Richard Dawkins answers a great question: what if you’re wrong? Here is the footage:
Eyedunno (the youtube user who posted this video) was inundated with fundamentalist Christian comments that Dawkins didn’t answer the question and so posted this video response:
Of course, the obvious answer to the original question (and every other question on both videos) is this: ‘if that is the case, then I am stuffed; I am completely and utterly nailed. I have been owned, as they say these days’. For Dawkins an even worse answer would apply: ‘if that is the case, then my public identity and entire life work has been undermined’. The fact that he so strongly avoided this made him appear defensive and unnecessarily combative.
Still, had he wanted to relate with his questioner rather than fight her, he would have appealed to her own experiences as a Christian. ‘Surely’, he could have said, ‘as someone brought up in the Christian faith you would know about the importance of Jesus’ resurrection for the Christian faith, that if the resurrection did not happen then Christian faith is effectively undermined’. He would have been been referring to 1 Corinthians 15:
17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
In other words, if Christians are wrong about the resurrection, then they are utterly stuffed. By appealing to a concept implicit in Christian thinking Dawkins would have both undermined the question and included his opponent in a reasonable and powerful answer. Dawkins isn’t far off this either: from his answer it is clear that he thinks everyone can and should admit that their faith (belief, opinion, theory etc) rests on grounds that can’t be proved scientifically. In particular this includes Christians and atheists. For this reason, I think his answer is essentially right. However, I must add that even though I acknowledge that he was thinking on his feet, I find it a little disappointing that Dawkins was unable to concede legitimacy for a question that so pithily and powerfully penetrated to the heart of the atheist-Christian debate (indeed every comparative religious discussion). Nor was he able to respond without being antagonistic. Surely a man with a breadth of learning and a pedigree such as his could show more epistemic humility, whilst encouraging his opponents to do likewise. Dawkins had an opportunity to be more persuasive and shown great academic integrity.
For me, I know I could be wrong about Jesus being the Son of God who rose from the dead, but in spite of this possibility I have chosen to live with the assumption that he is.
