Last night I went to a talk by Alister McGrath about Richard Dawkins' latest book. Dawkins had been invited too so they could have a debate, but as is his usual style, he declined.
McGrath was generally very good - most of his points were the same as in his book on Dawkins, with a few changes reflecting Dawkins' slight changed to his argument.
I could do a write up of McGrath's talk - I made fairly extensive notes - let me know if you want that.
Here are a few things I thought were interesting though:
- McGrath comes across as being far more interested in the truth than in being right. He's quite happy to admit when Dawkins has a good argument and some of the good work Dawkins has done. He's also willing to admit when he doesn't know something. Neither does he push for knockdown arguments - he's much happier just showing that Dawkins' claims don't work
- Dawkins seems to be heading more and more into what McGrath calls an "atheistic fundamentalism" - his books are getting less and less scientific and more and more anti-religious polemical
- Dawkins seems more interested in point scoring than in the truth. For example, his assertion that atheists don't do nasty stuff like religious people do. Has the man never heard of Stalin or Mao?
ETA - I've added my notes on the debate here.
16 comments:
I'd be interested in reading the notes. But no hurry. Hope it's all going well.
Hi Custard.
I'm eagerly awaiting Dawkin's new book. Apparantly he has at least heard of Stalin, as a review of the book suggests that Dawkins concedes Stalin was probably an atheist. I am surprised that Dawkins would still use this argument. I see little difference between whether the abuse of state powers are carried out by those who profess religion or those who profess atheism. The problem is of too much power in too few hands.
I don't feel entirely comfortable with Dawkins' style at times; especially his concentration on Christianity for most of his vitriol.
We all know Dawkins' views on Christianity and other 'unnecessary' beliefs. I am hoping that much more of the book will focus on how 'the World' would be a better place if such beliefs were abandandoned.
AC
Let's see...Dawkins trained as a biologist and McGrath is a professor of theology. I think I'll take Dawkins' thoughts on evolution over McGrath's. Not surprising McGrath doesn't take on Dawkins' biology. He doesn't "need to"? How biased is that statement? He wouldn't dare since he would immediately be exposed as the fraud he is.
The big advantage of atheism over Xianity is that when you realize you have only one life to live, you know you had best make the most of it. Whereas Xians spend their lives deferring pleasures, worrying about what god thinks, nagging Daddy to bail them out of their troubles, and looking forward to a Nevernever land that will never manifest. That does not necessarily equate to atheists being better people than theists, although generally studies have shown that they are smarter, better educated, and less likely to be in prison.
I applaud Dawkins for doing his damnest to debunk Xianity's juvenile mythology.
'Whereas Xians spend their lives deferring pleasures, worrying about what god thinks, nagging Daddy to bail them out of their troubles, and looking forward to a Nevernever land that will never manifest.'
... and how biased is that?
'I applaud Dawkins for doing his damnest to debunk Xianity's juvenile mythology.'
Its funny how Christianity - the majority of who's practitioners in this country are as inoffensive a bunch as you will find - foments such ire in some of those who profess a love of rationality.
AC
Quick notes on McGrath -
His degree (Oxford) was in Chemistry.
His first DPhil (at Oxford) was in molecular biophysics.
His second DPhil (still at Oxford) was in theology.
He is Oxford Professor of Historical Theology, and is currently on a Templeton fellowship studying the interaction between science and faith, in which he is generally regarded to be a world-level expert.
From the comments, es, I very much doubt you've read his book.
Besides which, no-one is disputing Dawkins' skills as a biologist.
Worth flagging up that those studies es referred to do exist, but only seem to apply to the US.
The obvious explanation is that of the large cultural divide through the middle of the US.
Of course, in the UK, it's the better educated people who are more likely to be Christians.... Which just goes to show that education doesn't seem to make much difference to religious beliefs overall, which is exactly what you'd expect if the "reasons" people believe aren't much to do with logic.
ES,
If McGrath's Professorship of Theology makes him unqualified to comment on Biology, then why would Dawkins be qualified to comment on Theological matters?
The fact is that Dawkins' books have shifted over the years from challenging and brilliant biological theories and statements, to increasingly disgruntled atheistic rants. As a scientist, I have no problem with his science. And as a Christian I have no problems with Atheists. But I wish that they would find a new champion - one who didn't have all the features of the worst of the religious fundamentalists. It's a great shame that a zoologist who has come up with some really original ideas about biology is now better know for being a militant atheist.
To be honest, the pros and cons of Atheistic versus Theistic living are completely irrelevant to the debate here - it doesn't add anything to our understanding of which is more likely to be conceptually right.
I better go. I want to finish my PhD before the police catch me and lock me up with the other Christians...
I, like hj, would be interested in reading the notes. Again, no hurry.
I think I'll take Dawkins' thoughts on evolution over McGrath's.
Umm...
As far as I can remember, Dawkins thinks we evolved, McGrath thinks we probably evolved.
The difference is on the theology they then try spinning off that.
Dawkins says we evolved, therefore God doesn't exist.
McGrath says we might well have evolved, but that doesn't say anything about whether God exists or not.
And AC - nice to know that it's not just Christians who notice it....
Why do you think people respond that way?
Hi Custard. Brief interlude from work before I have to go back for the Open Evening :(
Why do people respond that way? I responded in the same way when I was both younger and much more left wing. Since becoming more 'classically liberal' in my politics I have become more tolerant of other people's views.
My atheism is a result of my not needing to bring in God to further account for the world as I see it and also in not having been convinced by the evidence for the existence of God. But, I accept that there are people smarter than me who don't share these views. In short I have discovered humility and a willingness to try to discuss the alternative viewpoint in a reasonable manner.
AC
'Of course, in the UK, it's the better educated people who are more likely to be Christians....'
True enough. However, those who hate (the most accurate word I can think of) Christians in the UK are largely well educated. These are often the same people who will believe in just about any other mumbo-jumbo as long as it has the allure of being non-mainstream. My entirely subjective opinion of course!
AC
AC - You're right that the debate seems to be much more polarised at fairly high levels of education. Maybe that's partly because we (as people who have been educated to a higher level than average) are generally more intellectually arrogant than average.
Incidentally, you are, I believe, probably the best academically qualified person on this thread, for the time being at least.
And I'm so glad I no longer have to do Open Evenings! You have my sympathies.
On the other hand, I'm not sure you'd be keen on compulsory chapel services four days a week...
You make a good point about the intellectual arrogance of the highly educated.
I may be the most qualified on this thread (at the moment, as you say!), but I'm not necessarily the smartest :) When it comes to issues of theology my ignorance knows no bounds. My address to a congregation: 'Right, er, God - what's it all about, eh...?'
Open Evening - picture my face as an Autistic child runs towards a roaring Bunsen flame with acid to hand whilst Parents watch on. The joys :)
AC
"Its funny how Christianity - the majority of who's practitioners in this country are as inoffensive a bunch as you will find - foments such ire in some of those who profess a love of rationality."
My ire has little to do with your personal desire to believe in any given myth. My ire has more to do with passing off said myths as truth and deluding millions of people. For myself, I was a theist for many decades and I resent wasting so many years in the expectation of another life.
If you are fully aware of the origins and development of the Xian myth, and choose to believe it reveals some underlying truth about the nature of the universe, then I can hardly object. However, most believers in Xianity (here in the US) are motivated by a hope for heaven and fear of hell and have little to no deeper understanding of the religion's history. They also have very little understanding of how science disproves much of what theology asserts about the nature of the universe and humanity. The leaders of the church have done their best throughout history to suppress science, learning and knowledge. Why, if they have nothing to fear?
es - in case you hadn't noticed, that bit you quoted was said by ac, who is an atheist...
Post a Comment