The end is nigh (or not)

The Independent has reported that the world as we know it will end today. To be fair, The Independent has not exactly endorsed this suggestion but is rather reporting Harold Camping's prediction of the end of the world. Camping has stated that today, around 6:00pm, Jesus Christ will return to earth to take 2 per cent of the world's population to Heaven.


Camping is basing his prediction on a mathematical system used to interpret biblical prophecy. He has suggested the world will end on 21 May, because that will be 722,500 days from 1 April since AD33, which he believes was the day Jesus Christ was crucified. The figure of 722,500 is important because you get it by multiplying three holy numbers (five, ten and seventeen) together twice.


If I'm being honest, I shan't lose any sleep tonight. I fully endorse the view of Calvin L. Smith who writes:

[T]he fact Harold Camping doesn't have the best of track records on this issue, together with Jesus' words in Matthew 24:36, would rather suggest we'll still be here tomorrow evening.

Equally worth noting is Camping's reliance on a system he developed to interpret hidden prophecies in the bible. Surely, belief in a personal God who has anything to say to people also necessitates a belief that He has made Himself clear and understandable. Indeed, what purpose would there be in a revelation that could not be understood? Reliance on secret systems and hidden prophecies suggests God has not made his Word plain and that He seeks to speak in coded language intended only to confuse. Camping's reliance on such hidden messages belie the very concept of a personal God; a concept necessary for his prediction to be of any value in the first place.


So, I shall sleep soundly tonight and fully expect to wake up as usual the following morning. Of course, that may just mean I missed the rapture...

Dawkins is a coward (and it must be true - it's in a mainstream broadsheet)

A longstanding argument between Dr Richard Dawkins and supporters of Dr William Lane Craig was recently reported in The Telegraph. Despite Craig holding doctorates in both philosophy and theology and being widely recognised as the leading authority on the kalam cosmological argument as well as the foremost apologist for Christian theism, Dawkins has routinely turned down invitations to debate with him on the existence of God (1). Dawkins has argued that it may "look good" on Craig's CV but not on his own and stated 'I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion'.  However, Dr Daniel Came - a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist from Worcester College - stated the following in a letter to Dawkins:

The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.

I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House. (source: Telegraph)

It is testimony to Dawkins character, and academic priorities, that he is only willing to debate with those who can enhance his own CV. Indeed, his many media appearances and desire to debate primarily with television and radio presenters, rather than academic experts, speak more highly of his own 'relentless drive for self-promotion'. It is also worth noting, as Archbishop Cranmer does, that Dawkins has relied predominantly on fame rather than his academic contribution to either science or philosophy to espouse his message. He comments:

[W]hen we hear the shrill voice of Dr Richard Dawkins bleating about Professor Craig’s ‘relentless drive for self-promotion’, and rejecting the debasement of his eminent CV by debating with the distinguished Christian apologist, we should remember this: Richard Dawkins never contributed much to science; his Oxford chair was bought for him by a rich admirer; and the scientific ideas upon which he built his reputation are increasingly discredited. Those beguiled by his diatribes are listening neither to the voice of reason nor science.

Fortunately for Dr Dawkins, the opportunity to discredit such claims has not slipped away. Dr Craig has said he is willing to keep the invitation open for Dawkins to debate him in Oxford in October.


Notes

1. For a full list of Dr Craig's qualifications visit http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=curriculum_vitae. A list of his publications can be found at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=publications_main