Current Events: The Rowan Williams and Richard Dawkins Debate

I just listened to the February 23rd debate (or better, dialogue) between Rowan Williams and Richard Dawkins.  For those interested the audio can be found here or if you prefer to watch it as well the video is on the event website here.

I personally think it was a very interesting listen.  It was a refreshing diversion from the standard debate formats where each speaker presents their view in a set time, then the rebuttals, and on... Here what we have is a much more informal dialogue mediated by the Oxford philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny (whose 4 volume history of philosophy is quite excellent).  Kenny, once a Christian, now represents agnosticism and serves not just as a mediator but as a sort of devil's advocate for both sides and actually plays a larger part in the dialogue than most mediators.  It may have just been my imagination, but Kenny did tend to favor Williams and it often seemed like many of his formerly Christian sensibilities were sometimes at alarm at a few of Dawkins' positions.  Yet nonetheless I think he maintained an even keel and operated superbly as a mediator, keeping the discussion on topic and at proper pace.

As is to be expected there were no resolutions here.  What I think is unique is both the courteousness, but also the general amount of agreement that went on.  The exchange of ideas was refreshing, and both Williams and Dawkins at several moments admitted that the other side had very plausible and in some sense beautiful explanations for things.  Towards the end of the debate the root differences indeed come to the fore, yet nonetheless the civil (and sometimes downright friendly) tone never evaporates.  The tendency of debates seem to be to convince few outside the respective choirs, and I doubt that will be any different with this one.  There are a few strange points--it is to be expected for example that Dawkins thinks consciousness is an illusion (which is strange to me, but not new).  What was new to me was that Dawkins, while not endorsing per se, was fully open to the recent (and absurd) view that the universe arose literally from nothing--that the primordial nothingness was unstable or whatever and creation sparked from the void.  Anthony Kenny rightly balked at Dawkins at this point.  That something can come from nothing overturns a fairly basic metaphysical principle that nothing comes from nothing.  It seems that in order to postulate the world from nothing, nothingness has to be treated as something.  If it truly was nothing, in my opinion I think this ironically comes around 360 degrees and almost posits a scientific resonance with the Christian idea of ex nihilo creation.

At any rate I was quite heartened at this whole exchange.  Both Dawkins and Williams seemed to display genuine interest in the other's opinions, and not just an interest but at times it seemed even a willingness to learn from each other despite disagreement.  I think this stands out as an excellent model for how these debates should go in the future, and if this is to be the format and cordial tone, I look forward to future events with great anticipation.