In Their Own Words

For those who are interested, Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath chatted last week at the Oxford Literary Festival. You can listen here.

On the question of morality, McGrath properly pushes Dawkins to describe the ultimate ground for morality in a world without an ultimate purpose. Dawkins admits that science can’t proscribe moral behaviour but predictably goes on to describe that even if science isn’t up for the task, neither is religion. He makes a curious reference, however, to the New Testament ethical perspective being more “agreeable” than the Old Testament, judging based on some kind of basic moral consensus that apparently exists simply by virtue of the fact that we’re 21st century ‘progressive’ people.

As to the origins of this ‘moral consensus’ Dawkins says he “doesn’t have time” to go into it” but he’s quite certain it’s not religion (I’m guessing some version of meme theory). He decries “cherry-picking” from the Bible or the Qur’an, keeping the “good bits” throwing out the “bad bits” but he never discusses the reference point for the terms “good” and “bad”. All we can guess is that the simple fact that we happen to live in the 21st century means that we understand morality better than any who have gone before us. Quite a leap of faith, I’d say.

This is the last time either of these names will come up on this blog. I promise. Maybe.

via: be thinking