Who is irrelevant: Richard Dawkins or Religion? After a debate in Cambridge, it would appear the answer must be Richard Dawkins! The video of the debate is long (97 min). If you don't have time to watch it, the bottom line is that on the motion This House Believes Religion Has No Place In The 21st Century, with, Dawkins (famous militant atheist) proposing and Rowan Williams (former Archbishop of Canterbury) opposing at the Cambridge Union debating society, the motion failed to be carried.
Philosopher Tariq Ramadan, Andrew Copson, of the British Humanist Association, and Douglas Murray, of the Centre for Social Cohesion, also took part in the debate.
Interesting, for me, is the fact that the bright young things of one of England's elite university's rejected the line that Dawkins, inter alia, was peddling. I wonder why they rejected it? Was it because the intuitively knew that the grim vision he offered - essentially we are a collection of irrelevances in a vast and indifferent universe - is false? Or was it because of his own skewed view of religion? Dawkins during the debate says he harps on about Christianity because it is the only religion he knows well, citing his background as a 'cultural Anglican' as his bona fides. But, of course, every time he opens his mouth to spout yet more of his polemics he shows that he does not know Christianity well. He doesn't even seem to know Anglicanism all that well. And a little knowledge is a dangerous thing when you're debating someone with a lot in front of a group of very smart people.
Whatever. He lost the debate. And it is starting to look as if Prof Dawkins day has come and gone. Let's hope he banked some of the royalties from all those books he sold. He may need them to fund his much anticipated retirement from the scene.