What a great point! from the video description:
Richard Dawkins and Giles Fraser discuss religious life in Britain, on the Today programme on BBC Radio (14/02/12).
Whilst declaring his incredulity that Christians do not know what the first book of the New Testament is, Fraser deftly counters by asking Dawkins what the full title of The Origin of Species is…
Here is the comments from The Blaze:
The epic clash between the two men, which was carried live on BBC Radio 4 in England, was centered upon a recent poll that purportedly measured Christianity in Britain. The controversial study was commissioned by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, which is run by the well-known non-believer. Among the findings, the study alleges that Christianity has lost its standing in the European nation. The study apparently found that nearly two-thirds of individuals couldn’t name the first book of the New Testament (Matthew).
Fraser, though, took issue with this indicator, claiming that it was improper for Dawkins to assume that a failure to name this book means that these individuals aren’t Christians. It was at this point that the priest asked the atheist to name Darwin’s well-known evolutionary book.
“Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of ‘The Origin Of Species’, I’m sure you could tell me that,” Fraser said.
“Yes, I could,” Dawkins responded, clearly indicating that he was ready for the challenge.
“Go on then,” Fraser poked.
And this is where the situation turned awkward, as Dawkins simply couldn’t make his way through the book’s elongated title.
“‘On The Origin Of Species’ … Uh. With, Oh God,” Dawkins stumbled. “On The Origin Of Species.’ There is a subtitle with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.”
Fraser, of course, seized upon the opportunity to make his point that not being able to name a book doesn‘t necessarily have anything to do with one’s deeply-held beliefs and convictions.
“You’re the high pope of Darwinism,” he said. “If you asked people who believed in evolution that question and you came back and said two percent 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.”
There is a lesson in this, however, pointed out to me via a cyber friend who has a wonderful apologetics site, he says this as an instruction both to me and to others:
Seems that the recent fracas with Dawkins and Fraser is good reason to lay down some brother rebuking of UK “Christians” more than an occasion to focus on Dawkins.
Shudder to think but I tend to agree with him more than Fraser. Since when is a Christian a person who self identifies as one? Can I call myself a tennis player if I have no tennis equipment, reject tennis rules and never get out on the court and play?
UK Christians have only themselves to blame for the fact that a personage such as Dawkins can call them out on their lack of possessing anything to do with Christianity except for an empty label. Fraser’ view comes very close to affirming that Dawkins himself is a Christian as Dawkins refers to himself as a “cultural Christian” meaning he rejects the same things that UK Christians do, he accepts that which they do (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but sees cultural benefits, etc.
Great points!