Moore on Wellington

Charles Moore ex editor of the Telegraph (who I listened debating at Wellington college a couple of weeks ago) has published his perspective on the evenings talk in a recent Spectator article.

Here is the relevant part of the article (the rest of his piece there is on other topics)

On Sunday night, I went to Wellington College to defend God. The Almighty does not need human help, of course, but I was asked to oppose Professors Richard Dawkins and A.C. Grayling, and — with Lord Harries, the former Bishop of Oxford — propose the motion that ‘Atheism is the new fundamentalism’. I had hoped that the audience would consist largely of the stalwart pupils and parents of Wellington, which would have had our side in with a chance. But in fact the event was run by the brilliant, Notting-Hilly debating organisation Intelligence Squared. This meant that 1,500 people turned up, cramming the vast sports hall. It also meant that the Wellington clientele was swamped by a very different crowd. I could see at a glance that the atheist fundamentalists were present in force. The side of the angels got a paltry 363 votes and that of the apes got 1,070. It was good-humoured and well-chaired, so I have no complaints. But more than I had realised, it is indeed the case that there is a movement of militant, fundamentalist atheists — well-organised, self-righteous and derisive, rather like Gay Pride marchers. Indeed, just as homosexual activists co-opted the word ‘gay’ for their cause 40 years ago, so the grooviest atheist gang call themselves, self-regardingly, Brights. They campaign for, among other things, ‘full and equitable civic participation’ for those with their ‘naturalistic world-view’. My impression is that they have got a lot further than most people realise. For example, they are now making it very hard for faith schools to teach faith, or select the children of the faithful or, ultimately, to exist at all. They want religion to be tolerated only as what they call a ‘private’ opinion, by which they mean that it should have no space in the public sphere, rather like Roman Catholicism in 18th-century Britain, or Judaism in most Arab countries today. I think a big battle is beginning and, at the moment, religion is losing.

Professors Dawkins and Grayling seem to be the Moody and Sankey of this movement. They play, as it were, the favourite hymns, and they do it very well. Professor Dawkins, in particular, has rock-star status. Fans hail his sallies rather as black congregations in the Deep South shout ‘Ay-men!’ when they like what the preacher is saying. But, with his mellifluous voice, distinguished grey hair, slightly old-fashioned forms of expression and high opinion of his own abilities, Professor Dawkins reminds me of nothing so much as an old-school Anglican bishop. Winding up, he gave a little picture of himself lying down, staring at the Milky Way, and feeling a sense of ‘gratitude’ for the great mystery of the universe. It was very stirring, but to whom, in the absence of a God, was he grateful?

Its a pretty dismissive snide swipe in my view, straw man central and a dismissal of enlightenment values from the comfort of enlightenment institutions. It's interesting that he paints a picture of the audience as some kind of left wing "Islington" crowd and had only the "stalwart pupils and parents (presumably right wing Christians?) of Wellington itself been there the result would have been different. Almost every single one of the people I know that went were either Wellington parents or prospective Wellington parents who were there to support the school as well as listen to some public intellectuals speak on an interesting topic. Judging from the age and attire of the crowd and how they dispersed to various houses nestled in the trees surrounding the venue after the event, there were undoubtedly many Wellington pupils there too.

I love the way he labels his side "angels" and the opposition "apes", I'm sure this is a little attempt at "evolution" humour, it's accurate I suppose we are all apes including Mr Moore whether he likes the idea or not. But like David Cameron trying to "get down" with the kids on that infamous radio interview, it back fires horribly, I feel embarrassed for the man. Then we have the usual "militant" accusation, why militant, what convenient redefinition of the word is this? Is it perhaps that everyone who doesn't share Mr Moore's world view is "militant" and self-righteous or just atheists? It's hard to tell if he really thinks this or is just aping the numerous apologists who have so thoroughly run out of arguments that hold water they resort to ad hominem attacks almost as a matter of course.

In his penultimate paragraph before the inevitable and now expected ad hominem round up, as reasoned arguments evade him, Moore gets to the real meat of what's on his mind. Traditional faith-heads like him are clearly concerned about current trends he perceives that his side is losing. Their cosy little boxed-up world of indoctrination centres for their children and assumed privilege is being challenged, if not by action and legislation at least by words. I read this and think we're doing something right or at least the message is slowly getting through. His misrepresentation's of the aims of this so called "movement" are blatant scaremongering though, there is reasonable and strong evidence and opinion that faith schools are divisive and discriminatory perhaps Mr Moore should have addressed this point rather than making up a false position for atheists in order that he can sneer at it.

For those versed in this debate you will notice the delightful Paley'esc fallacy at the very end of his piece, a nod to nostalgia perhaps? The strategic use of the word "whom" in order to align the possible answers to the question he poses directly with his own personal beliefs i.e. an entirely human perspective. Yes, much as these people argue until they are blue in the face that all this stuff of scripture is just allegory and their religions are so much more nuanced and "sophisticated" than that, when the chips are down here he is anthropomorphising for all he is worth. With such an arrogant and hopelessly simplistic view of the universe its no wonder he was surprised at the rather diminutive size of his constituency that rainy Sunday night three weeks ago, I'm not.