The Rev Steve Midgley, who I remember from my days at
The Square Church, has been featured on
the Dawkins site. The sermon he gave on Professor Dawkins's views is about a year old now, but I suppose that a posting on the Dawkins blog might generate some more interest in it. You can find MP3s of it
on his church's site (the church is the Cambridge "plant" from St Andrew the Great which I think
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
nlj21 attends).
Rev Midgley comes across as a thoughtful and careful preacher, eager to ensure he has presented Dawkins's views fairly.
Midgley speaks about Professor Alister McGrath's responses to Dawkins. I've not read McGrath's books, but I've heard his
discussion with Dawkins at the Oxford Literary Festival, and also seen him and Dawkins talking at length in
out-takes from Root of All Evil?, Dawkins's Channel 4 opinion piece from
last year. I didn't find McGrath particularly impressive in either case, mostly because of his irksome habit of telling Dawkins he'd made an interesting point and then answering something other than Dawkins's question (now I think of it, in
Yes, Prime Minister, I think that's one of Jim Hacker's tips to Sir Humphrey for dealing with the press). For someone who's been associated with the
infamously evangelical Wycliffe Hall theological college, McGrath seems oddly evasive on some fundamental, if unpalatable, bits of evangelical doctrine, like the Virgin Birth,
penal substitutionary atonement, and the sovereignty of God even in
natural disasters. I'd be interested to hear what any of you who've read McGrath's books thought of them.
Midgley quotes Terry Eagleton's
LRB article to illustrate that reviewers have criticised Dawkins's lack of theological knowledge. I think I'd be more receptive to those sort of arguments if someone could point to a rebuttal of Dawkins based on that theology. Eagleton's attempt founders on its own contradictory assertions about what God is, as
Sean Carrol points out. I doubt Midgely is willing to sign up for Eagleton's theology, which
sounds suspiciously liberal to this ex-evangelical. It's illuminating to ask how Midgley would demonstrate that his theology was more correct than Eagleton's, though, of which more later.
Midgley talks about Dawkins's
Ultimate 747 argument. He makes the valid point that ordinary Christians generally aren't concerned with the
Argument from Design. Similarly, he says that forcing us to chose between evolution and God is a false choice, since God may use evolution. I think this mistakes what Dawkins's argument is. If the universe does not require a designer (as Midgley seems to concede), life itself and the universe are not evidence for the existence of God. If there are no other good arguments for God's existence (the one from Design isn't the only one Dawkins talks about, although it's the centerpiece of the book), it's reasonable to suppose that God's not there (or he doesn't want to be found).
Midgley goes on to point out that scientific theories change, quoting McGrath again, and asserts that Dawkins has a faith as much as a Christian does.
Dawkins's own response to McGrath points out the inconsistency here: Dawkins, along with any good scientist, is willing to admit the scientific theories are provisional. Midgley, to get his old job at St Andrew the Great and to
speak to CICCU, presumably assented to some extremely specific doctrines (never mind the Nicene Creed, if you want to test for "soundness", try the
CICCU Doctrinal Basis). These doctrines aren't subject to testing, peer review or later revision. How are we supposed to know that Midgley is right and Eagleton's Marxist Christianity is wrong? I think we'd just have to have faith :-)
Finally, I wish he could pronounce Dawkins's name correctly. That sort of mistake
lays you open to parody.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
comments.
comments.
comments.
comments.
The ever-reliable Cambridge Evening News reveals that 
