1. Comment #21931 by Peter Hearty on February 11, 2007 at 11:23 pm

"I don't know" must be the most underused phrase in the English language. I often wish people would use it more. In particular, I wish those with strong religious convictions would recognise what a strength it is to admit the limits of our current understanding.

Other Comments by Peter Hearty

2. Comment #21932 by SteveKisko on February 11, 2007 at 11:24 pm

Right on, Richard.

I am anxiously awaiting a response from McGrath.

Other Comments by SteveKisko

3. Comment #21933 by Gironzolatore on February 11, 2007 at 11:41 pm

It's also always interesting to watch how many apologists for religious belief from a particular denomination disingenuously presume they are mounting a general defence of theism when facing off against non-believers whilst otherwise remaining engaged in endless theological demarcation and definition disputes with other believers.
They claim, based on their specific "faith", without empirical evidence, to know some generally applicable "truth", can't reach any consensus about what it is, then deride those who call them on it as arrogant.

Other Comments by Gironzolatore

4. Comment #21936 by drive1 on February 12, 2007 at 12:20 am

Bullseye!

Other Comments by drive1

5. Comment #21937 by Conrad on February 12, 2007 at 12:29 am

Here here! HERE HERE!

Other Comments by Conrad

6. Comment #21938 by DNAtheist on February 12, 2007 at 12:32 am

Get 'em, Dawkins! It's high time someone confronted theists on their false claims of humility.

Other Comments by DNAtheist

7. Comment #21943 by Clappers on February 12, 2007 at 12:48 am

Richard Dawkins was quoted in an acceptance speech at the Academy Awards last night. Maybe the general public will start to take interest in real science

Other Comments by Clappers

8. Comment #21945 by toomanytribbles on February 12, 2007 at 12:51 am

that was an excellent post to wake up to.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

9. Comment #21948 by stpetes on February 12, 2007 at 1:04 am

Dear Richard,

Of course the disciples are going to love your post. But do you really think calling your Oxford colleagues 'fleas' is going to do anything to curb your reputation for arrogance? And you know as well as I do that your statement about McGarth building a career upon your back is just false. McGarth got his PhD in biology, and his theology professorship in Oxford, long before he wrote against your atheism. Maybe you think it is about the book sales. Perhaps it is but then who are you to judge McGarth on that? After all he was a very sucessfull author long before he wrote against you. And could not the same accusation be used against you - that you have made millions writing about a God whom you believe does not exist? You are surely entitled to argue your case without being entitled a money grabber - and McGrath and others are just as entitled to disagree with you in public, without being accused of seeking to build their careers upon you. I'm afraid such accusations just make you come across as self absorbed. You are not that important!

Anyway your letter deserved a response and I posted the following to The Times this morning. Doubtless it will get the usual dogs abuse (if it is allowed to stay on this Fan Club website) and doubtless you can and will dismiss it as yet another person seeking to ride on your coattails to get their name in the paper, or the rantings of some lunatic fundamentalist who just can't see THE Truth.

David

Dear Editor,


Richard Dawkins (Feb 12th) accuses his Oxford colleague Professor Alister McGrath of arrogance and of 'building a career' upon his back, whilst comparing him with a flea. Professor Dawkins should perhaps allow for the possibility that those of us who disagree with him do so because we actually disagree with him, rather than because we want to build careers on his back. McGrath built his career as a scientist and theologian long before he ever wrote about Dawkins. He is qualified to comment on the relationship between religion and science because not only is he a theology professor, he also has a PhD in biology. Dawkins on the other hand, whilst being a brilliant scientist, has no understanding of theology and covers for this by declaring that theology is not even an academic discipline. After thousands of years of theological reflection and philosophy along comes the prophet Dawkins and announces that there is no evidence for God. Perhaps he will forgive those of us who are not quite ready to ditch everything for such simplistic fundamentalist propositions.



It is clear that Dawkins is using his post as Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, not to promote science, but rather his own atheistic materialist philosophy. Using the language he does in his letter does not advance his cause and indeed makes him sound like a self-important and petulant fundamentalist whose only resort to those who disagree with him is mockery and accusation.

Other Comments by stpetes

10. Comment #21954 by Howzat on February 12, 2007 at 1:27 am

stpetes:

Where is the rest of your letter? You wrote all of that and only addressed Dawkins first paragraph! Do you have anything to say on the meat of the issue?

Other Comments by Howzat

11. Comment #21957 by opposablethumbs on February 12, 2007 at 1:36 am

Oh dear .... before having the temerity to utter a word about their speciousness, one must clearly get (yet again) degrees in fairyology, unicornology, hobgoblinology etc.(as opposed to actual disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, moral philosophy, social anthropology ....). "lunatic fundamentalist"? That would be the beam in your own eye obscuring your vision, I'm afraid. "THE Truth" is the province of fundamentalism; one of the defining characteristics of reason is that it is always ready to look at genuine new evidence.

Other Comments by opposablethumbs

12. Comment #21960 by stpetes on February 12, 2007 at 1:43 am

Howzat - the Times only publishes short letters so I had to deal with the substance of Dawkins letter - a vicious and unwarranted attack on McGarth and his motives.

The meat of the issue? Is this the paragraph where Dawkins (speaking on behalf of all scientists) boasts about his own humility?! I did not see much substance there - just so many presuppostions and prejudged assumptions that it would take a book to reply! For what it's worth McGarth admits that there are many things he does not know. You will also find that there are many scientists who are also theists. Dawkins once again provides a false dichotomy.

Other Comments by stpetes

13. Comment #21961 by ScienceBreath on February 12, 2007 at 1:49 am

stpetes demonstrates the carefully rehearsed indignation of the ignorant theist who has yet to actually read any of the arguments put forth by either side.

Alister McGrath's recent piece criticizing both TGD and Dawkins was so free of substance that I actually felt embarrassed for him. Dawkins, on the other hand, goes to the trouble of presenting an argument--something McGrath has so far failed to do.

stpetes, if you want to contribute and be taken seriously, why not dismantle Dawkins's arguments with some incisive reasoning of your own? McGrath gets a pasting because his articles are so threadbare that he has to attack Dawkins personally. It's pathetic and predictable.

Other Comments by ScienceBreath

14. Comment #21963 by David James on February 12, 2007 at 1:55 am

And who is this "McGarth" guy you keep going on about stpetes?

Other Comments by David James

15. Comment #21965 by Hal9000 on February 12, 2007 at 1:59 am

David (st petes),

These continued jibes about discipleship and Fan Clubs do get rather tiresome. I know some people here have written unpleasant things about you and that is a shame but I think you should let it drop now. Your letters to Dawkins usually come across as snipes at the posters on this website, perhaps you will allow the possibility that there are those who do genuinely agree with Dawkins point of view, with regard to this topic, and are not necessarily part of this personality cult that you allude to.

I realise the in vogue response to Dawkins is to call him a fundamentalist and I suppose the implication that this site is his church falls neatly into that concept, however, if you search around this website, you will find that while most are atheists, there is a wide variety of views on the specifics of Dawkins arguments.

Also, if you feel that Dawkins is employing a tactic of belittling those who disagree with him, perhaps you could seek to rise above that sort of thing rather than replicate it?

Hal

Other Comments by Hal9000

16. Comment #21967 by bitbutter on February 12, 2007 at 2:04 am

"THE Truth" is the province of fundamentalism; one of the defining characteristics of reason is that it is always ready to look at genuine new evidence.

Nicely put opposablethumbs!

Other Comments by bitbutter

17. Comment #21968 by Jef on February 12, 2007 at 2:04 am

'After thousands of years of theological reflection' - stpetes

Perhaps you would like to share with us the 'truths' that theology has uncovered for us in the two millenia? What are the fruits of this ongoing reflection?

Other Comments by Jef

18. Comment #21971 by Russell Blackford on February 12, 2007 at 2:33 am

I'm continually amazed at how many people don't actually understand the meaning of the word "fundamentalist", or affect not to.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

19. Comment #21978 by Jef on February 12, 2007 at 3:00 am

Russell, isn't the term fundamentalist, as used in the context of religious debate, the counter-position to modernism? As in "the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy in the Presbyterian Church", to use Wiki's example.

I wonder if the movement would have been as popular if they had used other antonyms of modern, like 'old-fashioned' and 'out of date'?

:P

Other Comments by Jef

20. Comment #21979 by Stewart on February 12, 2007 at 3:02 am

One really would think, wouldn't one, that, judging by the accusations of intolerance and arrogance so wrathfully hurled against Prof. Dawkins by some theist opponents, the very least he had done was to state categorically that there is no god. The person in the world probably most famous for his atheism, and so villified for it, has never even done that. We really are a bad bunch, if they can't even say that about the "worst" of us. How many promoters of "divinely" inspired morality use "almost certainly" to convince their followers there is a god, as Dawkins does when arguing against the proposition?

Other Comments by Stewart

21. Comment #21989 by Severus on February 12, 2007 at 5:05 am

Richard was correct in one asssertion he has made. we are not yet ready to take on the debate with the religious. he called for a methodology which we could use to promote our position and social status such as was used by the gay pride initiative and the equal rights groups.
in recent months i have noticed (please correct me if i am wrong) that instead of leading the argument we are spending more time defending our position, answering our critics and coming second in the p.r. contest.
the words, Fundamentalism, dogma, faith, belief and others have been turned back upon us by the religious as they organise themselves for the debate.
they are more attuned to managing and administrating a p.r. campaign than atheist are and are 'cleverly' using our own arguments against us.
it is time, i feel that we began to push on in the race and are seen to be leading the debate, driving the nails of terminology into their arguments, refusing to play the game in their ball park, as seems to be happening now and developing confident and unrefutable arguments.
i know that most of our arguments and criticisms are, to us, undeniable and should be 'deadly' to the religious ideologies but i just can't help thinking that we are fragmented, defensive rather than offensive and weak in the debate.
if changing the world is down to who has the better debating skills, then it is a sad, terrible world but the fight, currently, is not on the battle field but in the lecture halls and book shelves and i find it distressing to see our own criticisms turned against us. we have to be sharper and smarter than that.
maybe, as a triviality, we should return to an earlier discussion about which terminology we should use to describe ourselves and the things that we know and feel.

Other Comments by Severus

22. Comment #21991 by ksskidude on February 12, 2007 at 5:13 am

Richard,

The reason McGrath isn't concerned with all those other religions is, well as my friend would put it, "they're all wrong!"
Yes as my friend utters those idiotic words with resounding confidence, I merely look at him with amusement. The funny thing thing is, he thinks I'm a little pathetic, and asked me to just stop reading Dawkins and Harris. To just emmerse myself with the "truth" and I will have a much clearer picture. I told him that is nonsense, and then challenged him to do the same. Stop reading about magic and fairy tales, and only read Dawkins, Harris, Dennett,etc.....

I look forward to tonight, and please let CNN have it for us!!!! I feel proud to say that I am a fan of yours and proud to be an atheist!!!

Other Comments by ksskidude

23. Comment #21994 by Hal9000 on February 12, 2007 at 5:44 am

re comment 21989 by Severus

I totally agree, it is frustrating but just being right is not enough!

Other Comments by Hal9000

24. Comment #21997 by padster1976 on February 12, 2007 at 6:45 am

There's no point in tackling the adults - they believe in human virgin births for crying out loud. We need to take this to kids and erase the mental stain of religion before they become infected with it.

Prevention rather than a cure!

Other Comments by padster1976

25. Comment #22015 by captain underpants on February 12, 2007 at 10:29 am

In a searing attack on Rick Darking's The Fairy Delusion, Alexander McGrunt calls Mr Darking "arrogant", "intolerant", and "a thoroughly rotten chap".

McGrunt, a professor of Fairyology, wrote a stiff letter to The Times, extracts of which are printed below:



Deep within humanity lies a longing to make sense of things. Why are we here? What is life all about? These questions are as old as the human race. So how are we to answer them? Can they be answered at all? Might fairies be part of the answer? Rick Darking, England's grumpiest afairyist, has a wonderfully brash way of dealing with this ... His swashbuckling The Fairy Delusion sweeps to one side "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads", who are "immune to argument". Belief in fairies is just for those who are mad, bad or sad. Science has all the answers - and fairies aren't even on the short-list. Only science-hating idiots think otherwise. End of discussion ... For Darking, things are dazzlingly simple. There is a cosmic battle taking place between reason (represented by science) and superstition (represented by fairies)... Scientists who profess religious belief are appeasers, representing the "Neville Chamberlain" school. You can't be reasonable and religious. It's one or the other - science or faith in fairies. Scientists who believe in fairies are therefore fifth columnists.

...

This quick fix is ideal for those who like glossy, superficial spins on complex questions. But in the real world, things turn out not to be quite that simple. Two other interesting books appeared in the same year as Darking's. Owen Gingerich, Harvard University's distinguished astronomer, published Fairies' Universe. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, brought out The Language of Fairies. Both these scientists, with a long track record of peer-reviewed publications, made the case for belief in fairies as the best and most satisfying explanation of the way things are.

...

It is worth reminding ourselves that the hallmark of intelligence is not whether one believes in fairies or not, but the quality of the processes that underlie one's beliefs.

...

It also shows that it makes little sense to talk about "proof" of a world view, whether Fairian or afairyist.


Fairians will argue that their world view represents a superb way of making sense of things, while accepting that this, like its afairyist counterparts, is open to challenge by sceptics. "I believe in fairies as I believe that the Sun has risen - not only because I see them, but because by them, I see everything else," wrote C. S. Lewis.

Other Comments by captain underpants

26. Comment #22016 by Red Foot Oakie on February 12, 2007 at 10:36 am

Keep the pressure on 'em, Dawkins!

Other Comments by Red Foot Oakie

27. Comment #22028 by Pieter on February 12, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Alister McGrath = A flea on Darwin's Rotweiller. i like it.

Other Comments by Pieter

28. Comment #22031 by kaiserkriss on February 12, 2007 at 12:35 pm

stpetes
Before you get your self all excited and huffy, it would have behooved you to read McGrath's rather low brow and fluffy comments reposted on this site from other sources. Having read those comments by McGrath, you might reconsider your position to some of the comments you have made above.
It is unfortunate that such a "qualified" individual had to resort to demonizing Dr. Dawkins with vitriol, rather than good arguments. JCW

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

29. Comment #22036 by Sam on February 12, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Keep up the good work, Richard!

If your critics had any serious rebuttals to your arguments, they would not have to resort to the kind of ad-hominems and straw men, we see from people like McGrath.

I have already suggested this on the forum, but i hope i will be forgiven for repeating it here. I would love it if we could have a sequel to The God Delusion, something similar to what Sam Harris did with his "Letter to a Christian Nation". Just as the first part of your miniseries "Root of all Evil?" was also titeled "The God Delusion", a great title for the sequel would be "The Virus of Faith".

For one thing i definitely don't think the many awful criticisms of The God Delusion, like the ones put forth by McGrath, should go unanswered. But it is also a matter of keeping people's attention focused on the controversy between faith and reason. I think the creationist's constant focus on the alledged "controversy" regarding evolution, has done much more to make people doubt evolution than any one of their particular arguments, which are all just a bunch of crap anyway.

The genious of The God Delusion is the way it turns the creationist's own weapons against them. I definitely credit your book for the fact that i don't hear the argument from design as often as i used to when debating believers. They may whine on about alledged "flaws" with your "Ultimate Boeing 747" argument (all they are really left with are the familiar "skyhooks", like "God has always existed" or "God is not part of the physical universe"), but you have pretty much single-handedly spoiled their chance to use it themselves.

As you have begun, we all need to continue. The first step has been to simply get the conflict between faith and reason out into the open. The next step as i see it should be to hijack their "teach the controversy" approach along with the "fairness"-argument ("Shouldn't we present both sides of the issue and let people decide for themselves?"). What is ultimately going to break religions iron grip is not a single argument or line of reasoning, but constantly drawing people's attention to every flaw and weakness in their carefully constructed castles in the air.

Happy Darwin Day!

Other Comments by Sam

30. Comment #22040 by stpetes on February 12, 2007 at 2:42 pm

"stpetes demonstrates the carefully rehearsed indignation of the ignorant theist who has yet to actually read any of the arguments put forth by either side."

Having read all of Dawkins and McGarth's works on the subject I think the above post demonstrates just who is ignorant.

"Alister McGrath's recent piece criticizing both TGD and Dawkins was so free of substance that I actually felt embarrassed for him. Dawkins, on the other hand, goes to the trouble of presenting an argument--something McGrath has so far failed to do."

What argument is this? McGrath is a flea?! McGarth is building his career on my back? There is no evidence for God? Please - if this is what you call intellectual debate it is little wonder that the atheist cause is floundering so much.

"stpetes, if you want to contribute and be taken seriously, why not dismantle Dawkins's arguments with some incisive reasoning of your own?"

Been there. Done that. Got the Tshirt. see www.freechurch.org (Todays' Issues and the series on Dawkins). Also got the 'you are an idiot', 'how dare you disagree with our prophet', 'hang him for blasphemy' routine.

Seriously - I think there is a serious case to be made for atheism - but calling people names and then relying on your fans to complain about others calling you names is what is both pathetic and ridiculous.

By the way I think the following posts sum up the fundamentalism of some atheists "I totally agree, it is frustrating but just being right is not enough!"

Other Comments by stpetes

31. Comment #22049 by kkant on February 12, 2007 at 7:05 pm

So, stpetes, are you religious? A young-earth creationist perhaps?

Other Comments by kkant

32. Comment #22102 by stpetes on February 12, 2007 at 11:06 pm

Nope - I hate religion. However I am a Christian. And I am not a young earth creationist because the evidence seems overwhelmingly to point to an old earth and the bible says nothing about the age of the earth.

Thanks for asking - not quite sure what it has to do with the topic..

Other Comments by stpetes

33. Comment #22107 by Hal9000 on February 12, 2007 at 11:23 pm

"By the way I think the following posts sum up the fundamentalism of some atheists "I totally agree, it is frustrating but just being right is not enough!"

That was a joke but thanbks for proving my point!!!!

Other Comments by Hal9000

34. Comment #22127 by Howzat on February 13, 2007 at 1:28 am

stpetes wrote:

"Been there. Done that. Got the Tshirt. see www.freechurch.org (Todays' Issues and the series on Dawkins)."

I took a look and couldn't see any good arguments of why the God of the Bible is true while Allah, the Greek gods or any others are not. Other than the implied dismissal of them being false gods or myths or delusions. You may see it as a "cheap point" but I don't, and I assume nearly everyone on this site wouldn't either.

Other Comments by Howzat

35. Comment #22131 by scottishgeologist on February 13, 2007 at 1:55 am

Howzat

I took a look and couldn't see any good arguments of why the God of the Bible is true while Allah, the Greek gods or any others are not

Good point.

Several weeks ago, on TV, I saw a group of protesting Muslims - one of them held up a placard proclaiming "The Koran is the Third Testament"

Tell me, stpetes, why was this man wrong? Why are Muslims wrong? After all, they accept Jesus as a prophet, they just claim that their religion is a step further on and is the true one.

Makes a degree of sense in a way. If you accept that God revealed himself through Mohammed. Islam is just a further stage in the process - Judaism - Christianity - Islam.

So why is Islam wrong? Are Muslims deluded? And how come only Chritianity is right? After all, the two cannot BOTH be right.

And according to the teachings of both, the false believers are all heading to hell. That means billions of muzzies burning for eternity. Or else, if the muzzies are right, billions of christians suffering eternal torment.

(BTW, Do you really believe that sort of stuff? Do you really preach it? And tell me, after the funeral service for an unbelieving husband, do you tell the grieving widow that her husband (who was never in a church in his life) is now suffering for all eternity? Bet you dont. That would imply a degree of intellectual honesty if you did.)

Of course, it may be, just maybe , might it not , that BOTH religions are wrong? That when you die, thats it. No heaven. No hell. No gods. Its what happens to all other animals after all? Why not the Naked Ape?

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

36. Comment #22160 by the great teapot on February 13, 2007 at 5:01 am

Richard you are an idelogical fanatic because you wish to educate people who refuse to be educated.
You have an unhealthy interest in not taking things on faith. Crazy in its self but you go too far you want other people to think as you do and you want to poison their minds with critical judgement.Burn witch.

Other Comments by the great teapot

37. Comment #22202 by stevencarrwork on February 13, 2007 at 12:36 pm

The irony of somebody in the Free Church of Scotland calling others dogmatic.

Of course, there was no irony, rather it was to be expected, that the Letter to the Times would not deal with Dawkins point that faith is , by definition, founded on dogma.

And that this dogma is believed, well, dogmatically is the best word.

And the letter to the Times did not deal with Dawkins point that McGrath misrepresents Dawkins views on a continuing basis, apparently relying on the fact the people who praise McGrath , in the main, won't read 'The God Delusion' to see how accurately McGrath presents Dawkins views.

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

38. Comment #22206 by tatsie on February 13, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Articulate as always Richard. And as diplomatic as ever. However, I'd have preferred a response like you gave at that Belief Conference late last year. A simple "Fuk Off".

Kind regards, Leighton Dyer

Other Comments by tatsie

39. Comment #22286 by MarcusA on February 13, 2007 at 11:25 pm

"Creationism Is Dead" - A Darwin Day Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwdoUkuHYZ8

Other Comments by MarcusA

40. Comment #22325 by Luis_Cayetano on February 14, 2007 at 7:21 pm

"There is no evidence for God? Please - if this is what you call intellectual debate it is little wonder that the atheist cause is floundering so much."

Evidence? Care to share it with us?

Other Comments by Luis_Cayetano

41. Comment #22365 by TigerDunc on February 15, 2007 at 5:55 am

stpetes - Interesting that you provided a link through to the Free Church (An oxymoron if ever there was one).

You're not David Robertson in disguise are you?

Severus - Excellent post. You are right, there is a methodology, a plan if you like, that we are missing. Rational argument doesn't work against religious belief. A combination of vested commercial and political interest and blind faith makes sure of that.

How do you win a battle when the main thrust of the argument is a lack of belief in anything. Any ideas?

PS - stpete "Was there ever a dog that praised his fleas"

It's called a metaphor. Go look it up.

Other Comments by TigerDunc

42. Comment #22366 by Homo economicus on February 15, 2007 at 6:06 am

For the sake of inquiry I read "Dawkin's God" after having read "The God Delusion". McGrath's arguments come to the conclusion that christianity gives a beauty to existence, a framework from which to go about life with meaning.

Bully for him.

To say that Dawkins is wrong to challenge the intellectual underpinnings of such belief is wrong. In debate you should be able to challenge anything, you need evidence or at least logic on your side and the ability to argue rationally.

Religion is a human concept. It is impossible to prove any supernatural support for any particular faith. Saying that your faith gives you a sense of purpose or a warm glow does not make it true.

The issue with religion is that by taking as gospel a holy book that cannot be debated, allows views to spring which endanger humanity and the world. This is the problem when reason and debate are not allowed, because my God is right so shut up.

There are people seriously saying that God will not allow the environment to kill us so pollute away. That the end of the world is near so do not try and tackle social issues. That killing the non believer is your moral duty to protect the faith. That life after death means that only spirtual matters count. That my faith is more important than what science has to say.

Dawkins is right to get involved. Yet I hope that he concentrates on the public understanding of science. Because I fear that science as a whole is not well taught in the UK and as adults many of us try to undo the damage by reading him.

Other Comments by Homo economicus

43. Comment #22370 by BaronOchs on February 15, 2007 at 9:56 am

Good style quoting Yeats there RD.

Some opponents like to Make out Richard Dawkins is culturally illiterate, for instance:

"Dawkins has made a name for himself by assailing the persistence of religion, philosophy, poetry, and many of the other human activities that constitute culture-as if these represented a threat to modern science.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2002/seeing.htm

Likewise in Dawkins' God McGrath steers clear for the most part of criticising Dawkins' books on evolution. But asserts that A Devil's Chaplain and Unweaving The Rainbow are shallow and poor quality.

He quotes some negative reviews of these books such as:

twin obsessions dominate [A Devil's Chaplain] namely darwinian evolution "hurrah" and religion "boo"

McGrath does not ground his attack in an actual analysis of the book however and I got the impression he was relying on his readers not to have read them. I did read A Devil's Chaplain and didn't at all find what he says to be the case at all. If the above quote is the case what of pieces like the review of Red Strangers or the moving article about Sanderson of Oundle to give only two examples?

Concerning the first quote from the catholic journal just take for starters its assertion he is against poetry. What came across strongly to me in Unweaving the Rainbow was Dawkins' excellent knowledge of poetry and his respect for the poets. He laments the negativity towards science showed by some poets but argues poetry and science should not be seen to be in opposition.

I haven't got Dawkins' God to hand but I recall its main points were a) a (quite good, by no means fatal) critique of Memetics which is all very well but Meme's are not necessary to atheism.

b) He seems to disown William Paley and says his views don't really represent theology. then he asserts that while Science leads to agnosticism the "leap of faith" from there to atheism is equal to that from agnosticism to theism(!) Ridiculous and like I say merely asserted in the book not backed up.

He also says something like "Dawkins assumes complexity implies improbability but this is an assumption that Dawkins's does not substantiate" It seems like a very reasonable assumption at the very least and once again McGrath doesn't develop the point.

Regarding that I recall according to Aquinas et al God is supposed to be "simple" McGrath doesn't pursue that line anyway, I suppose because it would only move not remove the question marks.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

44. Comment #22378 by neander on February 15, 2007 at 7:51 pm

Spot on!

Other Comments by neander

45. Comment #22406 by BaronOchs on February 16, 2007 at 12:57 pm

"When will this guy shut up about McGrath already" you say, all in good time, all in good time, but first some more ranting:

Like I said I haven't got Dawkins' God to hand but I was in a book shop today and I quickly perused it again.

He claims Dawkins' is wrong to call faith belief without evidence and to back this up he cites a very long definition of faith by W.H. Griffith-Thomas (dig that welsh name!).

We only need to look at one part of this definition:

"The conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence"

McGrath's cue to outline what level of evidence might be adequate and then to assess whether that level is met for christianity.

But he doesn't do this, it's as if he thinks defining faith as evidence-based is in itself an argument. The book just never engages in a real tough argument and thus I'm unconvinced by it.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

46. Comment #22409 by lpetrich on February 16, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Homo economicus:

For the sake of inquiry I read "Dawkin's God" after having read "The God Delusion". McGrath's arguments come to the conclusion that christianity gives a beauty to existence, a framework from which to go about life with meaning.

I like to call that argument the "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" argument. Replace "Santa Claus" with "God" in that editorial, and you will see what I mean.

Other Comments by lpetrich

47. Comment #24617 by maton100 on March 7, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Similarly, Frosty the Snowman contains several Christian motifs, is the story of a snowman who comes to life for a time, melts (dies) but also reassures his childlike followers that he will "be back again some day." The television special developed from this song invents the concept of Frosty being made from "Christmas snow" which entails that he can never completely melt away and thus has an eternal essence.

Other Comments by maton100

48. Comment #28945 by gelf on March 31, 2007 at 7:07 pm

I think the real reason that Dawkins is so criticized is that he is so transparently hypocritical and the people and his followers are so mindless.

If all of you are such great champions of science then where is it? I see absolutely no studies whatsoever cited on this thread to support your atheist views. Evolution speaks nothing about creation, and neither Dawkins, nor me, nor anyone else has the faintest idea what actually caused or created the universe. His climbing mount imporbable ideas are based upon speculation and not observation. Aristotle was famous for his abilities to reason, yet upon observation many of his ideas proved wrong. I do not find reason alone, which is where all of Dawkins arguments ultimately end up, as sufficient to be "almost certain" about anything. Stating that the creationists are worse is also not proof that you are correct.

Worse, is the view that somehow religion is arbitrary and baseless and therefore should not be the basis for morality, societies, etc. However, attempts in the past century to replace these religious beliefs with so called "scientific" ones have proved disasterous, or do we need more "scientific socialism" just to be sure? God may be dead, but I have yet to see anyone provide another superior basis for morality and society. Before you all go on another great social engineering experiment I would suggest that you will need far far greater proof that your ideas will result in a "better" society (if you can even scientifically prove what a "better" society would be).

Other Comments by gelf

49. Comment #37481 by D'Arcy on May 4, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Sorry if I am 2 months late, I have only just got to this debate. I wonder if Gelf is actually an agent provocateur. Not only is Dawkins "hypocritical" but also "his followers are so mindless". Gelf's opinions suggest a poor opinion of humanity in general, perhaps even one that can be equated with "original sin". Perhaps Gelf is trying to shoot the messenger rather than read the message.

Our friend Gelf sees: "absolutely no studies whatsoever cited on this thread to support your atheist views." Sorry Gelf. Atheist views do not have to be supported or cited in any way. On the contrary, it the believers who have to provide the proof of the supernatural, rather than the non-believers have to disprove God.

Gelf's reference to "scientific socialism", presumably refers to the USSR and satellite countries, Cuba, China and other places. Well these countries were and still are capitalist countries - just look at China now! Socialism, if it means anything means that the Earth and all its resources are owned and democraticallly controlled by the Earth's population, to be used for the benefit of humanity as a whole. Not for the purposes of making profit for the benefit of a tiny majority as in the USSR, China, USA, UK, etc.

The fact that these countries' governments picked on the respective churches and religions was an indication that they had to throw off the old fuedal and aristocratic systems, before they could get on with the business of establishing capitalism proper. Before the French Revolution, the European capitalists were very prone to accepting Enlightenment ideas. After the French Revolution, religion (actively encouraged), started to acquire a new respectability, still apparent today despite Darwin and the other discoveries of science that contradicted the Bible.

Religion has been and is used as an agent of oppression by the various ruling classes of the world throughout history.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

50. Comment #66655 by Tyrant007 on August 30, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Is there any academic department other than theology that is fully comprised of charlatans? I can't think of any.

Other Comments by Tyrant007