After the death of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins was allowed to wear the title, “world’s foremost atheist.” As it turns out, it was only for a short time. Only about a month, in fact, right up until his debate / conversation at Oxford a few days ago with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. There Dawkins admitted he wasn’t one hundred percent sure there wasn’t a God. 6 out of 7.0 he said, before joking that it was more like a 6.9 out of 7.0. Either way, goodbye title… that’s called being agnostic, sir!
Doubt is the seedbed of faith. Certitude… the seedbed of violence.
Violence, as it turns out, is exactly where Hitchens ended up for the decade before he died – advocating for the slaughter of all religious fundamentalists beginning with the Islamic ones. Dawkins, it seems, has embraced his chance to avoid that fate.
In fact, Dawkins is now astronomically more helpful to the human race than he was before because atheism is as dangerous as fundamentalism. They are dogmatic, closed, finite, and often willing to kill those who don’t toe the line. Now that Dawkins is in the agnostic camp his expeditions into the land of philosophy from his native country (evolutionary biology), will have the depth and wisdom which only comes from those who believe we do not exist in a closed universe.
G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination.”
The chess player and logician are locked within a closed universe of finite possibility and hard limits. The human spirit was built for imagination.
The video of their conversation is online. Although longish, on the whole it is a chance to watch two brilliant men at the top of their game who understand how to have a cordial conversation even though they come at life from completely different narratives. The title of the discussion is The Nature of Human Beings, and the Question of their Ultimate Origins. The sub-categories are disappointing, because they push the discussion in the direction of rationalism and science. Still, I thought Rowan Williams represented himself and Christianity well.
Here’s a link to the video.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In