Wednesday, February 7, 2007 | Reason : Backlash | print version

Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

by Alister McGrath, The Mail

Reposted from:
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770

He is a 'psychotic delinquent', invented by mad, deluded people. And that's one of Dawkins's milder criticisms.

Dawkins, Oxford University's Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, is on a crusade.

His salvo of outrage and ridicule is meant to rid the world of its greatest evil: religion. "If this book works as I intend," he says, "religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." But he admits such a result is unlikely. "Dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads" (that's people who believe in God) are "immune to argument", he says.

I have known Dawkins for more than 20 years; we are both Oxford professors. I believe if anyone is "immune to argument" it is him. He comes across as a dogmatic, aggressive propagandist.

Of course, back in the Sixties, everyone who mattered was telling us that religion was dead. I was an atheist then. Growing up as a Protestant in Northern Ireland, I had come to believe religion was the cause of the Province's problems. While I loved studying the sciences at school, they were important for another reason: science disproved God. Believing in God was only for sad, mad and bad people who had yet to be enlightened by science.

I went up to Oxford to study the sciences in 1971, expecting my atheism to be consolidated. In the event, my world was turned upside down. I gave up one belief, atheism, and embraced another, Christianity. Why? There were many factors. For a start, I was alarmed by some atheist writings, which seemed more preoccupied with rubbishing religion than seeking the truth.

Above all, I encountered something at Oxford that I had failed to meet in Northern Ireland - articulate Christians who were able to challenge my atheism. I soon discovered two life-changing things.

First, Christianity made a lot of sense. It gave me a new way of seeing and understanding the world, above all, the natural sciences. Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life.

I kept studying the sciences, picking up a PhD for research in molecular biophysics. But my heart and mind had been seduced by theology. It still excites me today.

Dawkins and I both love the sciences; we both believe in evidence-based reasoning. So how do we make sense of our different ways of looking at the world? That is one of the issues about which I have often wished we might have a proper discussion. Our paths do cross on the television networks and we even managed to spar briefly across a BBC sofa a few months back. We were also filmed having a debate for Dawkins's recent Channel 4 programme, The Root Of All Evil? Dawkins outlined his main criticisms of God, and I offered answers to what were clearly exaggerations and misunderstandings. It was hardly rocket science.

For instance, Dawkins often compares belief in God to an infantile belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, saying it is something we should all outgrow. But the analogy is flawed. How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood?

Many people discover God decades after they have ceased believing in the Tooth Fairy. Dawkins, of course, would just respond that people such as this are senile or mad, but that is not logical argument. Dawkins can no more 'prove' the non-existence of God than anyone else can prove He does exist.

Most of us are aware that we hold many beliefs we cannot prove to be true. It reminds us that we need to treat those who disagree with us with intellectual respect, rather than dismissing them - as Dawkins does - as liars, knaves and charlatans.

But when I debated these points with him, Dawkins seemed uncomfortable. I was not surprised to be told that my contribution was to be cut.

The Root Of All Evil? was subsequently panned for its blatant unfairness. Where, the critics asked, was a responsible, informed Christian response to Dawkins? The answer: on the cutting-room floor.

The God Delusion is similarly full of misunderstanding. Dawkins simply presents us with another dogmatic fundamentalism. Maybe that's why some of the fiercest attacks on The God Delusion are coming from other atheists, rather than religious believers. Michael Ruse, who describes himself as a 'hardline Darwinian' philosopher, confessed that The God Delusion made him 'embarrassed to be an atheist'.

The dogmatism of the work has attracted wide criticism from the secularist community. Many who might be expected to support Dawkins are trying to distance themselves from what they see as an embarrassment.

Aware of the moral obligation of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many atheists have been disturbed by Dawkins's crude stereotypes and seemingly pathological hostility towards religion. In fact, The God Delusion might turn out to be a monumental own goal - persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant as the worst that religion can offer.

Alister McGrath is professor of theology at Oxford University. His new book The Dawkins Delusion?, co-authored by Joanna Collicutt McGrath, is published by SPCK at £7.99.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 155 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #20899 by Myryama on February 7, 2007 at 1:47 am

Prof. McGrath - please post your evidence for the existence of God.

Other Comments by Myryama

2. Comment #20900 by FitzChivalry on February 7, 2007 at 1:55 am

"Dawkins simply presents us with another dogmatic fundamentalism." That's so radically different to basing your beliefs on a 2000 year old book comprised of even older superstitions and legends.

"How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood?" I would be more inclined to believe in Saint Nicholas, given that he actually existed, and the story of Santa Claus evolved out of this. Indeed, it is a good example of how mundane events get inflated as they are re-told, which must be how much of the Bible was invented.

It seems rather hypocritical to accuse Dawkins of dealing in absolutes when there are so many dogmatic preachers who do just that. But then, the Church is well known for that trait.

Other Comments by FitzChivalry

3. Comment #20902 by linck on February 7, 2007 at 2:04 am

"Dawkins can no more 'prove' the non-existence of God than anyone else can prove He does exist."

As a scientist you should know that it is impossible to prove a negative. God can easily prove he exist by paying us a visit.

"For instance, Dawkins often compares belief in God to an infantile belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, saying it is something we should all outgrow. But the analogy is flawed. How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood?"

Maybe because as adults we become Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy ourselves?
Buying presents is a little less skill that the claimed creation of the whole universe.

"First, Christianity made a lot of sense. It gave me a new way of seeing and understanding the world, above all, the natural sciences. Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life."

First: how does Christianity help to understand natural sciences, unless by adding "a higher spirituality and meaning" to it?
Second: isn't is a bit arrogant on your side to imply the purpose and dignity can only be found through christianity?

....You couldn't really find a more inventive title for you book????

Other Comments by linck

4. Comment #20903 by infidel_michael on February 7, 2007 at 2:04 am

"First, Christianity made a lot of sense. It gave me a new way of seeing and understanding the world, above all, the natural sciences."

- an example, pleeeeease!!!

"Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life."

- as well as Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, Humanism, Art, Science, Sport, ..

"Dawkins simply presents us with another dogmatic fundamentalism."

- of course, rejection of dogmas is another dogmatism, therfore there are only dogmatists and no freethinking people, right?

"In fact, The God Delusion might turn out to be a monumental own goal - persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant as the worst that religion can offer."

- of course, intolerance of intolerance is intolerance itself, so everybody must tolerate religious intolerance, otherwise you are as intolerant as religion and therefore you should shut up ..

Other Comments by infidel_michael

5. Comment #20904 by Chris Davis on February 7, 2007 at 2:07 am

Oh, to have a penny for every proselytising god-botherer who prefaces his speech by announcing that he 'used to be an atheist' - but now, of course, the scales have fallen from his eyes.

Dig deeper and you discover that in fact he was simply so ignorant he had no stance at all on the issue. His 'enlightenment' will have consisted entirely of finally noticing the god argument, and swallowing its simplistic answers whole.

McGrath is certainly one of these, and is in every way a Joiner: he was an 'atheist' when it was cool to be, and a theist for similar reasons. No doubt he can count himself lucky that his social circle never tried heroin.

CD

Other Comments by Chris Davis

6. Comment #20905 by Richard Dawkins on February 7, 2007 at 2:08 am

Alister McGrath has now written two books with my name in the title. The poet W B Yeats, when asked to say something about bad poets who made a living by parasitizing him, wrote the splendid line: "Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?"

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

7. Comment #20906 by GoodbyeGodNZ on February 7, 2007 at 2:11 am

More theodrivel!!! Stick with it Richard. You're right on the mark. If it takes intolerance then that's what we'll give them. Religion has been sucking on the blood of tolerant societies for years. If we atheists are to have self respect we can't in any way tolerate or condone madness and anyone who believes in a higher intelligence (or any of the thousands of variations of God that I've heard described), has a slice of madness ranging from a mere afternoon tea portion to the whole cake, depending on their religion, denomination and personal infliction. (Whoops! Sorry, long sentence / rant)

I've noticed that many religious players in this current theist/atheist phase seem to want to smooth over the conflict of opinion and find common ground of some type so they can quietly move on and carry on with their madness. Quite simply there is no common ground when it comes to fact or fiction and to even contemplate going there is an insult to our intelligent and unshackled minds.

Other Comments by GoodbyeGodNZ

8. Comment #20909 by Tycho the Dog on February 7, 2007 at 2:22 am

Oh no, not another 'atheism is just another form of belief' argument.

Prof McGrath's claims to prior atheism are distinctly reminiscent of C.S Lewis'. Christians just love the idea of an athiest come back into the fold.

It does strike me that Lewis and McGrath are of a type of academic/intellectual with an uncanny ability to persuade themselves through their own weak arguments, and in the face of the evidence -or lack thereof. I think this type of reasoned self-delusion was also present in the Oxbridge intellectuals who continued supporting Soviet Communism, to the extent of betraying their own country, in spite of abundent evidence that Stalin was a murderous monster.

Other Comments by Tycho the Dog

9. Comment #20910 by kmccardle on February 7, 2007 at 2:22 am

It is true you can't disprove the existence of god, but this tired argument is still easily met by the answer "You can't disprove fairies." The standard scientific stance is skepticism, one cannot solidly claim something exists until it can be shown to exist. Quarks are a perfect example of this. While they were theorized to exist, they were not accepted until solid evidence was found. If theologians want to theorize god exists, fine, but until they can submit proof of existence everyone else should be skeptical.

Other Comments by kmccardle

10. Comment #20915 by infidel_michael on February 7, 2007 at 2:33 am

One of the most used stupid religious tricks in discussion with atheists is to accuse them of dogmatism. When I see this on TV, atheists seem to be surprised with it and are not able to answer this non-sense.

I think the adequate answer to this accusation could be this:

1. Atheism is rejection of religious dogmas
2. Rejection of dogmas is NOT dogmatism, otherwise there could be only dogmatics
3. Rejection of dogmas means to ask questions: Is it true? How do you know that it is true? Is there any possibility how to prove that? Is there any other explanation available? etc. This means open-mindedness or freethinking.
4. Freethinking is the opposite of dogmatism, it opens the door for another views, not only for 1 dogma.
5. Therefore dogmatic atheist = dogmatic freethinker, is an oxymoron

Other Comments by infidel_michael

11. Comment #20916 by Will in Aus on February 7, 2007 at 2:46 am

The entire article is McGrath likening himself to Dawkins ("we are both Oxford Professors" and "we both believe in evidence based reasoning") in an attempt to convince people he is worth taking notice of, and then proceeding to try and add credibility to his religious views by stating his love for science and "evidence based reasoning". Grow up Alister. Argue properly or shut up.

Other Comments by Will in Aus

12. Comment #20917 by ChocolatePocket on February 7, 2007 at 2:48 am

For a start, I was alarmed by some atheist writings, which seemed more preoccupied with rubbishing religion than seeking the truth.

Of course you would be alarmed; understanding the reasons and arguments for atheism can be unsettling at first. And besides, who says that religion doesn't need rubbishing?

First, Christianity made a lot of sense. It gave me a new way of seeing and understanding the world, above all, the natural sciences. Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life.

Correction - some of Christianity makes a lot of sense. The vast majority of what we're told in the bible does not. Christianity works in the same way that following your natural and instinctual morals works. And theres a great deal of growing evidence and theory that suggests that our existing morals make sense!

Dawkins often compares belief in God to an infantile belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, saying it is something we should all outgrow. But the analogy is flawed. How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood?

Alright then, what about belief in Tarot cards and water divining? Please do not forget that a person can just as easily delude themselves as another person can, not least in the absense of any evidence.

Many people discover God decades after they have ceased believing in the Tooth Fairy. Dawkins, of course, would just respond that people such as this are senile or mad

I have to disagree with this. There are numerous occasions in TGD alone where Dawkins offers respect and admiration for leading church figures (even though he admits to suspecting they might be 'closet atheists').

Most of us are aware that we hold many beliefs we cannot prove to be true.

This statement is true. However, how many of those beliefs are held in the absense of a reasoned argument?

I really am fed up of articles and statements in the press which can be picked apart so easily that all you're left with is a pathetic, whining meandering collection of oppinionated thoughts.

Edit: appologies for the unecessary spacing: this is my first post :)

Other Comments by ChocolatePocket

13. Comment #20919 by mattjuan on February 7, 2007 at 2:59 am

Thanks, infidel_michael, that helped me get some of my arguments straight for the next time I'm faced with the uphill task of converting the believer.
I read McGraths book "The twilight of atheism" and his views haven't become any more sophisticated since. Doesn't matter how well he writes, the fact that his argument is vacuous soon becomes apparent.
As for treating those who disagree with intelectual respect, show us a decent argumnet and we'll respect it. As H.L.Mencken once said "religion deserves no more respect than a pile of garbage."

Other Comments by mattjuan

14. Comment #20925 by scottishgeologist on February 7, 2007 at 3:11 am

First we had "Dawkins God" now we have "Dawkins Delusion" what next I wonder?

McGrath has certainly got a thing about RD hasnt he? Obsessive maybe? Or perhaps having to face up to the fact that people are starting to listen, starting to think, starting to say "hang on, maybe Dawkins is right"

To give a book a title that is in itself an ad hominem attack speaks volumes. After all RD isnt the only one in the vanguard although he is probably the best known in the UK - theres Harris, Dennett, Randi et al all doing their stuff as well.

At least "the Atheist Delusion" would have been a slightly more sensible title.

Just shows how the god botherers are running scared, their cages well and truly rattled.

Time to press home the attack...

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

15. Comment #20926 by 42nd on February 7, 2007 at 3:16 am

[quote] Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins [/quote]

so, they want us to stop behaving like gods, so they can behave like god himself approves their actions against us.

Other Comments by 42nd

16. Comment #20927 by Martin on February 7, 2007 at 3:26 am

By Alister McGrath

Alister McWrath?

Other Comments by Martin

17. Comment #20928 by eccles on February 7, 2007 at 3:27 am

Is this McGrath English or an American pretending to be English? He would do much better in the Bible Belt of the United Christian States of America where he would be friends. I am on a Group that has some USA (UCSA) Bible Belt members who treat me the same because I am an Atheist. I am not American. I am Australian, live in Australia and never have any desire to visit America again. I was there in 1968 and saw enough.

Other Comments by eccles

18. Comment #20930 by Ivar on February 7, 2007 at 3:30 am

I can't get rid of the feeling that this professor is a bit jealous of the recognition and attention Dawkins is getting in the media and from the intelligentsia around world.

Or maybe this is just a way to earn an easy buck leeching on the success of his colleague.

Who knows, but it's getting a bit tiresome to read this ad hominem attacks and "arguments" based on (deliberate?) misinterpretations of Dawkins writings.

Other Comments by Ivar

19. Comment #20931 by heinitz on February 7, 2007 at 3:34 am

"Christianity made a lot of sense. It gave me a new way of seeing and understanding the world, above all, the natural sciences. Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life."

Proof in his own words that Professor McGrath is a theist because it provides him comfort. Whether God actually exists is irrelevant.

Other Comments by heinitz

20. Comment #20932 by anon on February 7, 2007 at 3:35 am

All he has are straw-man attacks against Dawkins and atheists in general. Has he presented a single argument for the existence of God which hasn't already been debunked?

I can only imagine the terror he suppresses as he drums up yet more spurious arguments to protect his faith addiction. Slimy apologists like these offend me almost more than the psychotic fundies - who are at least bold enough to admit their unflinching irrationality.

Other Comments by anon

21. Comment #20934 by godisanidiot on February 7, 2007 at 3:51 am

Indeed, Richard, a parasite.

A religious lunatic, frustrated by the amount of well deserved attention 'The God Delusion' gets.

Other Comments by godisanidiot

22. Comment #20935 by godisanidiot on February 7, 2007 at 3:53 am

"Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life."

Of course it brought 'purpose' for you: getting paid for studying fairyology.

Other Comments by godisanidiot

23. Comment #20936 by CDG on February 7, 2007 at 3:53 am

He would have believed in Santa as an adult if that ancient fable was advanced throughout history as a truth and accepted by a majority of his peers. Beleiving in a specific religion, Christianity or Islam or Buddism, is a mob mentality. He was probably doing durgs in the 60's, but was to unstable a mind, and sought shelter in the bussom (?) of the almighty and is just happy he was saved. And no one can convince him otherwise because he now safe and sound...

Face the realities of life Alister...

Other Comments by CDG

24. Comment #20937 by MouthAlmighty on February 7, 2007 at 3:56 am

I read McGraths book "The twilight of atheism" and his views haven't become any more sophisticated since. Doesn't matter how well he writes, the fact that his argument is vacuous soon becomes apparent.

Just finished reading this myself. The entire thrust of his argument is that (since everyone actually believes in god) atheism is merely an alternative religion; a faith position adopted by people who have a dislike for the church or god. Expressing an opinion about god is to acknowledge his existence, so the atheist position is only adopted for political reasons and has nothing to do with honest judgements about the god hypothesis.

For those of you unfamiliar with him you can find some videos of lectures - some specifically relating to Dawkins - here...

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/lectures.html

He's actually quite entertaining - complete prat with all the intellectual muscle of a Sun editorial - but entertaining nonetheless.

Other Comments by MouthAlmighty

25. Comment #20940 by David James on February 7, 2007 at 4:00 am

I find this all horribly depressing. I was preparing some intelligent responses to Professor McGrath's article, but what's the point? This really isn't a cop-out. Any theists out there reading this please don't accuse me of trying to refute your position without presenting an argument. I'm not arguing today. I haven't the strength. And I'm not talking to you anyway. I'm talking to my fellow atheists who don't need me point out the myriad flaws present in what McGrath and his ilk have to offer.

So I guess the gist of my posting here is:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!

I'm going to go and lie down now.

Other Comments by David James

26. Comment #20942 by LookToWindward on February 7, 2007 at 4:08 am

Alister McGrath's "Dawkins' God", is a terribly feeble attempt to counter Dawkins' arguments. Most of its content consists of accusing him of overstepping the bounds of his expertise (McGrath's one of those theologians who basically thinks you have to believe in god before you can criticise religion); and attacking a pathetically literal strawman interpretation of memes.

I expect no better from this new book.

Still, I would be interested to hear from Richard his side of the story regarding the cutting of McGrath's interview from the Root of All Evil documentary.

Other Comments by LookToWindward

27. Comment #20943 by infidel_michael on February 7, 2007 at 4:13 am

- There is no piece of evidence supporting the existence of extraterrestrials.
- Do stop behaving as if you are an extraterrestrial!

:)

Other Comments by infidel_michael

28. Comment #20946 by scooternyc on February 7, 2007 at 4:23 am

Two questions for Mr. McGrath:

"Why is it so important that god exists for you?"

and

"Would you behave any differently in your life if god didn't exist?"

Other Comments by scooternyc

29. Comment #20950 by gimlibengloin on February 7, 2007 at 4:55 am

Oh dear, have you seen the 'whipping' that Phillip Bell has handed out to poor Professor Dawkins on:

www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4900

It is strange that atheists continue to indulge in such useless arguments and to heed those who use them.

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

30. Comment #20958 by BillySands on February 7, 2007 at 5:55 am

Of course St Richard is not acting like god. He has not killed anyone for being firstborn in egypt or gay or whistling on the sabbath. He is also real, I have seen him.
gimlibengloin
I dont know why, but I kind of like you, so I am going to be nice. That article was a complete bag of toss (nicer than saying shite don't you think :-) ). I despair. Nothing works at 100% efficiency. It is a lie, as well as vague. This "scientific fact" is published in some creation journal and not something reputable like the peer reviewed "journal of biological chemistry" which publishes loads on enzymology.
Irreducible complex flagella - dont think so, read about the bacterial syringe.
The arguement from design only appeals to gaps in understanding. It is not a valid reason to claim design. It is basically the arguement from incredulity given a pseudointellectual spin in a vain attempt to gain some credibility. How would YOU demonstrate something is designed and test this? I'm affraid that gene families and the fossil record argue againt design. Devise an experiment for your hypothesis and tell us about it

prob wont be back on for a bit, so take care.

Other Comments by BillySands

31. Comment #20962 by DavidMcC on February 7, 2007 at 6:03 am

"I gave up one belief, atheism, and embraced another, Christianity. Why? There were many factors. For a start, I was alarmed by some atheist writings, which seemed more preoccupied with rubbishing religion than seeking the truth."
Well, the duck shoot is always a favourite at the fair, isn't it? You shouldn't blame its customers.

Other Comments by DavidMcC

32. Comment #20966 by Greywizard on February 7, 2007 at 6:13 am

What an incredibly shallow response to Dawkins! But this is only to be expected from someone who wrote "The Twilight of Atheism," which is such a poor piece of scholarship that it is amazing that someone actually printed the book.

Notice that McGrath doesn't give us any examples of the offences that he accuses Dawkins of, not one. It's assertion all the way. And one of the oddest things is that he still seems to think that 'you can't prove that god doesn't exist' is an argument!

The other aspect of McGrath's piece that should grate on anyone's sensitivity is the way he has of enlisting other people on his side without naming names or counting heads. He merely claims that 'The dogmatism of the work has attracted wide criticism from the secularist community. Many who might be expected to support Dawkins are trying to distance themselves from what they see as an embarrassment.' Michael Ruse is the only name mentioned, and Michael Ruse is a particularly glaring example of public ambiguity. After all, over the affair of Dennett's letter to the NYT, Ruse is in bed with Michael Dembski, a leading creationist.

Another point about the quote in the last paragraph. What does McGrath mean by 'the secularist community'? After all, Christians can be secularist too, since secularism is just the belief that political arrangements should leave out religious concerns. Secular democracies are polities in which religious belief may be freely chosen, but where such beliefs do not govern how we live together in political communities. McGrath might like to look the word up.

A last point. McGrath accuses Dawkins of dogmatic fundamentalism, but again he gives no evidence. He does say that he and Dawkins both share a commitment to evidence based reasoning. Could have fooled me!

Other Comments by Greywizard

33. Comment #20974 by Riley on February 7, 2007 at 6:43 am

eccles wrote: Is this McGrath English or an American pretending to be English? He would do much better in the Bible Belt of the United Christian States of America where he would be friends. [... ]I live in Australia and never have any desire to visit America again. I was there in 1968 and saw enough

quite impressive. You've managed to contrive the writtings of some bitter Irish-British guy into a generalized attack on all Americans. You're right, America has shouldered more than its fair share of bigots already; there's not enough room here for more you. Sorry Australia, you'll have to bear the burden of this one yourself.

--

Other Comments by Riley

34. Comment #20978 by gcdavis on February 7, 2007 at 7:24 am

McGrath is another throw back, a "Scientist" unable or unwilling to subject his belief to rigorous scrutiny.

When I enjoy a good drama I temporarily suspend disbelief, the characters and situation have become "real", the emotions felt and understood and when it is over I may discuss the writing, acting and directing and if it is has been a good play, perhaps the light it shed on the human condition, but afterwards I resume my disbelief and re-enter the real world.

People like McGrath live in a state of permanent suspension of disbelief, an infantile world of fantasy with a sentimental attachment to the trappings of faith, the rituals, the art, the buildings, the smells, they are lazy and complacent or perhaps just scared.

For the bold among us like Dawkins the time has come to confront the indoctrination of people by religion before we slip back into another dark age.

Other Comments by gcdavis

35. Comment #20982 by Maurizio on February 7, 2007 at 7:39 am

This is pathetic. He claims to believe in evidence yet he claims to be a Christian.

Other Comments by Maurizio

36. Comment #20984 by cheshirecat on February 7, 2007 at 7:41 am

Two Oxford professors bickering. There truly is nothing new.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

37. Comment #20985 by MiloC on February 7, 2007 at 7:43 am

"Do Stop Behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins"

Professor McGrath, Do stop behaving as if you know who or what god is and do stop pretending that theology can intelligently tell us anything.

Other Comments by MiloC

38. Comment #20988 by Linda on February 7, 2007 at 7:48 am

How long will until some cranky deist accuses Dawkins and Philip Pullman (His Dark Materials) of killing god? Why are the deluded never embarrassed by their simplistic endorsement of the supernatural?

I think it was Dennett who suggested that the word god is a linguistic contrivance. That is astute and worth remembering.

Back to Pullman – does anyone know why he's sold out to Disney and maybe has recanted the end of god:

God is cut from film of Dark Materials

"THE Hollywood adaptation of Philip Pullman's trilogy His Dark Materials, in which two children do battle with an evil, all-powerful church, is being rewritten to remove anti-religious overtones. Chris Weitz, the director, has horrified fans by announcing that references to the church are likely to be banished in his film. Meanwhile the "Authority", the weak God figure, will become "any arbitrary establishment that curtails the freedom of the individual".
The studio wants alterations because of fears of a backlash from the Christian Right in the United States. The changes are being made with the support of Pullman, who told The Times last year that he received "a large amount" for the rights"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article400396.ece

Other Comments by Linda

39. Comment #20989 by glittergulch on February 7, 2007 at 7:53 am

I don't understand the notion that Dawkins is being dogmatic and closed minded. Is the opposite of dogmatic just accepting every single concept and thought in the universe with equal weight? He's NOT dogmatic because he is open to any new discovery and concept that might add to knowledge. Hell, he'll be the first to tell you that if someone improves on or comes up with a better theory than Darwin's own he'll be open to it. But being open to other people's ideas means being capable of discarding them when they don't bear fruit. He (and the rest of us) is open to any new idea looking forward that is worth a look. Doesn't mean he needs to cling to the old ideas that have outlived their usefulness.

Other Comments by glittergulch

40. Comment #20993 by MohaMad on February 7, 2007 at 8:07 am

My natural language is not English, so may be I could not understand Alister McGrath's logic:
Dawkins is a god.
You are an atheist.
So you can not believe in Dawkins.

Other Comments by MohaMad

41. Comment #20994 by MohaMad on February 7, 2007 at 8:08 am

Other Comments by MohaMad

42. Comment #20998 by David James on February 7, 2007 at 8:12 am

Hi MohaMad,

I guess that makes about as much sense as any of it yeah.

Other Comments by David James

43. Comment #20999 by tall penguin on February 7, 2007 at 8:28 am

"I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life."

That's a very unscientific definition of "worked".

tall penguin

Other Comments by tall penguin

44. Comment #21001 by SMART on February 7, 2007 at 8:37 am

"Christianity made a lot of sense. It gave me a new way of seeing and understanding the world, above all, the natural sciences. Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life."

This statement should fascinate any scientist who is interested in the workings of the human brain. This apparently intelligent man has managed to delude himself that somewhere up in the sky is an invisible friend who will protect him and reward him after death. So sad.

Other Comments by SMART

45. Comment #21005 by Jack Rawlinson on February 7, 2007 at 8:52 am

Same old crap. Same old inattentiveness. Same old fallacy-strewing. Same old misrepresentation of RD's position. Same old pathetic religious neediness.

Boring.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

46. Comment #21007 by Dutch_labrat on February 7, 2007 at 9:12 am

No arguments, dismissed.

Other Comments by Dutch_labrat

47. Comment #21008 by kaiserkriss on February 7, 2007 at 9:13 am

EAch and every one of "Professor" McGrath's spiteful and personal, totally unprofessional critisisims can be turned around and used against him. How can this person look in the mirror every morning and still profess to be a true Christian with such venemous attacks?
Seems to be a typical case of paternalistic "do as I say and not do as I do" of the worst kind.
If anything it is RD's quiet,logical, unflappable style that carries the argument on presentation alone,rather than the bombastic,flustered and unsubstantiated attacks by McGrath.
For his unprofessional conduct towards a fellow Professor alone he should loose his credentials at Oxford. Are there no professional standards of decorum at Oxford, or are they just not enforced?
This so called respected Professor of theology should be brought up on defamation charges, but that would probably just give him a further audience to spread his venom.
However I must give RD credit(above comment) for taking the high road by turning the other cheek. Once again this goes to show morality has nothing to do with religion but everything with personal character!!

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

48. Comment #21009 by quork on February 7, 2007 at 9:14 am

Or maybe this is just a way to earn an easy buck leeching on the success of his colleague.

That is my impression. McGrath wishes to set himself up as the anti-Dawkins. They are both Oxford professors, right? Therefore they are equals in quality of thought and quality of writing, right?

No, the proof is in the pudding, and McGrath's readers will go hungry.

Other Comments by quork

49. Comment #21010 by Neil Parry on February 7, 2007 at 9:14 am

Well, I thought the article was complete and utter rubbish, so much so, that I sent the following to the Mail;

"I started to read the above article with interest, a chance to hear another viewpoint. However, the piece resorted to a personal attack on Richard Dawkins.
Professor Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, looks at all the 'reasons' and 'proofs' of God's existence and slowly and surely in a calculated, reasoned and evidential based way, shows them to be nothing more than hearsay and superstition. This is the way of science, question, experiment, test and conclude. Alister McGrath's only argument is a straw man, he states that he used to be an atheist and he is a scientist, but now he believes in God. This doesn't prove anything and doesn't add any weight to his words. It would appear that Mr McGrath is a scientist of the worst kind, one that clearly 'knows' the answer prior to conducting the experiment. The whole essence of science is to conduct experiments and then draw conclusions not the other way round.
The only worthy point in the whole piece is the statement "Dawkins can no more prove the non existence of God than anyone else can prove he does exist". How true, however, just because something can't be proved or disproved, does not mean that the probability of it existing is 50/50. I can't prove that I do not have fairies at the bottom of my garden, yet I think that we would ALL accept that it is highly improbable. I take it that Mr McGrath doesn't believe in the Sun God, Thor, Zeus or any other of the hundreds of Gods worshipped over the years, can he then explain why he's dismissed these Gods as false and why he's decided that the one he believes in is the right one?
The writer goes on to say that atheists are trying to distance themselves from the book, this is simply untrue and something that can very easily be disproved with merely two minutes looking at the forum pages on the web site www.richarddawkins.net.
Please Mr McGrath, rather than rubbishing something, because you don't like it, try and come up with at least some reasoned and reasonable points for discussion. And please, come up with something other than 'it's my faith, therefore it's true, and you can't tell me I'm wrong'. Oh and any chance you could throw in at least a tiny bit of evidence?"

Neil Parry

Other Comments by Neil Parry

50. Comment #21011 by quork on February 7, 2007 at 9:18 am

Alister McGrath is professor of theology

Here's Pope Benedict XVI making a joke about departments of theology:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

"I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn... The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties... This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God."

Other Comments by quork

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 | Next | Last