Williams is renowned as an "intellectual". Now there are some who
would argue that an intellectual among Godbotherers is a bit like a
polevaulter among dogs, but I say we have to judge the man by the
output of his formidable mind.
Williams strikes a deadly blow to Dawkins by describing religions as
"naturally self-critical". Dawkins misses that, Williams points out.
Erm, yes, he does. Possibly because religions are so far from self-
critical as to be completely nonself-critical. Religions mostly
believe in their own inerrancy. They are bastions of intolerance. When
believers stop believing in their particular brand of whateverism,
they hive themselves off and form a new sect of intolerance, and start
describing their fellow believers as "heretics".
Williams does not stop there. Oh no!
'There are specific areas of mismatch between what Dawkins may write
about and what religious people think they are doing,' he said.
Okay, hit us with it, Arch.
He said Dawkins had 'picked up on' the fact that theologians talk
about God as a simple explanation but if God was around before the Big
Bang, 'he must be complex'.
Well, that's telling us. We say you invented God because the world is
too complex for you to understand, and your answer is noes, you fools,
God is reaaaaaallly complex.
Williams topped that though, with blather so thoroughly stupid that it
makes believing in a transcendental being, capable of creating a whole
universe, who cares whether you like arse sex seem sensible.
'Don't distract us from the real arguments by assuming that religion
is an eccentric survival strategy or irrational form of explanation,'
Erm, Rowan mate, our arguments are that religion is a survival
strategy or an irrational form of explanation. What "real arguments"
are there, in your view, that make those "unreal"?
Of course, Williams is indulging in the special pleading that religion
always insists on with science. Basically, we are not to judge his
beliefs by the same standards we do the rest of the universe. No, we
must accept them as axiomatic, and then go from there. So when we are
arguing about the nature of his god, we must accept that his god
exists, even though the argument concerns, erm, his existing in the