Watched the second of Dawkins' two programmes about religion last night. I missed the first but had heard it wasn't as good as we might have expected from a professor charged with the advancement of science. He did continue his attack on paper tigers - most intelligent Christians I know would have felt the three particular enemies he picked on - separatist Jewish communities, extreme Christian faith schools teaching intelligent design and US hellfire preaching were worth having a go at.
He was also constrained by the fact that he would have been in danger if he'd said, 'The Prophet was barking mad' but was quite happy to state that Jesus was. Christians are genuinely, by and large, slow to take offence.
More interesting, and I wished it had gone on for longer, was the interview with Richard Harries.
I think there was a good TV programme and an intelligent debate trying to get out of the screen last night but it stayed stuck in. Is it really only a faith position that makes people oppose abortion? For someone who insists that truths are only truths if verifiable scientifically I wanted to see better research into this statement. Likewise, '...only religion can make good people bad.' Dawkins seems to have decided what is bad in a very unscientific way.
Anyway, as Nick Pollard says in this brilliant Damaris article, where is the scientific backing for a statement such as , 'You should only believe what is verifiable by science?' It is as daft a statement as 'I don't know a word of English' or 'I am absolutely convinced there are no absolute truths.'
I long for Christians to engage their brains in this debate but the way Dawkins does his work he is too easy to ignore. If we and he are shooting at the same targets where's the battle?
Those who want their thinking about science and creation stretched a bit might read this from last Saturday's Guardian.