LETTERS Popery corner
Sir: Paul Johnson's opinions (Letters, 26 February) are so richly enjoyable that it is a relief to learn that he takes them from nobody but himself. But it is the more puz- zling that he remains a loyal member of a Church whose distinguishing feature is its Orwellian insistence on conformity. He goes on to call me a sort of poor man's Huxley. Thanks, I'll settle for that. But his characterisation of a 'slave to . . . scientif- ic-humanist dogmas' misses the mark badly. The whole point about scientists is that they at least aspire to change their opinions if the evidence demands it. I'd join the Chris- tian religion tomorrow if I saw some good evidence, followed by a coherent argument, backing its claims. Certainly the published replies to my letter contain nothing that comes remotely close to an argument, only some over-the-top name-calling.
I listed half a dozen Roman Catholic doctrines as demonstrably false, mutually contradictory or otherwise prima facie dubi- ous. The only one of your correspondents that even attempted a response (to the most trivial of my points) was Father Min- gay. Oddly, he chose to amplify my state- ment that almah, which means 'young unmarried woman' in Isaiah's Hebrew, was mistranslated into Septuagint Greek as parthenos, meaning 'virgin'. Having clari- fied my point, he then lamely concludes that this 'could hardly have given rise to belief in the virginal conception of Jesus'. Why not? Time and again, 19th-century and modern scholarship has shown up New Testament passages that are late interpola- tions aimed at 'fulfilling' Old Testament prophecies. In the present case, with touch- ing candour, Matthew I: 22-23 goes so far as to spell it out: 'Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son . . . ' Father Mingay finally can- not resist some gratuitously irrelevant remarks about my views on evolution, which reveal only that he has never read any of my books on the subject, nor, appar- ently, anyone else's this century.
D.R. Boyce, as a prelude to a piece of doubtless satisfying abuse, notes that my College was founded by a 14th-century (hence Roman Catholic) Bishop of Winch- ester. Well, yes, William of Wykeham was able to make generous benefactions because he was a very rich man and bishops in those days usually did manage to become very rich. Quite so, but exactly what point is being made here?
Dominic Moseley defends the Pope's education and qualifications, pointing out that he has held two 'Chairs' and one 'pro- fessorship' (whatever the difference may be). He was indeed Professor of Ethics at the University of Lublin. Here is a sample of his ethics. His followers are forbidden to use condoms under any circumstances, even in those parts of Africa where the HIV virus has heterosexually infected a huge proportion of the people. His hun- dreds of millions of followers in Latin America and elsewhere are forbidden to use any effective method of birth control, even where overpopulation is leading to mass starvation under conditions of heart- rending degradation and misery. This is no ordinary professor whose views on ethics can be accepted or rejected on the argu- ments. This professor wouldn't recognise an argument if it bit him. It has been inter- nally revealed to him that he is right, he has lately reaffirmed his infallibility and he expects — with good reason — that many millions of the poorest and most over- crowded people in the world will obey him without question, whatever he says. Despite appearances, this is not a gentle, smiling old duffer with a harmless penchant for kissing airport taxiways, but a dangerous, world-damaging dictator.
Richard Dawkins
New College, Oxford
Previous page
