British philosopher AC Grayling was interviewed in The Observer on Sunday (5 July 2009). It’s a series of soundbites rather than anything detailed. This one caught my eye:
I would imagine Jesus was a kind of Jewish reformer. If you were looking for an equivalent to the figure you dimly perceive through the gospels it would probably be a Richard Dawkins.
What? The first sentence suggests Grayling knows very little about Jesus and yet is prepared to idly speculate on what he might be, without engaging with the evidence. Second, how on earth does he make the link to Dawkins? Is Dawkins a moral reformer in any sense at all? He may be an outspoken defender of a particular position but it hardly makes for an equivalence with Jesus, even if you do reject Jesus’s divinity. Grayling is a very bright man, and I always enjoy listening to him on Radio 4 discussions, but this quote betrays his blind spot and bias.
I was also struck by this comment:
I am putting together a secular bible. My Genesis is when the apple falls on Newton’s head.
I wonder what Grayling means by this. The Bible is God’s self-revelation and the account of his dealings with human beings. What story could start with the apple falling on Newton (a historically dubious event anyway)? The story of the growth of modern science and the way it has replaced religion with hard-nosed rationalism? The growth of modern science is a great story, but it doesn’t start with Newton and it has not supplanted religion. There are very many people who have see no conflict between the two, but rather synergy. Is it to be a bible in the sense of a handbook of essential knowledge about a particular subject? If so, I still don’t see why he’s starting with Newton. Is he wanting to imply that Newton’s insights about gravity are a significant moment of enlightenment, when human beings first realise that things don’t fall as a result of God’s direct and immediate action?
I know this is one of those infuriatingly brief and shallow interviews which are so popular these days, but surely a philosopher of Grayling’s ability is able to be speak concisely without these dubious [...]
