{"id":2758,"date":"2012-02-16T11:16:25","date_gmt":"2012-02-16T16:16:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dangeroustalk.net\/?p=2758"},"modified":"2012-02-16T11:41:43","modified_gmt":"2012-02-16T16:41:43","slug":"dawkins-gaff","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.dangeroustalk.net\/?p=2758","title":{"rendered":"Dawkins Gaffe"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Dawkins had a gaffe recently<\/a> in which he talked about a survey that the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science<\/a> did showing that Britain is no longer a majority Christian nation. One of the criteria he used was asking people what the first book of the Gospel was. So some Christian asked him to give the full title of Darwin\u2019s book on evolution.<\/p>\n

First, Dawkins should have known that since he has spent a lifetime educating people about Darwin and evolution. But that isn\u2019t my point here. My point here is that evolution isn\u2019t a religion. I don\u2019t know the name of Newton\u2019s book or paper on gravity, yet I accept the theory. But if someone claims to worship Jesus and the only source of information about Jesus comes from a collection of books, It is reasonable to assume that the person should know at least some basic facts about that collection of books.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m an atheist, and I know the Gospels are: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Hell, I even know that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q as source material. More importantly, I know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn\u2019t actually write the books ascribed to them. But I digress.<\/p>\n

My point is that there is some pretty basic information that not only should everyone know, but that Christians in particular should know. Now, it probably wasn\u2019t a good idea for Dawkins to use general knowledge of Christianity as criteria for Christianity, but that is another story.<\/p>\n

As it turns out though, Dawkins wasn\u2019t the only survey to reach that conclusion.\u00a0 The British Social Attitudes survey had a similar result<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Related articles<\/h6>\n