1. Comment #28062 by MIND_REBEL on March 27, 2007 at 7:12 pm

Can't wait to listen to this tomorrow at work.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

2. Comment #28069 by stgben on March 27, 2007 at 7:56 pm

Great! Listening now.

Other Comments by stgben

3. Comment #28077 by j42lewis on March 27, 2007 at 8:51 pm

Mr. McGrath seems to come off better in this exchange than his debate with Mr. Atkins. Pity.

Good show on Richard's part though, very much liked the "Emperor's imaginary fabrics" story!

Other Comments by j42lewis

4. Comment #28082 by Arcturus on March 27, 2007 at 9:33 pm

Ouch, McGrath has tripped. The question if he believes in miracles like the ressurection or the virgin birth was a good one. His answer was hilarious "I do, but the meaning is more important". Prof. Dawkins laughed on that one :)).

I think Prof. Dawkins did a better job than Prof. Atkins of debating McGrath.

Other Comments by Arcturus

5. Comment #28084 by chauvinj on March 27, 2007 at 9:55 pm

It seems like McGrath, as usual, rather than tackling the questions head on, sort of dances around them. It's like a continuous 'buffing of his chest' with all the quotes he spits off, as if they somehow add credance to his arguments and add to his intellectual superiority. Listening to him is rather akin to listening to a child (minus the quotes of course)in that the reasons he gives for believing in something are really not reasons at all -at least not good ones.

To paraphrase, he seems to say he believes in christianity because he thinks its true. Never once does he really expand on his argument. I get it...He's a christian, but please for the love of GOD, address the arguments and leave words like 'think' or 'feel' out of the equation.

Other Comments by chauvinj

6. Comment #28089 by James Carroll on March 27, 2007 at 10:50 pm

Yep, all this McGrath guy does is dance around the questions.

He seems afraid to claim something with confidence because he will be made to look like a fool. Just look at the one thing he said with complete confidence in his debate against Prof. Atkins, which I can't remember exactly, but it showed how insecure he was and that religion was a crutch to him, and Prof. Atkins pointed it out brilliantly.

Other then that in his debate against Prof. Atkins, and in this debate against Prof. Dawkins, all he does is say, "it seems to me that", and "i feel that", or "I think that".

And he says these things in the way he says them, and doesn't really make any points, just kind of rambles about nothing, or if he does make a point it's something obvious that all can agree with, with which he hopes to convince a few easily-convinced people to say to themselves, "Wow, I agree with that! This guy's smart!"

The truth is he avoids saying anything of meaning because deep down he knows he'll be shown to be as ignorant as he really is if he says anything confidently and objectively. So instead he beats around the bush constantly and talks in nice, subjective language, as if everything was just his opinion and others could disagree with it if they wanted.

These things work for the weak people's emotions of course; which is exactly what religion hopes to root itself in.

Overall I've seen two of Mr. McGrath's debates and I have to say that if this is the best the theists can offer then they are up shit creek without a paddle.

Other Comments by James Carroll

7. Comment #28097 by beeline on March 28, 2007 at 1:14 am

McGrath (and his ilk) are doing for rational thought what the old-school creationists are doing with open religiousness: running away from it to hide where they can't be got at.

Those who are becoming uneasy (especially in America) with the religious umbrella are seeking sanctuary in Intelligent Design, which *appears* more respectable, and isn't open to the sort of anti-faith-based attacks that religion suffers from, especially post-911. By packaging themselves as 'scientific' (which they're obviously not) they can dodge most of the bullets.

McGrath does the same thing. By seeking sanctuary in the emotional and touch-feely side of the concepts, he removes hiself from the fatal line of fire that rational argument is laying down. He knows this full well, and knows that he can go on arguing this way for ever, without ever being 'shot down'.

Rational thought and personal conviction can never really cross swords. Dawkins is playing tennis, but McGrath doesn't even have a racket, or come on to the court. He's in the parlour playing charades, and doesn't care if nobody else is playing: he has an audience.

Other Comments by beeline

8. Comment #28099 by Bremas on March 28, 2007 at 1:47 am

Yes, it is a game.
But it is a game, that it seems, Richard is becoming really good at.

Can we please get Richard press credentials so that he can debate GW.

James Carroll, I'm beginning to think that really is your face in the picture.

Other Comments by Bremas

9. Comment #28107 by Apemanblues on March 28, 2007 at 3:13 am

Skeptic presents logical arguments, 'believer' presents emotional pleas. Same old same old.

McGrath exhibited an excellent example of doublethink in regards to science and the miracles of the Christ myth. His intelligence tells him it's bullshit, but his emotions tell him it's 'true', so It's both bullshit and true at the same time.

He's an intelligent man. You almost want to shake him and ask him to snap out of it.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

10. Comment #28113 by Rtambree on March 28, 2007 at 4:11 am

Debate tactics...

I saw the Intelligence Squared debate last night (March 27)at Westminster with Dawkins, Hitchens, Grayling, arguing "We'd be better off without religion", and those opposing: comprising of Spivey, Scruton, and Neuberger.

Here the pro-religious camp were ready to jettison the Supernatural Creator, almost all the Scriptures and the Afterlife, and any certainty about any of it, and re-define religion as some transcendent feeling of oneness, the urge to do good, etc.

In future, these debates need to be clear on the definition of religion. Scientific American gave two requirements: religion must have (1) a supernatural being that intervenes personally in the world, and (2) an afterlife.

Buddhism wouldn't qualify, using this definition.

Alister McGrath, likewise, is wishy-washy with his claims. Since science has all the explanatory power, theists make religion a smaller and smaller target, at least in public debates. What they think in private or say to their congregations may be another matter.

In a sense, Dawkins and Harris, et al, have already won the argument if theists reduce religion to little more than "good deeds".

Other Comments by Rtambree

11. Comment #28114 by bitbutter on March 28, 2007 at 4:16 am

Moderator: you believe [muslims] to be wrong?

McGrath: I would want to say that i believe Christianity is true, not in an arrogant way, i hope in a way that says i want to talk about this and enter into a respectful principled dialogue incase i'm wrong on this one.

Mr McGrath: you seem to indicate that your mind isn't closed to the possibility that you're mistaken in your faith in christianity, but i don't think this is really the case.

If this _is_ really so I'm curious to know what kind of thing would persuade you that you are in fact mistaken?

Other Comments by bitbutter

12. Comment #28118 by OZE2 on March 28, 2007 at 4:32 am

McGrath has the gift of language fluency but almost all his utterrances are devoid of tangible substance.I don't regard this as intelligence but intellectual dishonesty. He evidently was trapped in a corner when confronted by RD regarding his belief in miracles re. the ressurrection and virgin birth. His answer was feeble and incredulous. Recalling his debate with Professor Atkins, McGrath "was never an athiest in the first place but a Christian under cover".

Other Comments by OZE2

13. Comment #28120 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 4:47 am

Just listened to part-1. Dawkins said if everyone religious was very good natured and moral it wouldn't make the slightest difference to him because he's concerned about whether religion is true.

Agreed, I might just niggle that if there really was vast evidence religion consistently made its adherents better people that might just suggest there was some kind of divine grace operating to produce the effect? So it would have some bearing on the truth claim.

Of course I wouldn't be convinced even in that scenario (which certainly doesn't exist anyway!) that divine grace is the answer. I would think a psychological explanation would be more probable. It might be that they enjoyed higher levels of "religious" experience which dissipated ill motives etc at the heart of wrongdoing. Or perhaps the belief in heaven really did make them wish to be good in this life (far from the case as it happens!).

But in effect I agree. And now . . .Part 2!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

14. Comment #28121 by Rtambree on March 28, 2007 at 4:48 am

Debates...

The moderators need to be more proactive in all these debates and actually try to pin down the participants to a position. Otherwise, they're just talking past each other. They might as well be in separate rooms at different times regurgitating their set stock of rehearsed phrases.

Other Comments by Rtambree

15. Comment #28132 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 5:37 am

McGrath dropped his "collapse of the enlightenment way of thinking" line in the last four minutes. I'd like to give him the oppurtunity to expand on that at length just so we'd no precisely what he's on about.

In his defence that guy in the audience who jumped on him for being modest about his knowledge of other faiths, and the generalised it into a grand insult of oxford university and whichever college (is it wadham) he is at can fuck off. He's a christian, that's his franchise big deal. I was glad dawkins interjected to say so as well.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

16. Comment #28140 by diquea on March 28, 2007 at 6:04 am

The strongest argument that Professor Dawkins submits is that religious belief is somehow linked to violence?! The strongest? Come on. That is probably the weakest, because whether religion is linked to violence or not has nothing to do with the truth of it.

I haven't listened to the whole thing yet, but McGrath just picked the weakest argument! And then he said when he was an atheist, he thought it would be "logically inevitable," that if we rid ourselves of religion we'd rid ourselves of violence.

What bull.

Yeah, religious people can do good things. It can organize groups of good people. It can do bad things. Who cares? The point is that god is just as likely to exist as an infinite number of other invisible beings that require no evidential support. The point is that even if you were given that God existed, the conversation cannot advance beyond that, because who can apply attributes to such a God?

Edit: Oh, Dawkins says that. lol

Other Comments by diquea

17. Comment #28141 by Rtambree on March 28, 2007 at 6:13 am

McGrath should go in politics.

He's got a wonderful gift of speech that evades answering any question. By the time you've dissected his statements, worked out that they meaning nothing at all, he's already moved onto something else.

McGrath appears to be a nihilist - he can't commit to any position. It's ironic, as this is the sort of thing he accuses atheists of.

Other Comments by Rtambree

18. Comment #28173 by bottersnike on March 28, 2007 at 7:45 am

I was there for this. It was supposed to be Rod Liddle instead of McGrath, but Mr L pulled out, no reason given.

RD was very unprepared at the start, by his own admission he was expecting to go right into the debate rather than give a mini speech, and he was clearly winging it for a few minutes before someone got some notes to him. McGrath had obviously done a lot more homework, though this only made his answers more superficialy plausible.

There was clearly no love lost either; no handshake to begin or end, or even much eye contact at any point. I felt RD never really got going at this one, though the point where he challenged AM on the virgin birth was a high spot. I think that may have been the only time they both looked at one another, lol. They both signed books afterward, though not at the same table! I'm glad to say RD seemed to be doing much more business.

The whole event seemed to be over too quickly, a shame. The tent was packed though. A few questions at the end, and they were pretty weird if I remember rightly.

Other Comments by bottersnike

19. Comment #28174 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 7:49 am

The best bit was when McGrath was asked about the ressurection and the virgin birth. He seemed to suggest the ressurection is not forbidden by the laws of physics, just supremely improbable, like all the air in a room gathering in the corners (except more improbable than that!) Well that's a complete dodge, a gloriously massive dodge in fact!

He could claim it simply was a complete coincidence that despite the massive improbablity all the atoms happened to rearrange themselves such that a crucified man came back to life. But in that case, amazing as it is, it's just a coincidence and not something of religious significance.

More likely he thinks god twiddled the odds, like the improbability drive in hitchhikers guide! But in that case it's no different from a good old fashioned meddling in the laws of physics miracle, and he isn't off the hook.

As for the virgin birth I think he actually admitted that was a problem, but speculated oneday science will find a way how it really might have happened.

Well I suppose it's possible, I'm not betting though.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

20. Comment #28208 by nworbynot on March 28, 2007 at 10:55 am

It was interesting that professor McGrath thought it so wonderful when the Amish people managed to find strength to forgive the gunman who walked into a school and murder several children from their community.
Does he find it interesting that when a young Amish girl decided to turn her back on the religion that had been forced onto her from birth, her family completely disowned her, removed every single piece of evidence of her existence from their family home, told her she would never ever be forgiven and finally forced her away from their community for ever.
Well Professor McGrath, blasting the brains out of small children with an automatic rifle or wishing to change your religion, what do you think is worst?

Other Comments by nworbynot

21. Comment #28215 by tieInterceptor on March 28, 2007 at 11:47 am

McGrath ability to dance around questions and to be foggy in his answers is A+mazing.

When Dawkins talks you can understand what he says with normal intellectual effort, then McGrath talks and its like listening to a politician... a simple answer made to last one thousand words to shield the meaning just to be sure that they can't be pinned down,
soooooo boring... I always suspect people that choose the most complicated way to express an idea,

Communication should be as clear as possible.

basically, when you're entire argument can be reduced to...
"I believe in vergin birth because I feeeel it to be true! in the GUT!"
Then thick rhetoric must be the best weapon at hand, put people to sleep and win the argument by last man standing!

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

22. Comment #28243 by Valerie on March 28, 2007 at 1:32 pm

Like bottersnike (28173), I was present for this. All those around me were there to hear Richard Dawkins and were very disappointed in the event. We thought he was very pissed off and bottersnike describes the situation exactly how we found it. It is good to hear a recording because on the night, as McGrath spoke, I kept losing the thread. Richard Dawkins was, in stark contrast, completely incisive. But it was not a debate.
Whatever happened to Rod Liddle? Did he funk it?
Fortunately I have heard Richard Dawkins on this website.

Other Comments by Valerie

23. Comment #28245 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 1:43 pm

nworbynot I also recall, and my memory was confirmed here that they only educate their children to age 13, because too much education can lead to pride. Also wikipedia details claims of child abuse inside amish communities.

So it's not all forgiveness and horsecarts.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

24. Comment #28252 by Katherine on March 28, 2007 at 2:21 pm

This has only emboldened my atheism. McGrath's explanation of miracles existing 'side by side' with science really is bizarre, bordering on the downright inconsistent. You can't have it both ways, Alister!

Other Comments by Katherine

25. Comment #28255 by bwana ndege on March 28, 2007 at 2:33 pm

It seems to me and its a very important question I think and would want to explore more thoroughly the idea that if we put it another way we should and we have to be very clear about that and it seems to me that the point needs to be made as there is a real issue here I think. Or so it seems to me.

Not a particularly incisive critique but A McGrath DOES MY HEAD IN!

Other Comments by bwana ndege

26. Comment #28262 by Rtambree on March 28, 2007 at 2:47 pm

25. bwana ndege

Good one! If you listen to the Denys Turner interview in The Atheism Tapes with Jonathan Miller (a spin off from the History of Disbelief), then you get precisely the same obfuscation. Both McGrath and Turner are highly educated and highly articulate, but talk absolute bollocks.

"It's an issue to be addressed, within a framework of parameters between religious modes of engaging with nature, the way is open to commence a dialogue to be undertaken in respect to the concerns, but it's particularly the significance of the facts, rather than the validity of the facts themselves, that enables religion to achieve the transcendence of the sublime and the sacred..." and so on.

I wonder if they're thinking... "If I can just keep this up another few years, no one will notice, and I can retire on a nice pension".

Other Comments by Rtambree

27. Comment #28265 by ImagineAZ on March 28, 2007 at 3:02 pm

This might not be funny, but I laughed while writing it. This is my interpretation of the debate.

http://blog.myspace.com/preachreality

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

28. Comment #28288 by Carl S. Richardson on March 28, 2007 at 3:52 pm

"I used to be an atheist" – Is that McGrath's catchphrase as he seems to state it in every lecture and debate he participates in.

Other Comments by Carl S. Richardson

29. Comment #28292 by Carl S. Richardson on March 28, 2007 at 4:13 pm

Why does McGrath think Dawkins strongest argument is the link between violence and religion? The thrust of Dawkins book is the 747 argument which incidentally McGrath doesn't really deal with in his book.

Other Comments by Carl S. Richardson

30. Comment #28310 by Barnacle on March 28, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Why does McGrath think Dawkins strongest argument is the link between violence and religion?

Allowing him the benefit of the doubt, I suspect it's because he cares more about what makes people 'feel good' than about what is 'true'. If I'm not feeling generous, however, I'd say he is deliberately avoiding the important points in order to appear more plausible.

Other Comments by Barnacle

31. Comment #28315 by Zaphod on March 28, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Dawkins wins this hands down.

Other Comments by Zaphod

32. Comment #28325 by antipodesman on March 28, 2007 at 6:43 pm

An interesting debate. Dawkins - focused and compelling as usual. Mcgrath was as good as it gets for religion but muddled at best.
One point by Dawkins shocked me. In God Delusion he made a compelling argument that agnostics should recognize that the burden of proof is on the believers. I was convinced by his argument and even though I too find myself at 6 on his scale of 7 I now call myself an atheist rather than agnostic. Imagine my surprise to hear Dawkins call himself an agnostic. What gives????

Other Comments by antipodesman

33. Comment #28326 by Circumspect on March 28, 2007 at 6:47 pm

I was surprised by the low caliber of questions from the audience. As for McGrath... what an evasive, fraudulent windbag! Just confirms what we already knew: The sole purpose of "theologians" is to put a desperate, explanatory spin on the preposterous.

Other Comments by Circumspect

34. Comment #28332 by Robert O'Brien on March 28, 2007 at 7:13 pm

Citing the facile dismissal of a trifling, low rent academic (i.e., Myers) is essentially an admission of defeat. Perhaps Sophoclaus (i.e., Dennett) can help you bring your game up a tick, Professor Dawkins.

Other Comments by Robert O'Brien

35. Comment #28344 by Robert Maynard on March 28, 2007 at 8:43 pm

"Citing the facile dismissal of a trifling, low rent academic (i.e., Myers) is essentially an admission of defeat."

..it was handed to him right then and there to compensate for his unpreparedness in summarising The God Delusion and issues and criticisms regarding it. Oh, and PZ Myers keeps a good blog, so.. shut the hell up. It's pretty contemptible to assert that someone has to be of a certain level of respectability to be worth citing.

Having said that, the debate was kind of disappointing. I imagine those who were imagining some kind of earth-shattering confrontation between the two, where Dawkins would fully expose McGrath as a fool, were even more disappointed - despite using empty, evasive arguments, the man is no fool, and he is very slippery. He is outwardly reasonable yet inwardly myopic. Moderates are a whole different kind of argument to fundamentalists - with fundamentalists you're trying to dismantle their claims, with moderates you have a hard time just figuring out what they're even claiming.

Personally I thought the recent debate between McGrath and Atkins was much more of a smackdown, particularly in the handling of the vaporous "why are we here" questions. He demolished that so simply, just by pointing out that any question asking "why" rather than "how" presupposes purpose over process, and is an intensely naive question. Given how utterly alone humans are in imputing meaning to anything, why are we so quick to assume the wisdom of our interpretive paradigm, rather than realising we're only alone in being hobbled with the unfortunate side effects of a mish-mash computing apparatus that loves symbols, patterns and the unknown?

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

36. Comment #28346 by Janey on March 28, 2007 at 9:35 pm

"Citing the facile dismissal of a trifling, low rent academic (i.e., Myers) is essentially an admission of defeat."

Far from it, to me it was a master stroke. Citing Myers was an act of satire designed to highlight the absurdities of many theological postulations. Sometimes satire can shine a light on things that even the most intellectual criticism can barely drag out from the shadows.

My favourite bit?

Richard: Well I mean, do you believe in the virgin birth?

Alister: Well I do, but the issue I think really is not simply how one makes sense of these things but actually what they point to.

Richard: No no look, you are a scientist, you are a biologist and you believe in the virgin birth, on scriptural grounds you actually elevate scripture above science in this case.

Alister: Well in this case, here is something which seems to me to be an integral part of the Christian tradition, which may well be in conflict with part of our present day scientific understanding, that's certainly and area of tension.

An area of tension? Now that has to be the understatement of the week or should that be weak?

Overall I don't think Alister will be very proud of his performance and I rather got the impression Richard was bored at the banality of the "debate" and would have preferred to be elsewhere.

Still fun though :)

Other Comments by Janey

37. Comment #28352 by OZE2 on March 28, 2007 at 11:02 pm

If one begins to connect all the little dots that McGrath has deliberately been scattering, one begins to understand his modus operandi. Some of these dots: he used to be an atheist, now he is a believer, he is also a scientist and a biologist, and a theologian, he is author of the " first and second fleas" hoping to latch onto TGD. Join all these dots and the well traversed McGrath becomes an eminently qualified person whose views and prognosis on religion and science should demand respect. In contrast RD is only an evolutionery biologist. Atkins has doubts whether McGrath was ever an atheist. RD used to decline debates with dyed in the wool faithheads because it would only provide fresh oxygen to their sterile cause. indeed, though McGrath failed to impress, nevertheless, he is rejuvenated by virtue of sharing the podium with our luminary and illustrious RD.

Other Comments by OZE2

38. Comment #28361 by Dog Boots on March 29, 2007 at 12:46 am

Religion being malign isn't Richard's strongest point - it's not one of his points at all! It's his MOTIVATION. His point is that religion is most likely untrue.

Everybody seems to be confusing this.

Other Comments by Dog Boots

39. Comment #28376 by Sam on March 29, 2007 at 2:38 am

antipodesman said:

One point by Dawkins shocked me. In God Delusion he made a compelling argument that agnostics should recognize that the burden of proof is on the believers. I was convinced by his argument and even though I too find myself at 6 on his scale of 7 I now call myself an atheist rather than agnostic. Imagine my surprise to hear Dawkins call himself an agnostic. What gives????

The alleged incompatibility between "atheism" and "agnosticism" rests on a false dichotomy. "Agnosticism" only means "not knowing". You don't have to know there is no God to be an atheist, just like you don't have to know there is no Osiris, Zeus, The Midgard Serpent or The Flying Spaghetti Monster to conclude that they almost certainly don't exist. Technically none of this qualifies as "knowledge", so in that sense we should be "agnostic" about all of them. This does not imply in any way, however, that we need to be neutral about their existence, which i think is all that Dawkins was saying.

In everyday speech i take an "atheist" to be someone who does have a position, which is that there almost certainly is no God, whereas an "agnostic" is someone who refuses to take a stand one way or the other.

Other Comments by Sam

40. Comment #28377 by Shane McKee on March 29, 2007 at 2:48 am

Alister McGrath is a "former atheist". He became an "atheist" at age 13, and became a Christian at age 18 as soon as he hit university.

Not Very Impressive, is it?

Bottom line is that this chap (a countryman of mine, I'm embarrassed to admit, although he has lost his accent) has no right to call himself a "former atheist", when all he is alluding to is a brief hissy-fit with god in his teens. A "15-minute atheist", as someone once called people like this.

Other Comments by Shane McKee

41. Comment #28390 by celestial_T on March 29, 2007 at 4:02 am

Yikes! When I first heard McGrath speak I thought 'hmmm, here's a chap who seems quite eloquent and might give a reasonable argument'... but as he went on something strange seemed to be happening in my brain, as though a sticky fog was oozing its way in there to gum up the synapses. I shook my head... I drank some coffee... I stuck my head out the window...no, the fog was still there! It was almost as if the man was...I don't know... talking utter bollocks. Quite disconcerting.
Seriously, though, it seems astounding that a prof of theology (ok, we know it's pretend but let's give him the benefit for a moment) has no actual concrete arguments that he's prepared to put his name to in public. Despite his shameful cash-in on the success of TGD I thought he might have something interesting to say.
He has certainly mastered a fantastic tone of delivery which which in other company might come across as quite impressive - however, contrasted with RD's eloquent plea for objective truth, McGrath sounds positively feeble-minded.

Other Comments by celestial_T

42. Comment #28392 by Jiten on March 29, 2007 at 4:07 am

I wonder if Richard Dawkins isn't sometimes tempted to say,"Oh for fuck's sake isn't anything going in you dunderhead?".Of course he's far too polite and patient to actually say it.And he'd be right not to be rude in a public debate,but surely the temptation is there?

Other Comments by Jiten

43. Comment #28393 by antipodesman on March 29, 2007 at 4:11 am

Sam said "an agnostic is someone who refuses to take a stand one way or the other."

This is the common misinterpretation of agnostic. I used to say, looking at the difference between a 6 and a 7, only an agnostic tries to live without faith. An agnostic is a 6 and an atheist is a 7. After the God Delusion I can say that an atheist doesn't have to be a 7. What a relief. I no longer have to explain what an agnostic is to every Tom, Dick and Harriette.
Sam, you're not suggesting that Richard refuses to take a stand when he calls himself an agnostic are you? Perhaps we should surrender the term agnostic to the indecisive 4s. It would be a shame as the word has a noble origin being coined by no less a scientist than T H Huxley. I can't imagine he was thinking of 4s at the time.

Other Comments by antipodesman

44. Comment #28397 by bottersnike on March 29, 2007 at 4:28 am

One thing the audio won't pick up is that about ten minutes before the start, RD came into the hall seemingly looking for somebody/something... Rod Liddle maybe! Interestingly, he didn't seem to be widely recognised by the audience.

I was disappointed by the no-show of Liddle, because he's an interesting and articulate performer, and also because I'd like to know what his true opinions are. Does anyone know why he pulled out?

Other Comments by bottersnike

45. Comment #28408 by ryanbooker on March 29, 2007 at 5:10 am

I love that the final "comment" was Professor Dawkins having a quiet chuckle in the background, at the obvious absurdity of McGrath's final statement.

Other Comments by ryanbooker

46. Comment #28417 by Sam on March 29, 2007 at 6:01 am

antipodesman said:

Sam, you're not suggesting that Richard refuses to take a stand when he calls himself an agnostic are you?

Of course not. What i was trying to say was that most atheist are also "agnostics" in the technical sense, which only means that they don't claim to know with absolute certainty that there is no God (or Osiris, Zeus etc..). In that sense I am also and "agnostic" and so is Dawkins - and so, i might add, are those believers who don't claim to know for sure that God exists.

Of course using the word "agnosticism" in this sense doesn't really tell you anything about where a person comes out on the God-question. The word spans so broadly that it becomes essentially meaningless. Personally i don't like the word very much, because it seems to suggests that we are "agnostic" about the existence of God as opposed to all these other things that we know for sure. I don't know with absolute certainty that there is no "God", but that does not mean that i am more certain about anything else.

In everyday speach, however, most people use the words "atheist" and "agnostic" in a different meaning than the technical one. In my experience those who use the word "agnostics" to distance themselves from the "atheists" tend to argue that it is intellectually indefensible to hold any position regarding God's existence, whether pro or con. People like Dawkins and myself on the other hand use the word "atheist" to emphazise that we really do have an position, that we have thought it through, and that we hold the claim that God exists to be false.

Other Comments by Sam

47. Comment #28438 by themos on March 29, 2007 at 7:45 am

What did Richard mean when he said "My God" 12 minutes and 7 seconds into the mp3 file?

Other Comments by themos

48. Comment #28476 by LookToWindward on March 29, 2007 at 10:23 am

If somebody tells you they used to be an atheist, you should tell them they can't have been very good at it.

Other Comments by LookToWindward

49. Comment #28527 by LB on March 29, 2007 at 3:20 pm

I am astonished that anybody with more than half a brain cell considers Alister McGrath worth listening to.

The fact that this man, with his tired and irrelevant arguments, is given a chance to 'debate' with some of the greatest minds in science, is an absolute insult to human intelligence.

Richard Dawkins, you should have laughed in his face.

The sad fact is that, although you are thoroughly entitled to do so, Alister McGoebbels would have turned it against you in order to 'win' the argument.

He does nothing but appeal to the emotions of the audience. The very same emotions that cause similarly weak minded people to suck their massive comfort dummies and teach their children to do the same.

The Emperor's clothes analogy was a briliant rebuttal of the 'You don't know enough about religion to comment on it' argument.

Other Comments by LB

50. Comment #28549 by Janus on March 29, 2007 at 5:07 pm

"I love that the final "comment" was Professor Dawkins having a quiet chuckle in the background, at the obvious absurdity of McGrath's final statement."

LOL, I heard that. Sometimes all you can do is laugh.

Other Comments by Janus