Amazing What Richard Dawkins Can Get Wrong


Pardon me for not going to the original source, but here at Uncommon Descent we have a portion of Richard Dawkins’ interview with Playboy. They asked him what he thought of Jesus. The answer he gave is simply astonishing.

The evidence he existed is surprisingly shaky. The earliest books in the New Testament to be written were the Epistles, not the Gospels. It’s almost as though Saint Paul and others who wrote the Epistles weren’t that interested in whether Jesus was real….

Oh, and then he said,

I haven’t read it all, but my knowledge of the Bible is a lot better than most fundamentalist Christians’.

I’m not even going to rebut this. Some readers know better already and don’t need to be burdened with it. Others can find all the rebuttal they need in 1 Corinthians 15. Or Colossians 1. Or Hebrews 1. Or 1 John 1. Or almost anywhere else in the Epistles.

And he thinks he has that much knowledge of the Bible? Wow.

It’s very sad that a man of his education and erudition could be so blind to the obvious, and that he would be contributing so much to others’ blindness. I’m praying for him to see more clearly.

3 Responses

  1. Sam says:

    Dawkins is the fourth kind of person in the oft cited proverb. He doesn’t know and doesn’t know he doesn’t know.

  2. Andrew says:

    Reading through your blog, you typically argue your ideas very well.

    But in this post…did you really just cite the Bible, as evidence of the Bible’s historicity?

  3. Tom Gilson says:

    I cited the Epistles as evidence that the writers of the Epistles were interested in whether Jesus was real. I think that’s the right place to go for that, don’t you?

    On the other hand, I wonder what the problem is with citing the Epistles as evidence the Jesus actually was real. They’re good, sound, historical documents. No reputable scholar doubts that 1 Corinthians was written by Paul as it purports to be, for example. Colossians is solid in that respect. These constitute strong evidence that Jesus existed.

    And while I’m at it, there are literally hundreds of early documents and other evidence, both biblical and extra-biblical attesting to the historical reality of Jesus. Dawkins is (not to put to fine a point on it) wrong. The evidence that Jesus existed is surprisingly solid, not at all shaky.