RICHARD HOLLOWAY IN CONVERSATION WITH RICHARD DAWKINS

If you were looking for “The Truth” – that elusive answer to the great question about the existence of God – you would have left the lecture theatre disappointed. If, on the other hand you derived stimulus from witnessing two keen intellectual minds grappling with these questions and attempting to define a religious and/or moral framework for human existence, you would have been fascinated.

Richard Holloway

Richard Holloway was in conversation with Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Science Festival on 1^st April 2008. Their intellectual positions were often only a hairsbreadth apart: but it was this “petite différence” which was so significant. Amazingly, Richard Dawkins at one point all but admitted he was an agnostic “6.8 on a scale of 7.0” – a “de facto atheist” he said, to which Richard Holloway countered that he himself stood at “5.5 on a scale of 7.0”, within the range not so much of an agnostic, but rather an unknower “in a condition of unknowing about the state of ultimate reality.” He claimed that atheists committed the fault of dogmatism – the arrogance of unprovable certainty.

The conversation started with the extraordinary complexity of the Universe, the human animal, the ability of humans to be of interest to themselves and to ponder their relevance within the Universe. Faced with such immensity, both men felt a sense of humility. Holloway asked Dawkins if he could explain “nothing giving birth to such a vast something” to which Dawkins replied: “If one does not understand something, it does not help to try to explain it by postulating a supernatural intelligence.” The “Big Bang” – the assumed beginning of the Universe – might have been a chance accident, but was unlikely to be the result of ‘intelligence’. Events since the Big Bang had been scientifically predictable (e.g. Darwin). Holloway then asked about the emergence of moral values such as pity, self sacrifice or heroism, which he described as religious and asked Dawkins to affirm the contribution made by religious perceptions. Dawkins thought about this, and replied that such feelings had their roots in the selfish genes of survival (lust for recognition by peer group). Pity, for example, could expect reciprocation (“be nice for a pay-off”) and the whole concept of “religious values” could arise from codification by the wise men (priests) as a form of control. Holloway protested that this was too simplistic and Dawkins conceded that human actions could flower into nobility and be expressed in such visionary language as Donne or Shakespeare. Occasionally what the speakers described as a “moral singularity” (a surprising and unexpected leap of invention) could emerge. However, neither Dawkins nor Holloway attributed this to divine intervention.

We moved on to the role of religion in society. Holloway suggested that it is a human need. It expresses a deep and vital necessity. It has a therapeutic or cleansing function. There were likeable Christians and other less so, particularly those who claimed absolute certainty and used “God-talk” as a tool for manipulation. Dawkins’ view was that though humankind may have a psychological yearning for comfort, postulating a God as the solution was evading reality. Why not say “There is no God, we are in the midst of a marvellous creation. Let us resolve to lead a good life to the best of our ability and be kind to each other?”

Holloway’s perception is that this does not go far enough. It does not answer all the questions. Whilst understanding the personality and message of Jesus is an essential dimension to Christianity and our society, one cannot understand “God” or “The Divine” simply in terms of historicity. Over the ages, humans have interpreted the great truths as myths, stating their insights, perceptions and dreams often in poetic and non-literal ways. Studying these myths can help us to understand our roots, where we belong and where we are coming from – defining, as Holloway said, one’s loyalty to one’s tribe and giving resonance to our lives. Dawkins suggested that Holloway was being selective, choosing the evidence, which suited him. Holloway did not see this as a problem: he was seeking after truth, exploring any evidence, not attempting to defend a position.

Holloway gently pushed Dawkins on his claim be an atheist. How could he be sure? Was it not part of the human condition to dream of greater things and to express the inexpressible? In other words, making sense of the Universe? Dawkins conceded much of this, but appealed to honesty. He said that much evil had been committed in the name of religion (not exclusively Christianity), by manipulation, control and abuse of power. Religion has fostered supremacy of man over animals (Genesis) – giving rise to a moral scandal of our time in the way we treat animals as objects. Today’s Creationists were quoted as distorters of truth, which was an outrage. Here both men stood side by side, deploring extremes and close together on the central ground.

Holloway on being accused by Dawkins of tunnel vision said “I am a Buddhist/Quaker/Anglo-Catholic Agnostic – you can’t get much broader than that”! To which Dawkins rejoined: “You don’t seem to have a very strong reason for calling yourself a Christian!”

At one point, Richard Dawkins commented that – like him – Holloway had turned his back on Christian religion. “Yes”, said Holloway, “that was after the Lambeth conference in 1998.” Appalled by entrenched conservatism, defence of formalistic formulae and untenable attitudes on such issues as the role of women and homosexuality, he took a sabbatical from the organised church in order to rediscover the basics. He had discovered that he did not feel at home in this material (Godless?) world and had returned to a greater sense of peace in a framework which could include mystery and the divine. This was a moving personal statement by Holloway which doubtless resonated with many in the audience.

It came down in the end to what sort of model for our human existence we felt most corresponded to the unknowns and intangibles: experiences such as love, mercy, kindness which seemed to transcend the mere “Selfish Gene” of Dawkins’ theory. A world where myth had its place, and truth was not exclusive, but shared amongst different times and different cultures. Dawkins contended that his world faced up to reality and de-cluttered it, so that humankind could start to live an honest life, free from the trappings of religion (or in his terms, delusion). It seemed a rather bleak prospect, compared to Holloway’s vision of surprises, colour and poetry, which were encapsulated in true religious experience, as opposed to that put together by selfish humans for individual advantage.

There was little to choose between the two men and they were grappling with the same questions. They did this honestly and courteously, respecting and acknowledging each other’s views. There were no killer blows, no outright contention and no winners. But on balance, Holloway won on points, for what I interpreted as his belief in the finer aspects: goodness, optimism in human nature, the unexpected and Providence, and the hope that Right will triumph in time.

Holloway is working on the edge of Christianity, trying to discover the unique significance of Christ himself – as he told us several times in the course of the evening. His religion is not a system of preaching or believing, but of doing, exploring, and challenging. Although that defies codification by putting into a rule book, it suggests a way forward in a living faith by rediscovering the essential values of Christianity. He is longing to come home: “I want to identify with the family which has been so good to me.” Distilling these values over the centuries, learning from the mistakes and blind alleys, and representing them in a form, which can be understood and lived in the modern world and used for a power of good. That sort of vision offers grander and greater scope than Dawkins’ functionality.

Significantly, Dawkins foresees future discoveries about the nature of the Universe in years to come – “the truth will be far grander and mysterious when we understand it” and he admits the possibility of changing his mind: “I am not a fundamentalist. If new evidence is found, I would change my mind in a heartbeat.”

So finally, we were left with Richard Dawkins whom we respected, and Richard Holloway, whom we desperately hoped was right, and we were called upon to look into our own hearts for the answer.

It recalled the final stanza of Milton’s Paradise Lost:-

“The world was all before them, where to choose

Their place of rest, and Providence their guide:

They hand in hand, with wand’ring steps and slow,

Through Eden took their solitary way.”

Christopher Davies

This report is an account of a public conversation between Richard Holloway and Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Science Festival on April 1^st 2008. The author has done his best to reflect the philosophical and sometimes cerebral discussion faithfully!