What A tangled (world wide) web we weave when first we practice to discredit Richard Dawkins’ every statement. The internet is ablaze over Richard Dawkins’ conversation with Giles Fraser, Former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral.
The issue at hand is a Ipsos Mori poll of UK Christians (Religious and Social Attitudes of UK Christians in 2011) which was funded by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (which is the UK aka of what is known in the US as The Richard Dawkins Foundation: A Clear Thinking Mirage). Two main issue reared their ugly heads during the discussion:
1) The state of UK Christianity along with a consideration of what is a Christian.
2) Richard Dawkins’ inability to recall the full title of Charles Darwin’s magnum opus.
Now, polls are what they are and their interpretations are what they are. What is meant is that polls must be dissected and one must consider what is being asked, how it is being asked, to whom it is being asked, how many are being asked, what the answers actually are, how the answers are interpreted, etc., etc., etc.
Just taking it at face value, for the sake of considering the fracas, it seems that Richard Dawkins is quite right in noting:
A majority of them don't seem to be truly Christian in the sense that they don't believe what Christianity teaches…they just tick the Christian box.
Giles Fraser, “called the findings ‘extraordinary’ and maintained that it was not fair to trump people's ‘self identification’ as Christians. He said that ‘there are all sorts of ways to express Christianity’ and that we should not be ‘purging religion from the public square’” (News.BBC).
What does the poll (supposedly) reveal about these self-identified Christians? Here are some of the reported stats as they believe that:
Religion should not influence public policy (74%)
Approve of sexual relations between two adults of the same sex (46%)
Sex between a man and a woman was only acceptable within marriage (23%)
Support abortion (62%)
Do not really, or at all, believe in the power of prayer (21%)
Had not attended a church service in the previous 12 months, apart from on occasions such as weddings, funerals and baptisms (49%)
Had not attended for more than 10 years (16%)
Never attended at all (12%)
(see Huffington Post UK)
Now, these are not, necessarily, theological views however, seems that this is good reason to lay down some brother rebuking of UK Christians—more than an occasion to focus on Dawkins.
Since when is a Christian a person who self identifies as one? Jesus said, “You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16) and there are fruits of behaviors/actions and fruits of beliefs.
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. Moreover, it seems that Giles Fraser’s 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 the cultural benefits of Christianity, etc.
Consider two of the questions and answers in the poll:
Q50. Which of the following statements describe what being a Christian means to you personally?
I try to be a good person 58%
It’s how I was brought up 40%
I believe in the teachings of Jesus 22%
I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Saviour 22%
Q51. Which is the ONE statement that BEST describes what being a Christian means to you personally?
I try to be a good person 40%
It’s how I was brought up 24%
I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Saviour 15%
I believe in the teachings of Jesus 7%
Thus, the top responses have to do with being a good person (or, actually, trying to be one) whilst believing in the teachings of Jesus and accepting Him come far below. This is rather interesting as how does a Christian attempt to be “a good person” (whatever that means) if they do not necessarily believe in the teachings of Jesus?
However, note that another question has a majority 41% responding, “I try to be a good person and associate that with Christianity.” So, it may not be a case of going good works for salvation or falling for the politically correct mantra/motto/commandment that being “a good person” is what really counts. Perhaps they responded thusly, due to and within the context of verses such as, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10). See what was meant above, polls, surveys and studies but themselves be dissected.
Point 2) is based on Dawkins’ observation that an “astonishing number couldn't identify the first book in the New Testament.” The poll shows that 35% got it right with an answer of “Matthew,” 19% got it wrong with an answer of “Genesis” (although, one may imagine that they simply misunderstood or made a category mistake) and 39% answered “Don’t know.”
In any regard, this lead to the following exchange:
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… er… with, oh God… [laughter]… On the Origin of Species… um… there is, there is a subtitle… with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the f-f-fight… 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.
The full title is “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”
Richard Dawkins could recall the short title of Darwin’s book but not the full title. UK Christians, conceivably, know that their scripture is call “The Bible” or even that the Christian portion is “The New Testament” but did not recall the first books title.
It would have been interesting to poll UK Atheists/Evolutionists/Darwinists (by any other name) and ask them to quote the full title of Charles Darwin’s book or: how about asking them how many have read it?
Ask them various specific questions about their Atheist/Evolutionist/Darwinist beliefs and see what happens. In fact, why not ask them the Question Evolution Campaign’s 15 Questions for Evolutionists?
An interesting note is that Jonathan Miller asked Dawkins, “So when, at the age of 16, you became acquainted with Darwin, was it because you were taught about Darwin, or you began reading The Origin of Species?” and Dawkins responded, “No, it was because I was taught” (see Is Richard Dawkins a Fundamentalist).
Overall, it seems that whilst Richard Dawkins dropped the ball in this regard, UK Christians dropped various balls which amounts to them holding to empty labels.
So, now that we have learned some areas in which UK Christians have gone wrong, let us consider the last few questions of the poll (we will pick out the answers with the top percentages):
Q2A. In the Census, what did you/they record as YOUR religion?
No religion 33
Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations) 56
Q2B. If you had answered the Census question, what would you have recorded as your religion?
No religion 47
Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations) 22
Q2C. In the Census, what did you/they record as the religion, religious denomination or body YOU belong to?
None 32
Church of Scotland 45
Q2D. If you had answered the Census question, what would you have recorded as the religion, religious denomination or body you belong to?
None 40
Church of Scotland 20
Roman Catholic 13
So, 33% answer that they profess “No religion,” 47% answer that they practice “No religion,” 32% answer that they do not belong to any religion, and again, 40% answer that they do not belong to any “religious denomination or body.” The question seems to be whether this truly is a pool of Christians and we are back to where we began: which is that Christianity is not simply a label, simply something which he are by means of self-identification.
Comments