In this last post, I’d like to reflect on how Richard Dawkins unwittingly and certainly unwillingly helps the Christian Church, as well as the other theists he so energetically opposes.
In particular, he helps us by showing us how some of us sound to people such as he, as well as to others who also do not share our premises. I was struck as Dawkins spoke at how similar was his style to that of many Christian apologists and preachers I have encountered/endured through the years.
For instance, he presented major issues in a simplistic fashion only to dispatch them with breathtaking swiftness. Here’s one example.
Dawkins averred that theism is patently contradictory. A God who can see the future with certainty (because of omniscience) thus is powerless to do anything other than what he foresees himself doing, thus compromising his omnipotence. Voilà! Theism is incoherent!
Read the rest of this entry »
Richard Dawkins has traveled the world, sowing his particular gospel of atheism, science, rational argument, and the courage to live in the light of The Facts.
He has appeared before countless audiences, participated in dozens of debates, and handled hundreds of questioners. But he seemed surprised, even nonplussed, by the line of questioning he received from several members of the UBC audience who patiently lined up to press him on . . . vegetarianism.
By the time Dawkins encountered the third such questioner, he was moved to wonder aloud whether he was encountering some sort of “lobby.” No, just the West Coast.
Yet this particular issue presented an intriguing window into Dawkins that had not been provided in his presentation. For his presentation was mostly offensive, in the sense of attacking positions he disliked, rather than defensive, in the sense of offering cogent reasons for adopting his own life philosophy. (His presentation was also at times astonishingly offensive in the other sense, but more about that in my third post.)
Being pressed about vegetarianism, then, we got to see Richard Dawkins construct and defend some ethics. And what a ramshackle thing he produced!
Read the rest of this entry »
Richard Dawkins at UBC: Part One, Dawkins as Rhetor
April 29, 2008
So someone at the University of British Columbia (UBC) decided it was a good idea to bring Richard Dawkins to campus to give a free public lecture. Fair enough. He’s an academic celebrity and there are precious few of those.
The two (two!) professors who introduced him, however, introduced him as someone who could impressively relate the humanities and the sciences. That claim deserves a little scrutiny.
Lots of people have analyzed and criticized Dawkins’s arguments over the years. Indeed, there are whole forests’ worth of books now in print responding to one or another of his anti-theism volumes. And who can count the number of phosphors employed similarly in the blogosphere?
What I will do over the next three posts is to offer what I hope will be some observations that complement these direct engagements with this ideas, and I will do so indeed from the perspective of the humanities.
Let’s begin with one of the most ancient of the liberal arts and consider Dawkins as Rhetor, as orator, as public speaker.
Read the rest of this entry »
You Are Your GPA
April 4, 2008
It’s getting towards the end of the academic term throughout North America, and it’s time to confirm a thought that haunt the corners of many student minds particularly this time of year. It’s not a pretty truth, but it needs to be said:
Your intelligence, your chance of competing successfully in the global marketplace, your ability to contribute meaningfully to the world, and your entire worth as a human being is precisely correlated to your grades.
The corollary to this axiom is that you must do everything you can to earn or otherwise obtain the highest grades possible, even if that includes shameless flattery of professors (”Have you been working out, sir?”), dark hints of litigation (”I don’t know how my parents, or their attorneys, will feel about any grade lower than a B+”), or obsequious alacrity in helping in the classroom (”Here, let me move that podium for you, ma’am, and get you some nice, cool water to go with the chocolates I’ve brought, and fan you while you lecture”).
Read the rest of this entry »
Why John Tory Is Right–and Wrong–about Religious Schools
September 28, 2007
The great province of Ontario, Canada’s richest and most populous, is in the throes of an election. As many Canadians know, one of the hottest issues in that election is the promise of Conservative leader John Tory to consider funding religious elementary and secondary schools in that province.
As a native of Ontario, a product of its public school (and university) system, and one with some interest in questions of church and state, I’ll offer my full support for John Tory—and my full disagreement with him.
First, then, my support. Tory argues that if the government of Ontario ought to support a Roman Catholic separate school system, as it has for a long time, then it should support other religiously-based schools. It makes no sense in 2007 to continue to cater to the preferences of what used to be the largest religious minority in Ontario without offering similar support to others.
Recently, a friend wrote about a problem at the high school he serves as a teacher. Apparently, a staff worker with a well-known Christian organization (let’s call it “Jesus Youth,” since I’m pretty sure there is no such group) has been volunteering at the school. Trouble arose, however, when this staffer volunteered to drive some kids to a drama festival some distance away for the weekend, and sent home permission slips to parents emblazoned with the logo of “Jesus Youth,” and not the school. A parent (whom I’m calling “Mr. Fraun”) complained that he didn’t want some missionary taking his daughter on a school outing.
I was asked to comment, and I would be interested to know what you think of the issues involved. Here it is, with all of the particulars changed to protect identities.
Seminary: Who Needs It?
March 8, 2007
If you survey leaders of megachurches in the United States…if you consider most leaders of the burgeoning house church movement in China…if you examine the leadership of exploding congregations in Africa…you notice one striking commonality: Most of them have little or no formal theological education.
A North American correspondent writes:
“Is theological education necessary for people engaged in occupational ministry? If so, is the contemporary seminary scene the best form for education to occur in the future?
“I have been wrestling a bit with this regarding the emerging church, rising student debt, and the complexity of the postmodern world. I think we live in difficult ministry times that demand excellent formation and education, but it seems the pragmatic opportunities for such education is being limited by ‘market realities.’”
Liberal Fascists (Still) on Campus?
January 6, 2007
When I was a student at Queen’s University in the late 1970s, I attended precisely one meeting of the student government there–the Alma Mater Society. I went there to protest the AMS decision to de-fund religious student groups (there was only one non-Christian group, Hillel House) because, well, religion was controversial, like politics, and the AMS didn’t like controversy.
We tried to respond that the AMS somehow had a high enough tolerance for controversy to fund the newspaper of the Engineering Society, a sometimes-amusing publication that trafficked mostly in blasphemy, scatology, and sexual outrage.
Too bad, the AMS president said. Plus, we didn’t have standing at the meeting anyhow, since we weren’t elected representatives, but mere students. And that was that.
No big deal. We didn’t need their funding anyway. But as a 19-year-old leader at the time, I thought: “I don’t think this should happen. We’re university citizens, too, engaged in a socially-acceptable–some would even say socially-helpful–activity. The state provides financial help to churches. Why shouldn’t a state university provide help to student religious groups?”
Fast forward twenty-five years, through all the debates over “political correctness,” and move west to the University of British Columbia. Since I have come to Regent College (1998), I continue to see instances of official intolerance of cultural diversity (read: “views we don’t like”).
