Dawkins vs God
From R.F. Clements
Sir: Richard Dawkins might be convinced of the existence of God (‘A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God’, December 9) by ‘a large-scale miracle which could not have been engineered by a conjuror’. What evidence does he want for the greatest miracle of all time? It happened 2,000 years ago. The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ was attested by some 600 people, most of whom had no idea that Jesus had to suffer and die on the cross and would be raised by the power of God. But (Acts x 40) ‘God raised up (Jesus) the third day, and showed him openly …even to us who did eat and drink with him.’ The experience of meeting the risen Lord changed their lives. Utterly convinced, they set out to preach the gospel of salvation to a pagan world. They suffered persecution, hardship and death for their beliefs, in anticipation that through faith they would live with Jesus in the future Kingdom of God on earth.
Roy Clements
Monmouth
From Steven Sidley
Sir: I believe that Rod Liddle has overlooked the most powerful weaponry of the Dawkinsian approach. A faith- or belief-based system brooks no counter-argument, no matter how compelling the logic (Stalinism falls into this category as much as any religion). A scientific approach, by definition, will step down when faced with an argument of superior logic, or contra-evidence. So Mr Liddle’s proclamation of a threadbare Darwinism or other perceived weaknesses in Dawkins’s arguments may well be true, but they don’t begin to falsify the gestalt of his position — they are merely minor smudges on a large and powerful canvas. When those smudges grow enough to change the larger picture, perhaps we can retire Richard Dawkins, but until then his position remains formidable.
Falsification (of which there is no equivalent in belief systems) is the great Popperian check and balance of scientific theory. Mr Liddle will require a great deal more than a few dialectic grumps to topple Dawkins.
Steven Sidley
Johannesburg, South Africa
Not much of a terrorist
From Guy E.S. Herbert
Sir: Terror certainly seems to have worked on Melanie Phillips (‘A terror so great we forgot it at once’, 9 December). So desperate is she that we take the Islamist maniacs at their own estimation that she sets up a series of straw men and dances about them shrieking.
There were some very interesting things about the Dhiren Barot case. It wasn’t a trial in the usual sense. He pleaded guilty, and the evidence against him was therefore untested. That there are seven other men who have yet to be brought to trial explains the continuing reporting restrictions that Ms Phillips alludes to, not some extra-spooky horror we need to be protected from.
For all Barot’s megalomaniac plotting and elaborate library of notes about possible targets and weapons; despite the vast complexity of his conspiracy (or power-fantasy), the prosecution admitted that this fairly secret warrior had no funding and no materials. That there was so much coverage of such a non-story at the time is what requires explanation, not that there has been so little subsequently. If this man actually was ‘one of al-Qa’eda’s most experienced terrorists’, then we have little to fear from al-Qa’eda.
Incidentally, during the Barot case, two white nationalist extremists were charged in Lancashire under the Explosive Substances Act 1883, after police allegedly found actual rocket launchers, an actual NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) suit, and made ‘the largest ever’ seizure of explosive components on the British mainland. It scarcely made the nationals. Are there liberal-media types suppressing this, too, believing the far Right to be harmless? Or could it be that it is just not very threatening to anyone outside Lancashire?
Guy Herbert
London NW1
Help for CF sufferers
From Janet R. Jacques
Sir: It was hard for me when Gordon Brown revealed that his son Fraser had been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, because my son, too, has CF; and because although the newspapers were relatively upbeat about CF, none mentioned the desperate need for government money. Mr Brown expressed optimism that the advances being made in medicine will help his son and many others. But scientists working on a gene therapy cure for CF believe that some £50 million is needed to develop a ‘working cure’. If that money was forthcoming, we might see a cure in the next five years and hopefully in my son’s lifetime. (He is 27 and the average CF life-expectancy is 30.)
CF is the UK’s most common genetic illness; one in 25 people are carriers and sufferers must have a good diet and take plenty of exercise. But as lung capacity decreases, taking regular exercise becomes impossible. Another hurdle faced by those with CF is their yearly prescription charges, as the disease is not regarded as a chronic condition.
As well as caring for my son, I have been fundraising with another mother whom I met at the Brompton Hospital. Together, Ruth Angel and I have raised over £2 million organising street collections, quizzes and balls, but it is just a drop in the ocean. Now it must be up to the government to help us make a real breakthrough.
Janet R. Jacques
By email
Questing time
From James Young
Sir: Rereading Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop recently, I noticed that William Boot’s immortal intro ‘Feather-footed through the splashy fen passes the questing vole’ (page 16, 1969 Penguin edition) is repeated a few pages later as ‘…plashy fens…’. (The 1992 Oxford Dictionary of Quotations gives ‘plashy fen’ — the best of the three, to my mind.) No doubt the internet could help, but…. Perhaps your erudite readers could shed some light on this rural riddle?
James Young
London N1
Comments