 10 times that sum. The charity alleges that Mr Timonen pocketed 92 per cent of the money generated by the store, with his girlfriend spending $100,000 of the charity's money on upgrading her home before putting it on the market.

The funds apparently came on top of Mr Timomen's pay – of $278,750 over three-and-a-half years (£50,000 a year) – which legal documents filed by the foundation describe as "exceedingly generous and well above-market for someone of Timomen's age and experience, particularly for someone providing the bulk of his efforts to a charitable organisation".

Blaine Greenberg, the foundation's attorney, told The Independent: "It's not a happy thing for Professor Dawkins, because as many people know he's had a lot of respect and affection for Josh Timonen in the past and is very disappointed that it has come to a point where their relationship has severed on this basis." He added the foundation was "heartbroken" and had a "fiduciary obligation" to recover the money.

Mr Timonen has hit back, calling the action "the ultimate betrayal," adding: "This lawsuit is a joke, and completely ridiculous. The accusations are baseless and unfounded."

Mr Timonen wrote in an email last night: "I know Richard very well, and it's hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that he could have signed off on this bizarre lawsuit filled with fabrications and lies." He said he would soon release a fuller statement through his lawyers.

The foundation hired Mr Timonen in 2006 to produce videos and run the website for the charity, which describes itself as "a clear-thinking oasis" and aims to support "critical thinking" to overcome "religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering".

Mr Timonen was tasked with running the US division of Professor Dawkins's online store, selling educational DVDs, T-shirts, hats and mugs to benefit the foundation.

The pair became friends, with professor Dawkins writing in the preface to The Greatest Show on Earth: "This book is dedicated to Josh Timonen, with thanks to him and to the small and dedicated band who originally worked with him to set up RichardDawkins.net. The web knows Josh as an inspired site designer, but that is just the tip of an amazing iceberg. Josh's creative talent runs deep, but the image of the iceberg captures neither the versatile breadth of his contributions to our joint endeavour, nor the warm good humour with which he makes them."

In documents filed at the court, the foundation says it spotted the alleged embezzlement this year when books were found detailing $500 meals, trips to Malibu Beach Inn and $314,000 in salaries paid to Mr Timonen and his girlfriend.

Beside his work for Professor Dawkins, Mr Timonen has been employed by fellow atheist Christopher Hitchens and the British Humanist Foundation, according to his website.

Jesus, of course, taught his disciples to love their enemies. Dawkins, it would appear, has trouble getting along with his friends.

Even the atheists are starting to doubt Dawkins

The first rule in attempting to mainstream a theory or opinion which has been heretofore considered marginal is, or at least ought to be, that the chief spokesperson for the theory or opinion in question be himself within the mainstream of his peculiar school of thought. It will do no good to put forward an extremist to speak on behalf of that which is already viewed as extreme. Hence, the rise and fall of atheist Richard Dawkins is, in the end, a case study in how not to make unbelief culturally acceptable. Dawkins' latest tirade, chronicled by British blogger Andrew Brown, is illustrative of the reason the very non-believers for whom he claims to speak are beginning to become his strongest critics.

Richard Dawkins on Mumsnet came up with a remark to silence all his critics: "What have you read of mine that makes you think I have a skewed agenda?" It certainly left me opening and shutting my mouth like a breathless goldfish. Actually the whole thread is worth reading: it is from here that the story has come forth that he wants to start an atheist school. Whether that will actually happen is another thing. But it is in any case revealing of his reasoning. (There doesn't seem to be a way to link to individual comments on Mumsnet, but all these quotes are cut and pasted from the thread.)

He was asked by one commenter:

"What would you say to parents of children who attend quite orthodox state-funded schools who are very anxious that their child be educated within that context? I am thinking specifically of the ortho-Jewish schools around my way (north London). I know for a fact a lot of these parents cannot countenance the idea of their child being educated within a non-Jewish school. What do you think they should do?"

His response was:

"That's a good point. I believe this is putting parental rights above children's rights."

It is impossible to read this as meaning anything but that children have a right to be educated as Richard Dawkins thinks fit, but not as their parents do. He alluded several times in the threat to the sufferings of atheist parents forced to send their children to faith schools:

"Is it better to stand by one's principles or be hypocritical in order to provide the best option? What a horrible dilemma to be forced into."

But apparently this doesn't apply if your principles are religious ones, because then your children have a right to be educated as atheists.

Of course, the Dawkins position here is purely a matter of assertion. It's impossible to imagine anything that might qualify as evidence for the view that it is okay for atheists to discriminate against parents who have particular religious beliefs, while it is very wrong for believers to do so.

But "evidence", tends to be defined backwards in these polemics – in other words, he starts from the axiom that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, (implied here in his remark that "Every atheist I know would change their mind in a heartbeat if any evidence appeared in favour of religious belief") and then find meanings for the term that fit this use. This is of course the same trick as defining faith as belief without evidence and then using this definition as proof that faith is irrational.

If that sounds unfair, consider the uses of "evidence" in his discussion of education here:

"Children should be taught to ask for evidence, to be sceptical, critical, open-minded. If children understand that beliefs should be substantiated with evidence, as opposed to tradition, authority, revelation or faith, they will automatically work out for themselves that they are atheists."

It's clear here that Dawkins is starting from the definition that "evidence" is what can't justify a belief in God, whereas "tradition, authority, revelation, and faith" have all been used to justify religious belief, so they must be bad.

But the idea that you can separate a respect for evidence from a respect for tradition and authority doesn't survive a moment's reflection on the ways that children actually learn. That's true whether or not God exists.

To be sceptical, critical, and open-minded are all mental, and even moral disciplines. Obviously, all education in any schools, should try to produce such children. But these skills don't come naturally. Indeed, Dawkins, in other moods, will emphasise the utter lack of these skills in small children. So how are they learned? If you want to teach children to be sceptical, critical, and open-minded, you have to start from authority and induct them into a tradition where these things are valued.

The construction of reasoned arguments is a skill that many people never master at all. If they ever do, it is on the basis of social and moral skills, involving self-discipline and a respect for others, which can only be taught with authority. When you are bringing up children "Because I say so" precedes every other sort of "because", and it must. We learn to yield to the authority of reason by our experience of earlier yielding to other sorts of authority.

Obviously, not any tradition, nor any old authority will do for this purpose. Most cultures, for most of history, have put very little value on originality and non-conformity. Teenagers, above all, are hideously concerned about whether they fit in and it takes skilled and strong-minded teachers to relieve even some of this anxiety. But they can't do it without the support of an authoritative tradition that values non-conformity.

The backward logic employed by Dawkins, defining terms so as to make them fit his argument, is an example of what Timothy Keller, in his book The Reason for God, refers to as "strong rationalism," a criterion which requires a proposition to "be proved rationally by logic or empirically by sense experience" before it can be accepted as credible. But "proof," under this criterion, is defined as "an argument so strong that no person whose logical faculties are operating properly would have any reason for disbelieving it." Most philosophers, including the atheist Thomas Nagel (who admits he has "fear of religion"), believe "strong rationalism" is impossible to defend. To be fair, many Christian apologists use this philosophical trick with impunity, but Dawkins' slavish dependence upon such a dubious criterion places him on the margins even within his own atheistic camp. One of the most devastating critiques of his book, The God Delusion, came from Terry Eagleton, a Marxist, writing for London Review of Books. Keller quotes this choice excerpt:

Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that. For mainstream Christianity, reason, argument and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief. . . . Reason, to be sure, doesn't go all the way down for believers, but it doesn't for most sensitive, civilized non-religious types either. Even Richard Dawkins lives more by faith than by reason. We hold many beliefs that have no unimpeachably rational justification, but are nonetheless reasonable to entertain. . . .

Skeptics and non-believers like Eagleton and Nagel have a level of understanding about faith which is lacking in Dawkins. They can be conversant with people of faith in a way Dawkins cannot. Yet, it is Dawkins who has anointed himself as the spokesperson for the "new atheists." Perhaps his fellow non-believers should move for a vote of no confidence.