And here are some of my favorite comments (up to Comment 108) posted on http://richarddawkins.net/article,629,n,n I particularly liked ...
80. Comment
#21660 by
iwentdowntotheriver on February 10, 2007 at 12:33 pm
with his distinction between "Science v Religion" and "Science & Moral Philosophy v Religion". I've commented on
iwentdowntotheriver post here.
"They know that they can't prove that God is there, any more than an atheist can prove that there is no God."
Well no, we can't disprove a negative, but you most certainly can prove a positive to a level which is beyond reasonable doubt.
What I'd like to know is why religious people are so obsessed with finding meaning. They begin with the assumption that there is a meaning to their life and deride science because it can't answer an abstract question.
Owen Gingerich, Harvard University's distinguished astronomer, published God's Universe. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, brought out The Language of God. Both these scientists, with a long track record of peer-reviewed publications, made the case for belief in God as the best and most satisfying explanation of the way things are.
Okay so by Mr. McGrath's logic, if you happen to be a scientist who has published peer-reviewed papers on any scientific topic, you are now an authority on the existence of God.
This is exactly the logic that the stubborn religious fall back on: Let's argue on your turf by citing a couple of scientists who have contributed in their specific fields. If they believe in a God, then there must be good reason to believe in one. In fact, let's just take count. If 50.1% of scientists happen to believe in a God, well then it must be true!
What ridiculousness!
He got one thing right...
"It is worth reminding ourselves that the hallmark of intelligence is not whether one believes in God or not, but the quality of the processes that underlie one's beliefs."
...it sure is.
As long as we then proceed to examine those processes and their "quality".
One question: What meaning of life does a God have? What is His purpose? I often think that the whole point of faith is not to give life a meaning, but to put a question somewhere else. God is an omnipotent father who kind of has it all figured out and all that we have to do is follow him.
Wow, talk about an obsession with Dawkins..
Funny thing how he mocks the "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads" expression while so clearly demonstrating it.
This is a man who after a large number of debates with atheists and certainly hearing the arguments plenty of times has come to the conclusion that they are best faced by, well, not facing them.
How many times do you think he has not heard that just because science can't/won't explain X does not mean that by default religion can? How many times has he not heard Russel's teapot analogy? How many times has he not heard that while a God defined similar to Sagan's dragon can't by definition be tested, real religions make specific empirical claims that can?
And what are his responses? None. Yet he persists with these pointless attacks.
The more I read the various religious responses to TGD and general atheist arguments, the more I am convinced that it is a waste of time to debate them. They are indeed "immune to argument" as there are a set of fundamental arguments that they are persistently ignoring and always have been. These are not in any way new arguments and it seems increasingly improbable that they will ever even try to answer them - much less answer them in a convincing fashion.
I was under the impression Dawkins had covered his objections to scientists (let alone scientists writing twenty years ago) saying limp-wristed things like the quoted Medawar passages, as the whole non-overlapping-magisteria thing.
Neither Medawar or McGrath have specified why science can't answer these questions, or - to be more precise - why theologians like himself might be
uniquely qualified to do so, in a way that precludes
any thinker of sufficient faculty from participating in the discussion.
I suspect McGrath just has a chip on his shoulder, because a fellow Oxford professor is insinuating in a best-selling book that he and other theologians have literally wasted their professional lives studying a discipline which amounts to little more than semantic acrobatics and dubious pontificating.
When I read the title of this article I was expecting a fascinating piece discussing the fundamental questions science cannot currently explain. Instead we get more tripe from Alister McGrath. Weaksauce.
Alister McGrath is such a big baby. His main argument is to whine that those nasty atheists like Richard Dawkins are putting down all us poor believers.
And he refuses to attempt to refute Richard Dawkins's arguments against the existence of a god. One wonders why. Is he unable to come up with good counterarguments? And if so, does he have enough awareness of that to avoid that subject and concentrate on issues where he thinks that he has a stronger case?
Also, this namedropping argument is very weak. I am unfamiliar with Owen Gingerich's arguments, but Francis Collins's arguments are absolutely laughable. Finding C.S. Lewis irrefutable? His Argument from the Tripartite Waterfall?
And I wonder what he thinks about other atheist scientists.
Macho Nacho hit it on the head --
Why are religious people so desperate for answers? If the full weight of science cannot (yet) provide a rational explanation, what makes these people believe that their
supernatural explanations can possibly be rooted in rational thought???
If religious people just had the intellectual integrity to admit that their beliefs are irrational, then at least I would know what I'm dealing with. As it stands now, I haven't the slightest idea what's going on in their heads -- do they
really believe these crazy things? Or are they just parroting ideas which were implanted into their heads as children (or, in the case of McGrath, as an adult)? These are the questions I'm desperate to have answered.
Once again, a religious apologist ends up by invoking the spectre of radical epistemological scepticism like some sort of boogey man.
Yes, Professor McGrath, there
are some fundamental things that I cannot ever prove with certainty: I cannot prove to myself, to a degree of total certainty, that I am not a brain in a vat imagining the world I am "experiencing". I cannot prove that logic works (without relying on logic)), etc., etc. If we take various kinds of radical epistemological scepticism as our starting point, we all seem pretty badly off.
Okay, folks, now we've got that obvious point out of the way, let's be serious. When we just apply our ordinary methods for assessing the truth or falsity of belief, where do we end up? Are religion and reason equal? If we conduct ordinary inquiries using ordinary means, do we discover a supernatural entity, or not?
Hmmm, can't see one around. *scratches head* Nope.
By means that are continuous with those ordinary methods, we do end up postulating various things that we can't observe in the ordinary way (sub-atomic particles, extinct animals, whatever ...). But we accept the existence, or past existence, of such things - of electrons and dinosaurs, for example - because there is a huge body of highly precise, observable, and convergent evidence that points to them. Theories involving sub-atomic particles, extinct animals, etc., have great explanatory power, and they are corroborated every day by activities that could potentially falsify them. E.g. we never find dinosaur bones in 6000-year-old archeological strata, but always where the story built up by evolutionary biology tells us we should.
There is nothing corresponding to this to support claims about supernatural entities and forces.
It always annoys me when religionists try to gain their plausibility by hinting at - or blatantly relying upon - the banal claim that rational inquiry is no better than religious doctrine because both are equally incapable of ruling out radical epistemological scepticism once and for all - so, both must actually rely on "faith". That is just not the test.
The test in deciding what to believe is, "Where are we led to if we simply apply, and refine, our ordinary standards for the acceptance of truths about the world, which we apply in every other practical context in life?"
Based on that test, there's no legitimate question that science and reason can't answer plausibly but that religion can - and there are plenty of truths that science and reason have taught us, but which religion has never had a clue about.
Before I get into the 'meat' of the article, let me just point out the hilarious fact that even now, years after his book Dawkins' God was published, McGrath STILL hasn't let go of his strawman-ish understanding of atheism:
"They know that they can't prove that God is there,
any more than an atheist can prove that there is no God."
McGrath's ONLY argument against atheism, which he keeps harping on and on about in the second half of Dawkins' God, is that we can't prove God doesn't exist. First, of course we can 'prove' the Christian (and Jewish, and Muslim) God doesn't exist, if you're using 'prove' in the evidentiary sense, which is the only relevant sense unless you're talking about modal logic or mathematics. Second, to paraphrase Prof. Dawkins as he was reading McGrath's book, "Again and again I had to keep myself from scribbling 'Celestial teapot' in the margin". That a famous theologian still doesn't get such a simple argument after all this time is laughable, to say the least.
Now, on to the article...
His swashbuckling The God Delusion sweeps to one side "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads", who are "immune to argument".
Dawkins was only refering to nutty fundamentalists, such as those found in America's red states. Amusing that McGrath sees himself as one of them, and not as one of what Dawkins calls "sophisticated moderates".
Scientists who profess religious belief are appeasers, representing the "Neville Chamberlain" school.
Wrong again. Dawkins was talking about atheistic scientists who think they have to make religionists feel safe by repeating the lie that science and religion operate in two completely different, isolated spheres, such as the late Stephen J. Gould.
You can't be reasonable and religious. It's one or the other — science or faith in God.
Another strawman. Of course Dawkins knows there are theistic scientists. What is McGrath trying to say here? That people are necessarily 100% rational or 100% irrational? This is what he's hoping his readers will think Dawkins has said, but it's a lie. Of course theists aren't being rational when it comes to God and religion, but that doesn't mean they can't compartmentalize, as most human beings unfortunately do, and as theistic scientists must, by definition.
Both these scientists, with a long track record of peer-reviewed publications, made the case for belief in God as the best and most satisfying explanation of the way things are.
If they have, then they have indeed betrayed science. But given McGrath's record on giving an account of what other people have said and written, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Believing that God exists doesn't make you a bad scientist. It makes you a poor skeptic, but as I said above, any good theistic scientist will be a master of compartmentalization, and won't let his credulity impinge on his work as a scientist.
What does make you a bad scientist is using God as an explanation for anything your research is about. Since supernatural 'explanations' amount to admitting your incapacity to explain, explaining anything by appealing to God means you're not doing your job as a scientist. A biologist can't be a creationist, a geologist can't be a young earth creationist, and a cosmologist can't be a theist, all for the same reason: Explaining something in their field of research by saying Goddidit doesn't explain anything at all.
Science, defined as the current body of knowledge about the universe, is compatible with theism, as long as the theist is willing to make his definition of God more and more nebulous as science progresses, so as to keep his beliefs from conflicting with reality. However, the
scientific method is opposed to religion in every imaginable way. Skepticism is opposed to faith, naturalism is opposed to supernaturalism, monism is opposed to dualism, etc. Scientists can be theists because the metaphysical assumptions which must be made in order to make scientific inquiry possible, are methodological and not ontological. As long as the theist is willing to water-down his beliefs and compartmentalize his mind, there's no problem.
So what are we to make of this? Perhaps Gingerich and Collins aren't real scientists at all. Maybe they are manipulative religious charlatans who are just pretending to be scientists to garner support for their mad ideas.
More lies, Dawkins has never said anything of the kind.
But I guess lying is OK if you're doing it for God's sake.
Or they might be well-meaning people who have been deluded into belief by that bullying "psychotic delinquent" (that's Dawkins-speak for God, by the way).
That's Dawkins-speech
for the God of the Old Testament.It's so much easier to rally up people to your cause when you're willing to deform everything your opponent has said, isn't it Mr. McGrath?
It is worth reminding ourselves that the hallmark of intelligence is not whether one believes in God or not, but the quality of the processes that underlie one's beliefs.
True, but believing in God means you're irrational in a very important part of your life, and according to almost every study done on the subject, theists
are on the average stupider than atheists.
In The Limits of Science, Medawar reflected on how science, despite being "the most successful enterprise human beings have ever engaged upon", had limits to its scope. Science is superb when it comes to showing that the chemical formula for water is H2O. Or, more significantly, that DNA has a double helix.
But what of that greater question: what's life all about? This, and others like it, Medawar insisted, were "questions that science cannot answer, and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer"
Actually, we do know what life is about. Life is about propagating genes. One question down! How many to go?
But of course, the real issue here is the supposed "limits of science". Well, of course science is limited. The question that is of real interest is, can religion do any better, about any question, in any field or in any situation? Can religion tell us what the meaning of life is? Obviously not. Either it makes a completely arbitrary, and most likely false guess (e.g. "To glorify God"), or it gives use a vague subjective statement that actually has nothing to do with religion, and which anyone, from Bob the janitor to Richard Dawkins, could have come up with (e.g. "To love one another").
And that is truly how religion does its "explaining". When it tries to answer philosophical questions, it can give us nothing more than a guess, no better than any other guess, and often much worse. When it tries to do the job of science ("Why does the universe appear to be fine-tuned?"), not only does it give nothing better than a guess, but the 'explanation' it gives us is not an explanation at all, it's a lazy non-answer ("Goddidit!"). And when it tries to answer moral questions, it can give us nothing that we don't already have: a set of subjective preferences.
In the end, as Gilbert Harman pointed out decades ago, the real question is which offers the "best explanation" of things. And as there is no general agreement on how to decide which of these explanations is the "best", the argument seems certain to run.
But there is agreement on what
kind of explanation is the best, the ONLY kind of explanation. Natural explanations explain things in terms of simpler components. Supernatural explanations are, by definition, inherently beyond our comprehension, and therefore halt the process of truth-inquiry; supernaturalism explains nothing, God explains nothing, religion explains nothing.
Christians will argue that their world view represents a superb way of making sense of things, while accepting that this, like its atheist counterparts, is open to challenge by sceptics.
But you're not open to challenge at all. If you're a fundamentalist, you'll deny all contradictory evidence. If you're a moderate, you'll have made certain your God is beyond criticism, and when pushed into a corner you'll simply stop arguing about the truth and start telling us why belief in God is good for emotional reasons. Both kinds of believers are equally irrational.
Do you think I'm wrong, Mr. McGrath? Then let me paraphrase Sam Harris in his debate with Andrew Sullivan: Is there anything that could make you stop believing in God?
If you're as honest as Sullivan, you'll be forced to reply, "No, there isn't."
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen — not only because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else,"
What an extremely poor analogy. You can't see God, you can't show us God, and we can "see everything else" just fine without God.
for a long long time, human have ask thi question. everryone is seeking the "meaning" of life. All sort of answers in different forms have show. what is the real "meaning" of life?
Actually there is no meaning of life. The meaning is for us to create. Some people think worshipping some god or do some thing they make their life very fullfilled, so be it. they can say it hundred or thousands times that they see the meaning of life but it does not mean it is the truth.
Problem : We can't understand something.
Solution : Let's make something up and say it is a greater truth than things we know for fact.Anyone who tries to tell us otherwise is an arrogant dogmatig fool.
This person seems to have little else to say.
They must be fascinating those books of his.
Absurd! If reason is not valuable then why does this writer so poorly try and argue reasonably? If this argument was correct, there would be no reason I shouldn't believe in Santa Claus (I can't prove he does not exist).
To think that metaphysics cannot be explored with reason is to reject thousands of years of philosophy. The majority of benefits that have led to these false believers deluding themselves into thinking they believe, and promoting these absurdities can be greater accomplished by reason.
These people aren't true believers because if someone truly believed in God and Jesus, and Allah they would never fear death as the majority of supposedly religious people do. If these believers truly believed there would be no higher priority than to break down and analyze every portion of these 'sacred' texts. True believers join and act like members of God Hates Fags or the Taliban. They would stone and kill to this day, and if they find those appalling; well it is because they don't truly believe but the self hypnosis of thinking they believe gives them comfort.
As an example of something religion solves for many people that can be addressed by reason: why I don't fear death. I don't fear death because I'm convinced time is an illusion, and only space-time exists because I have presented plenty of evidence and contemplated it's consequences of what it means about my reality. Death is, just as birth, an endpoint of a cognitive existence intricately an element of a larger whole, the world that composed my life, that I live in, and that will take the energy from my body when I die. Being that we can't reasonably see human life as autonomous, but it is within this environment, I am a part of the Universe that has become so wonderfully complex it rises like a wave out of an ocean and is able to be aware of it's (the Universe's) own existence and elegance. A myriad of space-time where the now is a transition of what was to what will be without instantiation (in the greek sense of 'atom', a discrete moment), that this illusion appears like a leaf on a tree that is humanity. Like a leaf it begins and ends somewhere, but on this mural of space-time it is there eternally in that space-time be the Universe forever in flux to us as observers.
I've come to this through reason, reading and a constructive approach with all evidence I encounter. I am willing to reject any part of it on new evidence but that I am even here is pretty rockin, when you sit down and think about exactly how amazingly complex the Universe is - and when one contemplates on that the mundane becomes appealingly miraculous.
Anyone who takes the time to just understand what we can know, what we can determine reasonably (even if we assumed all that evidence from Physics and the sciences was somehow incorrect), would fill one with such awe that an idea like an omnipotent God watching over us seems far too simple and quite boring.
People like this writer, just observe the mundane and go 'how did it get here' oh I wish there was some magestical answer, letting me know everything will be fine and my egotastical self-centered wishes about how everything should be will be fulfilled. If they didn't delude themselves, and really wanted to know: they'd get a whole lot more fulfillment than God.
I've commented on the Cult of personality that has been constructed around RD before. It IS a problem, and a curious and ironic one for atheists to face.
However, the responses to mcGrath are not about "Dawkins Worship". McGrath relentlessly, and surely deliberatley, distorts and misrepresents what RD has said and written, and these people claim their "faith" makes them more moral!!! McGrath's comments here and thousands of years of history give the lie to that nonsense.
Thanks Janus for your analysis, cuts through the crap like a laser:-)
Lets keep this "Dawkins Worship" in the forefront though, worship of a human is just a mutated version of the religious impulse. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot ... heck George Bush!!! I think RD is great, but lets always treat his utterances with the same critical analysis we would any other.
"the most successful enterprise human beings have ever engaged upon"
He uses this quote, yet somehow doesn't see that it fundamentally breaks his whole argument.
Science is the *best* we have, so if anything can find the answer (currently) it *has* to be science.
Religion, must by that quote fall behind science
Boy, that was a lot of text for no point at all. What is his point? That neither part can prove anything? That's not new.
Anyway, if anyone wants a forum signature theist-style (meaning quoting someone out of context), you can now use:
"Belief in God is just for those who are mad, bad or sad." - Alistair McGrath
:o)
Imagine for a moment that you took the wrong path when you were young. Imagine that you decided that there was nothing more sublime than pursuing a career in Theology, for there was, you thought, nothing more interesting than understanding God Himself.
Imagine also that, many years later, it becomes clear to you that God does not exist. That means that all of your career and all your studies have been in vain. You've studied a subject that makes no sense.
Don't you think we should forgive somebody that is caught up in such a desperate situation? Can you put yourself in his shoes? Don't you see how difficult it must be for someone in this state to try to make sense of the world? Poor guy.
I would recommend that funds should be set aside to start an institution to help people that happen to be in such a sad and hopeless situation.
#3: "Well no, we can't disprove a negative, but you most certainly can prove a positive to a level which is beyond reasonable doubt."
At the very least God could prove his existence if he wanted to. If indeed he does exist, why keep us humans guessing and killing eachother over the details of those guesses?
(Yes I know, the believers will say that he has made his presence known, but this is unconvincing seeing as there are at best only a small minority of the world's population who has the right idea of his nature, and it would be trivial for him to make his presence known much better and for everyone.)
Wow, McGrath certainly seems to have an obsession with Dawkins. I agree with Macho Nachos - his argument appears to be based upon the premise that life must have some predetermined meaning. Why must it? I'm with Dawkins on this - it is up to us to provide the meaning. As Sagan said: "If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal".
McGrath's Straw man and Ad homeninen attacks on Dawkins are very weak and illogical. He's just a typical Christian with stupid arguments and hatred in his heart towards people like RD who are only making the world a better place.
Great dissection, Janus.
McGrath's arguments, this being the 2nd or 3rd article I've read by him, are truly unconvincing and either reduce down to appealing to authority, as Janus has aptly elucidated, special pleading, straw men and begging the question.
I find this line of reasoning particularly vacuous:
But what of that greater question: what's life all about? This, and others like it, Medawar insisted, were "questions that science cannot answer, and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer". They could not be dismissed as "nonquestions or pseudoquestions such as only simpletons ask and only charlatans profess to be able to answer". This is not to criticise science, but simply to calibrate its capacities.
Great. So we all understand that science has limitations. Atheists and RD have never claimed that science has the answers to every possible question that could ever be contemplated. It has answered many that were once thought unanswerable, however. At one time it was thought that epileptics were possessed by demons by the same Church that McGrath so staunchly defends. Science has since shown it to be an affliction thoroughly rooted in natural causes.
The question of the purpose/meaning of life (Ok, McGreth calls it, "What is life all about?") is, in itself, not a scientific question in the first place. Whose life? Mine? Yours? A fish? A microbe? All? Meaning and purpose are subjective attributes and values that are functions of personality, upbringing, culture, historical context, education, trends and fads, personal biases, prejudices, and our known abilities (the list could go on forever). For this question to even attempt to be in the realm of scientific study, a rigorous definition for "purpose/meaning" must be posited. Only from that starting point can science then attempt posit theories and gather the evidence to put together a cohesive explanation.
But McGrath, like so many others before and after, fails to grasp that the answers to ill-defined philosophical questions is not the domain of science. And so, it is vacuous for him to set up this straw man of a thought experiment and then proclaim that, "Ah ha, science can't answer this, ergo, science has limitations". Yes, of course it does. Its entire epistemological foundation first requires a precise statement of the problem to be analyzed. Posit precisely what "purpose/meaning" means and then we can determine what science can/cannot do to answer the question.
He goes on, concluding with,
In the end, as Gilbert Harman pointed out decades ago, the real question is which offers the "best explanation" of things. And as there is no general agreement on how to decide which of these explanations is the "best", the argument seems certain to run.
Which offers the best explanation for things? Well, if you want to understand how life arose, does one turn to Genisis for a sensible explanation, or does one turn to Darwin? If one wants to determine the "best explanation" for Quantum Mechanics, does one turn to Feynman, Schroedinger, Heisenberg; or does one turn instead to the "Dancing Wu Li Masters"?
Ultimately, where one turns
should be where the evidence, explanations/theories, and predictive power, all converge. When there is a concomitance of these 3 things on one's reason, then one has most likely found the "best (available) explanation".
McGrath's personal insistence that the "argument on this matter seems certain to run" is most likely the result that he, and his ilk, continues to turn to sources where: 1) evidence in favour of his cherished doctrines is wholly absent 2) the theories/explanations posited by said doctrines fly in the face of known, demonstrable results, 3) predictive power becomes what one
wants to be true, rather than what is demonstrably known.
Finally, how can there ever possibly be any "general agreement" for the "best explanations of things" between those who look at the world around them through scientific, critical, curious outlooks, and those who appeal to musty relics from centuries past, eyes wide shut to what occurs about them in the present reality of the here and now?
"..(we all) base our lives on at least some fundamental beliefs that we know we cannot prove, but nevertheless believe to be reliable and significant. We all need to examine our beliefs.."
Reliable and significant, eh? I'll grant you the 'significant' bit .. people do all sorts of things in the real world as a result of their beliefs. But 'reliable'? Why, that almost sounds scientific! I wonder what kinds of experiments Prof McGrath will devise to test this 'reliability'? We do, after all, "need to examine our beliefs".
Some questions science cannot answer
People have killed each other over these questions, yet science is helpless when faced with them.
Is the Holy Spirit consubstantial with God? Is He of the same essence as God?
Did the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son? Or did the Holy Spirit proceed only from the Father? (After 1,000 years the Eastern and Western Churches are still split on this)
In the Eucharist, is the substance of Jesus consubtantial with the substance of the bread and wine, or have the substance of the bread and wine transubstantiated into the substance of Jesus?
Science is useless to answer these questions, but they are the strengths of theologians like McGrath , who can answer them all simply by saying 'It is a mystery'.
This common attempt to persuade (which can be trimmed down to "science is inadequete because it only answers HOW, not WHY - for WHY you need god and religion") is a tautological fallacy. It assumes the existence of the universe is because of deliberate sentient action before it even begins. What makes me say that? Easy - this: The word "why" - look at what it actually means and how it differs from the word "how". The word "why" CONTAINS THE ASSUMPTION that there is a deliberate intent behind something. When you ask "how did it happen?", you're asking for a technical explanation of a sequence of events, but when you ask "why did it happen", you're asking what the sentient motivation of the do-er that did it was. So the moment you ask why the universe exists, you are assuming there is a sentinece behind it before you even begin examining possible answers. If there was no sentience behind the creation of the universe, then the question "why does the universe exist" would be an invalid question that assumes facts not in evidence - akin to asking the inflammatory question "have you stopped beating your wife?" when you never started beating your wife.
In other words, the notion that science's inability to answer "why" is some sort of gaping hole that needs to be filled by religion is already assuming the existence of god before you even begin. It's a dishonest line of inquiry to ask the question "why" before you've established that there is a creator. The notion that the question "why" is a valid STARTING point to lead one to the conclusioon that there is a creator is not honest because the act of asking the question already assumes a creator.
It's coming clear now.
Iron Age Religion's contributions to society...zero.
Science's contributions to society...too numerous to describe.
I know whose side I want to be on.
Mr McGrath can hide behind his archaic myths for his whole life if he wishes.
What feeble arguements from Professor McGrath. Richard Dawkins admits that he would change his mind about god if he saw reasonable evidence for his existence. That is the hallmark of a true scientist. Sadly the same cannot be said about McGrath and his ilk - their minds are fixed in time - a bronze-age mentality.
If articles like this reflect the thrust of McGrath's arguments in his new book, then I think I'll give it a wide berth. I have one life - a mortal life - and I don't intend wasting any of it on feeble rubbish like this.
It might impress his Theological colleagues at Oxford but i suspect the Tea Leaf Readers and Tarot Card Readers would be equally impressed if you replaced the word 'God' with Tea Leaf Reading or Tarot. Consequently such arguments are built on a house of cards and McGrath finds himself resorting to ad homimen attacks in a vain attempt to give his pathetic non-arguments some much needed weight.
Methinks the man is obsessed with Richard.
I think Clint Eastwood in 'Heartbreak Ridge' put it best:
"With all due respect, sir, you're beginning to bore the hell out of me"
Not to mention annoy and enrage, given McGrath's continuing misrepresentation of Richard Dawkins - both the man and his work. Honestly, it's like listening to a broken record.
This has got to be the article with the least content of practically anything that has been written about "The God Delusion." I don't know how McGrath gets away with it - that is, pretending to be a learned professor at a great university.
The really strange thing is that he thinks referring to the existence of believing scientists is an argument. I should have thought that, instead of an argument, this is a very odd phenomenon in need of explanation.
At least McGrath didn't bother, on this occasion, to include his own life story, in which, for two or three years during adolescence he was (or at least claims to have been) a Marxist atheist. But it does strike me that his own level of Christian belief scarcely gets beyond this adolescent level. Consider the question which he calls 'greater': What's life all about? Must there be anything which life is *all* about? Must there be one answer to this peculiarly empty question? Is this a question which is even patient of an answer? I suggest that, no, it isn't, and it's really a red herring to distract us from the fact that McGrath, for all his words - and he is beginning to bore us - has nothing really to say.
I agree fully with NotWithoutMyMonkey when he suggests that we give his new book a wide berth. If anyone, though, wants a good example of the quality (of lack of quality) of McGrath's mind, they should read "The Twilight of Atheism." It is so full of empty generalisations, falsifications and plain misunderstandings, that it is, in itself, a good argument against the God hypothesis. It convinced me that atheism is obviously the only intellectually respectable game in town.
I am struck by the difference in tone and intellectual quality between Alister McGrath's attacks and the current debate found in Andrew Sullivan's correspondence to Sam Harris.
Sullivan, though sorely let down by his own Catholic polemics, is at all times courteous, articulate and well-meaning, and never stoops to the appalling ad hominem attacks that McGrath permits himself.
"Richard Dawkins, England's grumpiest atheist..."
Wouldn't you be grumpy if you found your job as a science populariser was being attacked by religious (or any other) bigots? It's RD's job as the Simonyi Professor at Oxford U. to minimise the damage done by people with an anti-science agenda.
There is one critical form of misunderstanding in these debates between science and religion that causes all participants to be talking past each other.
1. Critics of science highlight Science-as-Practised" and will list eugenics, A-bomb, Lysenko, Newton's alchemy, etc. Defenders of science will highlight Science-as-Ideal - the method, science as verb, the gradual striving towards truth.
2. Critics of religion highlight Religion-as-Practised listing all the usual atrocities, while defenders of religion will highlight Religion-as-Ideal - citing spiritual oneness, leading a good life, etc.
Unless these Platonic realms of science and religion are distinguished from their on-the-ground practice, participants in these debates will unfortunately be misunderstanding each other, to the frustration of all concerned.
The comments by
Nuclearman, Janus, and Steven Mading need to be united into a collective essay.
I particularily find Mading's using How instead of Why for the question, "How did it happen?" to be a crucial edge in debating supporters of religious superstitions.
To quote Mading: "In other words, the notion that science's inability to answer "why" is some sort of gaping hole that needs to be filled by religion is already assuming the existence of god before you even begin. It's a dishonest line of inquiry to ask the question "why" before you've established that there is a creator. The notion that the question "why" is a valid STARTING point to lead one to the conclusioon that there is a creator is not honest because the act of asking the question already assumes a creator."
As science continues to give us satisfying explanations to how it all works, it also leaves to us the choice of meaning that we decide to give to our lives. Once you know the How, you can work with facts and reasonable possibilities to fulfill and develop your life. It will be a challenging process for sure, but it will be your process.
While I was growing up in a very devout catholic family, the why never interested me, it was the how that kept me going, kept me wanting to understand life. The why was my own personal business, not God's--the silly and ineffective dictator that he is.
McGrath will soon be gathering a similar reputation to Lord Haw Haw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Haw_Hawwith each diatribe against Dawkins he looks sillier and sillier.
"The questions science cannot answer."
...that science does not ask. But theists both ask and answer these questions. And sometimes these answers justify horrifying crimes.
Please, let us never forget that TGD has more than a tenuous link with the events of 9/11.
Harbouring a delusion is one thing, acting out on it is another.
Richard Dawkins doesn't spend all his time saying it, since for most of us it us glaringly obvious, but the base issue is Life.
Alas these pages are tending to become an almost narcissistic free-for-all punch-up. (Let those who have ears, hear!)
McGrath's attitude will always leave the door open to delusional behaviour. Psychiatrists have several names for that.
Reason and science anchor our ideas and actions in reality.
Sure Richard can appear supercilious, aggressive, scornful.....whatever. But I can forgive him that, as I can forgive his being more intelligent, better-educated, better-looking, wealthier and sexier than me, because behind it all there is so much more than just a driving intellectual honesty.
He wants people to stop killing each other.
He is as concerned with life and the quality of life as any Gandhi or Mother Thérésa. His style is different, his language different, his manner...well, his manner is what it is.
But history will show that TGD (without forgetting Harris and Dennett) will have a more civilising effect on the human race than any Bible.
So many letters in these columns, like this article, look more like intellectual masturbation than the expression of a desire to improve the quality of life.
Sad, since there are so many more ways to be dead than to be alive. (Recognise that?)
The usual attacks, without any proof that god exists or that religion has the answer other than to say that the theists "just know" that god is the answer.
Some very Basic points, most covered already by folks;
The onus on proof is to prove a positive i.e. God does exist. It is not feasibly to prove something isn't there as it is already noticeable by its lack of substance.
The God spouting references of scientists has been covered by Professor Dawkins and David Mills and a number of people. Did McGrath read any of these books? Did he not understand that these references do not necesarily indicators of belief? Usually these are puns, or metaphors to indicate the depth of the knowledge being relaesed by scientific research.
Another case of counting the 'Hits' and ignoring the 'Misses'.
Also Didn't C.S. Lewis renouce his religion alter in his life? I am not positive on this but it sticks in my mind as he was pretty involved, especially with the whole Narnia / Aslan Heaven / Jesus thing going on. Maybe not the best reference to use, a believer losing their faith.
Anyone read McGrath's book 'Dawkin's God', he can't even get a handle on concepts laid down by Professor Dawkins never mind pick them apart to illustrate they may indicate existence of his God of the gaps!
The positive thing about McGrath is that we can see how belief can make you become so irrational and hopefully enough sane people will put their name onto the petition so we can prevent childish myths like these being taught as fact.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/faithschools/ Here's how science would sort out this muddleheaded way of thinking: everyone else just needs to get out of the way, and let the real scientists, like himself, get to work. They would have these questions sorted out in no time.That's such an insolent straw man it almost deserves to be called libellous. What a lazy-minded, distorting fool this man is. I am so tired of reading articles by these cretins.
"The simple fact is that all of us, whether Christians or atheists, base our lives on at least some fundamental beliefs that we know we cannot prove, but nevertheless believe to be reliable and significant."
Really? I can't think of any "fundamental beliefs" that I am basing my life on that I can't prove. There is no god. That isn't a belief, it is an acknowledgement of there being no evidence for it. The burden of proof is on the believer. Existence exists. I don't believe it, I know it, and knowing it is fundamental to my life... you better know it!
I only know this Alister guy from his comments made against Dawkins. Is he obsessed? Anyway the way I see it is that everytime someone writes an article about Dawkins or talks about Dawkins it's like PR for atheism, science and reason. Thanks Mr. McGrath, you keep people intersted in the discussion. And IMO discussion favors us.
Scot, there are some things that no one can ever prove with certainty, for such reasons as that they are the very things that we assume when we do proofs. E.g. we assume basic rules of logic, but any attempt to prove them will have to assume them.
Also, think of how difficult it is to eliminate the claim - and so prove the opposite - that you are really a brain in a vat being stimulated to imagine everything that seems to happen to you. Or perhaps you are being deceived continually by a powerful and malicious demon. No one has ever found a way to prove certainly that such possibilities don't obtain.
I'm not suggesting that you should take any of those far-fetched scenarios seriously. Quite the opposite: my point is that religionists who make such points are strictly right about this, but what follows does not help them.
Do they really suggest that what they call our "faith", when we assume that no such far-fetched circumstances apply, is the same as their faith in the existence of a being which is never discovered, or even conjectured as a useful hypothesis, through ordinary processes of rational inquiry? Putting it another way ... if we just use ordinary standards of inquiry we will discover that there is such a being as Richard Dawkins, for example, and even that there were once such things as dinosaurs, but we never discover that there is such a being as God.
Aha! The theist might reply, but the existence of Richard Dawkins is equally in doubt. You might be being deceived by an evil demon, blah, blah.
Well, sure, there's a far-fetched possibility that I am not currently typing at my computer, that Richard Dawkins does not exist, that evolutionary theory is totally wrong. An evil demon may be deceiving me about all those things. But does someone like McGrath
really think that ignoring those kinds of far-fetched possibilities is the same as having faith in the existence of a being which is never located through natural, ordinary methods of inquiry? Ignoring far-fetched possibilities (like being a brain in vat, or having the laws of logic not work) is the same as accepting a far-fetched possibility about a supernatural being?
That's what he seems to be saying, and I think its absurdity is apparent. Or if that's not his point, I'm at a loss to know what his point is.
*shrug*
Regarding,and extending, Russell Blackford's comment above, he wrote:
"Well, sure, there's a far-fetched possibility that I am not currently typing at my computer, that Richard Dawkins does not exist, that evolutionary theory is totally wrong. An evil demon may be deceiving me about all those things."
I think you're already implying this, but I wanted to explicitly state it. Let's assume for a moment that someone wants to adopt the stance above, that person would then have to say to themselves, "Now, believing all of that, what does that belief set tell me about how I should go out and act in the world?"
A belief set populated by whimsical, petulent demons who control us while leaving us with a perception of self, does NOTHING to suggest a moral or rational approach to life.
A belief set, or worldview, built upon facts that are repeatable and apparently perceived by other humans IS a good foundation for establishing my life's actions in the world and toward it.
Those who argue for faith are ultimately saying, "Give up on any illusion that you have input, control, self, and give yourself over to 'God', for whom I just happen to be an excellent proxy that can tell you his will for you." (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
My knowledge from science may be limited and imperfect, but I choose to base my actions on that limited set of information, rather than on the unlimited blather of a nihilistic appeal to "faith".
Cheers,
Rob
Whenever reason and rational thinking make progress, the godmongers lashout. They have nothing to stand on so they challenge us with their myths and superstition.
We can't do much about stupid, ignorant, gullible, credulous fools but we can educate the new generation and the willing.
God is not an explanation. It never has been and cannot be an explanation. It takes us nowhere. It doesn't advance our learning or understanding of the universe. Logic shows that even God knows some questions for which he has no answers. If morals come from God, is it because he chose them on a whim, or through a rational approach. If they're on a whim, we gain no understanding, and if they're rational, where does that rationality come from, because it isn't coming from God?
Even if the belief in God was rational, it take a leap of irrationality to go from a generic creator deity to the Christian God of the Bible and his mythology. That's where Alister shows his lack of intellectual muscle by not stopping at just a creator deity, but by attributing without proof, evidence, or even thought of the conclusions from such attributes, facts about his God.
What Alister really needs to learn is that when there's a question that's important and big, and really unknowable, the best answer could very well be "I don't know", rather than his childish and morally corrupt answer of "God of the Bible did it."
Maybe if Alister had studied more mathematics, and could see it's inherent beauty, order, randomness, pattern and majesty, and then think what his God must think when his God discovers mathematics, and does all the math that we do now, and his God is amazed at the inherent beauty, order, randomness, pattern and majesty of it all, and thinks to himself - I discovered this, but it's inherent from just simple axioms that anyone could postulate, and all this beauty just falls from that. Wow. That's amazing. I wonder where it came from :-) And his God doesn't know the answer to that one. Because the answer is, that's just the way it is.... And by giving God as the answer to everything, that's a beauty that Alister will never see, never appreciate and never know that the real mysteries transcend even what his God explanation is capable of "explaining."
Richard,
How does it feel to have a stalker?
Two books, various newspaper editorials, spurned offers of a debate, and not nearly as good-looking as Anne Coulter.
Perhaps McGrath suffers from Dawk-o-mania?
Alan.
What sloppy pap!
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 God be part of the answer?
Richard Dawkins, England's grumpiest atheist, has a wonderfully brash way of dealing with this. Here's how science would sort out this muddleheaded way of thinking: everyone else just needs to get out of the way, and let the real scientists, like himself, get to work. They would have these questions sorted out in no time. His swashbuckling The God Delusion sweeps to one side "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads", who are "immune to argument". Belief in God is just for those who are mad, bad or sad. Science has all the answers — and God isn't even on the short-list. Only science-hating idiots think otherwise. End of discussion.
Straw man. Nobody said science has all the answers. TGD makes it clear that people Dawkins holds in high regard include people of religious belief.
For Dawkins, things are dazzlingly simple. There is a cosmic battle taking place between reason (represented by science) and superstition (represented by religion). Only one can win — and it's got to be reason. Scientists who profess religious belief are appeasers, representing the "Neville Chamberlain" school.
Another Straw Man. TGD suggests that _Some_ scientists are appeasers, while acknowledging that others hold genuine religious belief.
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.
really? sounds promising..
Two other interesting books appeared in the same year as Dawkins's. Owen Gingerich, Harvard University's distinguished astronomer, published God's Universe. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, brought out The Language of God. Both these scientists, with a long track record of peer-reviewed publications, made the case for belief in God as the best and most satisfying explanation of the way things are.
Instead of a proper rebuttal we're fobbed off with Appeal To Authority. Where's the substance?
So what are we to make of this? Perhaps Gingerich and Collins aren't real scientists at all. Maybe they are manipulative religious charlatans who are just pretending to be scientists to garner support for their mad ideas.
Straw Man
Or they might be well-meaning people who have been deluded into belief by that bullying "psychotic delinquent" (that's Dawkins-speak for God, by the way).
Well, the bullying delinquent doesn't exist. So it's clear that he's in no position to do any bullying work himself.
These answers might persuade some "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads" of the atheist variety.
Sloppy. Nobody needs faith to not believe in the existence of gods.
But most thinking people, atheist or otherwise, will regard them as highly implausible.
Thats right. Because those answers don't make logical sense or are straw men. They don't follow from the arguments in TGD.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the hallmark of intelligence is not whether one believes in God or not, but the quality of the processes that underlie one's beliefs.
TGD never suggests otherwise. Of course intelligent people can also be deluded.
But what of that greater question: what's life all about? This, and others like it, Medawar insisted, were "questions that science cannot answer, and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer". They could not be dismissed as "nonquestions or pseudoquestions such as only simpletons ask and only charlatans profess to be able to answer".
Why not? Some explanation of this assertion would be helpful. As it stands this is just another Appeal to Authority.
This deft analysis by a self-confessed rationalist casts light on why scientists hold such a variety of religious beliefs. [...] It also shows that it makes little sense to talk about "proof" of a world view, whether Christian or atheist.
Just because we can't know for sure whether a particular world view represents the truth doesn't mean that all possibilities are equally likely. The spuriousness Christianity's truth claims can't be obscured by woolly language.
In the end, as Gilbert Harman pointed out decades ago, the real question is which offers the "best explanation" of things. And as there is no general agreement on how to decide which of these explanations is the "best", the argument seems certain to run.
Atheism doesn't attempt to offer an explanation of things. Is there something wrong with saying 'we don't know (yet)'.
They know that they can't prove that God is there, any more than an atheist can prove that there is no God. The simple fact is that all of us, whether Christians or atheists, base our lives on at least some fundamental beliefs that we know we cannot prove, but nevertheless believe to be reliable and significant.
Disingenuously presenting the two stances as if they are equally tenable when they aren't. Occam's Razor, Burden of proof, Pink Unicorn.
We all need to examine our beliefs — especially if we are naive enough to think that we don't have any in the first place. It's one of the best antidotes against the ideological fanaticism that The God Delusion manages to deride and represent at one and the same time.
Another flat, unsupported assertion.
Response posted to thetimesonline 10.Feb07
Sir,
Two points:
I find McGrath's affront to Dawkin's supposed black and white attitude remarkably naïve, given that his church, and his fellow believers in scriptural doctrine the world over, have and continue to take an identical stance; bluntly put, our old book is right and everyone else's isn't.
I must also question Prof McGrath's own intellectual honesty, given his statement: "the hallmark of intelligence is not whether one believes in god or not, but the quality of the processes that underlie one's beliefs". Knowing, as we do, that there exists no evidence to support the existence of a god, the only 'indication' of any such possibility is our inability to prove a god does not exist, suggest to me that McGrath as a scientist or philosopher is not examining his own beliefs with any great rigor and the 'processes that underlie his beliefs' are to say the least erroneous.
In a nutshell, MrGrath's argument is simply that atheists "can't prove that God doesn't exist".
Sigh… Again and again and again we see this confusion between defeasibility and doubt.
To say that a position is subject to doubt is to say that there are unanswered questions as to its' validity or, possibly, insufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion.
To say that a position is defeasible is to say that it is subject to nullification (generally by new evidence). For example a, scientific theory may be changed, or completely discarded, in response to experimental testing.
Allow me to get vexed for a moment here: THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!
Sophisticated atheists allow that their position is defeasible. They may do this because they have a scientists' understanding of the importance of questioning every hypothesis; or they may do this because they have a philosophers' understanding of the difficult subject of epistemology: but do this they must. If they don't they are substandard scientists and substandard philosophers.
So when a believer leaps on an atheists' admission of defeasibility with a "Aha! You admit there's doubt then! they are completely misunderstanding the position they are arguing against.
McGrath comes close to admitting the defeasibility of his own position (one suspects merely for forms' sake!) with "They {believers} know that they can't prove that God is there" but then shows his hand by brown-nosing CS Lewis. (A more dogmatic, simplistic intellectual bully it is hard to conceive of).
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen — not only because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else," wrote C. S. Lewis.
Doesn't sound very defeasible to me!
This makes McGrath, as someone presumably more au fait with philosophy than science, a substandard philosopher… but then again what better definition can one have of a theologian?
It would probably be easiest for Richard Dawkins to just have the debate with him which would settle where the arguments lie.
McGrath asks:
But what of that greater question: what's life all about?
I ask:
Why do religites feel that this is the great unanswerable question that cannot possibly be tackled by a pathetic species like us?
He can't answer so I will:
What a stupid question! One usually asked by those who are unable to accept that this life is all there is; it isn't
about anything! Sane, non-deluded people live their lives convinced that it's the only one they're ever going to have so they make the most of it knowing how fortunate they are to be alive. They don't behave as if this life is a rehearsal for some heavenly stage show in which they will play a very minor bit part!
Being one of those sane people, I know that life is about what I make of it and that this is true for everyone, if you make an arse of your life then that's what your life is about! This conviction frees me from the fear of death sound in the knowledge that it can only exist when I don't; naturally, as a person, I fear the process of dying may be painful, but that's all. My sense of self is a product of my brain, when my body dies so will my brain and my "self" will cease to exist, I will never even be aware that I once existed, so what is there to miss, or worry about?
I'm also convinced I shall never understand the mind of otherwise intelligent persons who are able to compartmentalize their brains in order to allow for the remote possibility that death is not the end. They cling pathetically to that nebulous carrot that religion offers them, a carrot without which, religion would be naught; perhaps it would be better if we took pity upon these poor "souls". Ah well, when I'm dead I won't have to tolerate them anymore, pity I won't get the satisfaction of saying, "I told you so!"
Q: Why are we here?
A: Because an omnipotent, invisible man who lives in the sky had nothing better to do than create a bunch of vastly inferior clones whom he gave free will which he warned them not to use under pain of eternal torture.
Q: Thanks for clearing that up.
Why is this "wannabe" intellectual given so much press??
His arguments are lame, same-old, same-old, with nothing new to contribute except vitriol. McGrath is obviously jealous of RD' s clear thinking and success and is trying to make up for it with bluster.
He creates a mental image of an overweight 19th Century Dickens character get redder and redder with each pounding of the ham fist on the table (each new essay), ready to explode and keel over from a heart attack. While one would not wish such on any reasonable person, I wish McGrath would tone down for the sake of his own mental and physical health, and as I wrote previously, take an example from the civil and polite discussion currently going on between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan. JCW
"The meek shall inherit the earth."
It used to mean the Jews, but nowadays...
Merriam-Webster defines "meek" as: "enduring injury with patience and without resentment" and "deficient in spirit or courage."
Deficient in spirit? Who does this sound like people? Make sure you tell all the Christians you know that it looks like atheists are going to inherit the earth. Sad for them, but true. I'm sure someone has realized this before, but I just came to the conclusion today. Anyway, congratulations, everyone!
I love the way that McGrath only ever paraphrases and "sums up" what Dawkins "has to say" in his book; knowing that his own audience has probably never taken the opportunity to read it.
I'll agree that Dawkins can be abrasive and callous, but his arguments in the book are well formed. I suspect this is why McGrath and others simply go after his attitude rather than speak directly to his reasoning.
I'm not quite sure why McGrath and so many other people believe that religion is the only way to find meaning in one's life. Personally, I'm a secular Humanist, and find a great deal of meaning in my life by taking care of my special needs child, expressing love to those who I care about, and vying for peace, human rights, and compassion in a world which suffers from a severe lack of all three.
Each time I read one of Dr. McGrath's articles I find it difficult to see exactly what he's getting at. I'd love it if he would write something more succinct, and to the point. Something where he actually presented *his* case for whatever point he was trying to make, rather than make (feeble) attempts at discrediting other's arguments.
"Science has all the answers".
This is the ulitmate strawman argument used to setup scientists as arrogant know-it-alls.
We can safely say that science has uncovered more about the world than religion ever has.
Alister McGrath doesn't even attempt to counter any of Dawkins' points.
It's the same old tactic used by theists. If anyone talks sanely or cogently about religion, that person is instantly labeled "mean" or "grumpy."
They simply villify you. The church is very proficient at this. As is the media. Shame on you.
I wish there were a million Dawkins out there. Think of the progress that could be made. Dawkins is Darwins Gentle Bulldog. I have never seen him act undignified, unlike MOST of the religionists that so easily demonize him.
Steven Mading put his finger on the problem with the McGraths of this world. Sadly they must ask the WHY question, which inevitably leads to an omnipotent sentience, molded to their liking and producing the comfort and 'meaning' they crave. The HOW doesn't satisfy.
I suspect this is, for some, hard wired in there brain and not purely programming. One day with better functional imaging of the brain we may find out how this happens.
So I am asking for a little help. 'Janus' (whose name, incidentally, is perfect for an agnostic!)
Too bad I'm an "anti-faith-head".
mentioned that studies have shown that, on average, theists are less intelligent than atheists.
Could you please point me in the direction of easily accessible literature I could read on this matter?
I suppose you could try to find and read every study listed on this webpage:
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htmOf course, if i was a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, in a world that has no inherent meaning I am not sure what the relevance of intelligence has to these issues. Could it be that intelligence is a byproduct of gene replication that is useful for practical survival but of no other value? So its 'practical' that I know that dehydration will kill me but that 'God does not exist' is of no ontological value?
Sorry, Richard. As vastly superior in intelligence to me as you obviously are - and your books are such a joy to read - in evolutionary terms why are you concerned with the 'God-delusion'? Jews, Christians and Muslims shag and reproduce more evolutionary proficient than the rest of us!
To derive meaning and morality from scientific theories such as evolution is a rather silly thing to do. To use an analogy, do you go around pulling people down because you believe in gravity? That intelligence is a result of evolution by natural selection is just a fact we have to live with, it doesn't provide an objective basis to guide our actions.
I am getting very tired of all this carry on from theists usually but also from many atheists who are not willing to see the actual dichotomy that is taking place here.
First of all religion is the combination of two different things that are intertwined within the religious narrative. The first is a world view that attempts to explain things like creation, the movement of the planets etc. The second is an ethical system handed down by a super-natural god.
Now theists usually place science as being opposed to religion as a whole. Science in actual fact is only opposed to the first of these, and its extremely successful in its challenge. Hence the brilliance of modern theories of evolution, cosmology etc. Atheists often offer science as a complete alternative to religion but it is not and they are letting down the side of rationality when they do.
There is another aspect of the rational which challenges the second of these two things and that is philosophy in general and moral philosophy in particular.
The challenge is usually represented as:
Science vs. Religion
Instead it should be:
Science and Moral Philosophy vs. Religion
The more of the so called arguments I see published by theologians like McGrath the more it proves Rd's point, to paraphrase shamlessly, that theology is the emptiest of pursuits.
It is obvious to anyone who has read The God Delusion that Professor McGrath does not (indeed, cannot) refute any of Dawkins' main arguments. His main accomplishment has been to confirm the suspicion that one can become a prominent theologian and still display transparently fuzzy thinking. Perhaps such thinking is a necessary attribute for those who engage in his brand of "scholarship?"
What are the limits of science?
Science limits itself to verifiable claims. So beyond science there is everything unprovable and unfalsifiable.
That is why scientific knowledge converges - it advances by evidence and elimination of alternative theories.
But beyond the limits of science, there is no elimination, you can give us any answer what you want and nobody can prove you're wrong. Therefore religious "knowledge" diverges - look how many religious answers we have and none of them can be proven right or wrong, because all of them are "unlimited".
There is only 1 case, when you can disprove a claim, which is beyond science - when the claim contradicts itself. But religious methodology has it's tools to avoid it:
1. Don't take it literally
2. Human reason is not capable of understanding this
Thank you, I'll rather stay "limited" ..
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.
And for just as long there have been con-men waiting to prey (or pray as it were) on these feelings..
iwentdowntotheriver: I have heard very few atheist try to offer science as a complete alternative to religion. What we do do, is to offer the scientific method and rational thinking as a better way of explaining our universe as it consistently provides answers that are actually usable in the real world while religion offers none. Even the claims to morality are after the fact, i.e. down the ages religion has co-opted the morality that already existed as a means to maintain control over its flocks. In fact, when society has decided that the existing moral rules need changing, religion has generally fought tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. Examples abound, even today, of the various religions resisting a changing societal morality, its attitude to homosexuality being a very modern one which is at odds with the secular stance.
Empty Al:
On this website, while I've only been hanging around for a short time, I've noted that many people posting remarks talk about 'Richard' as if he is a personal friend. He may very well be, but the risk of personality cult raises its ugly head.
There is no validity in exchanging one personality for another, just as vicarious belief (or non-belief), is equally invalid. Just as faith (should you require it), should be a personal appropriation, the atheist should probably be able to maintain their position based mainly on an internally developed view. Sure, the construction of arguments for and against faith are valid and useful in verbalising tough concepts.
Something about the very nature of atheists and their rabid independence (and self-awareness) makes me doubt that they are as prone as the average person to cults of personalities and to persuasion by celebrity.
The enthusiasm of people here in support of Richard Dawkins is a response to his courage to step up to the plate and defend an unpopular minority worldview on behalf of thousands (millions, really) who have ingrained the culture of 'pc' acceptance of religious belief trumping reason and secularism in the public square. Among attacks against him as an atheist (which correspond to being attacks against many of us), we've witnessed MANY (verbal) personal attacks directed towards him over the last months--the above tirade being a good example. In this case, people are showing some solidarity. As for referring to Dr. Dawkins often, well, this is a website in his name, and he has made an effort to respond to the posters/participants in the forum, and in these comment sections, as well. He may not be a friend, but he's an ally of sorts that people feel akin to.
I don't think people are confused about reality: the vast majority of people on here do not know him personally and I don't think they have deluded themselves for one moment to believe that. But you have to understand that Richard Dawkins is unique in that he has revealed much about his (private) values and opinions and opened up his every word and move to scrutiny--so there is a sense of connection that people can make to him more readily than the average public figure.
In regards to borrowing arguments or what have you... As I alluded to above, I doubt many people have been 'converted to atheism' on the grounds that someone famous is/was an atheist. You have to cut people some slack: defending atheism is a real challenge--the semantics and thought process combined are complex; throw in some impassioned attack by a true believer who despises you (to the point of wishing you ill) and it can be very difficult to communicate your well-thought out reasons.
I'll venture to say that in the current situation, in which atheism is not very popular, you either have to be an independent thinker (or, in the red states, a masochist) to be an out-of-the-closet atheist.
Gentlemen and women;
All excellent arguments squashing McGrath completely. He probably keeps attacking because he's following all our comments here and getting ticked. What is even better, when someone writes something like McGrath has, it can be picked apart and exposed for it's lack of merit. Thank you all for a fabulous and truly enjoyable reading experience!
"Comment #21591 by Duff on February 10, 2007 at 3:25 am
It's coming clear now.
Iron Age Religion's contributions to society...zero.
Science's contributions to society...too numerous to describe.
I know whose side I want to be on. "
Now its one thing to disagree with what this author says, but this comment is simply false, the benefits of religion to society at large have been huge, it was the church who nfirst provided educational facilities in Western Europe, that provided the orphanages and care homes as well as many other social benefit schemes. In fact it could be said to be the prelude to the welfare state. Furthermore no organisation ever did more to promote equality in society, "Love thy Neighbour etc" and had noblemen worshipping alongside laymen, it is no coincidence that many civil rights campaigners, such as Martin Luther King, Gandhi or even Mother Theresa held deep religous beliefs. Finally on a moral front the effect of church teachings did more to set up a strong moral code of conduct (linked to law, but also goes beyond it) than any other organisation, whether belief in God is rational or not, to say that religion has had no benefits is simply not fair.
69. Comment #21642 by Satanburiedfossils on February 10, 2007 at 9:47 am
Q: Why are we here?
A: Because an omnipotent, invisible man who lives in the sky had nothing better to do than create a bunch of vastly inferior clones whom he gave free will which he warned them not to use under pain of eternal torture.
Q: Thanks for clearing that up.
One problem I have with many hardened atheists is their continual refusal to research what theists actually say, this is so far from christian theology it is unbelievable!
It is the same with continual references in this forum to theology being a dud subject, a waste of time. This is simply not the case, surely it is the purpose of science to really look at all possibles evidence, how do we usually prove something- 1:experiment- not possible in this case as we don't know waht to test for,
2:Look at documental or archeological evidence and this is substantial, there is more documental evidence for the existance of Christ than for that of Julius Caesar.l Theology is crucial for science to take on board rather than dismiss as to disprove the theists they must use it to understand some issues which at present they over simplify or ignore, much as they would argue theists ignore good rational scientific theroies...
"I find McGrath's affront to Dawkin's supposed black and white attitude remarkably naïve, given that his church, and his fellow believers in scriptural doctrine the world over, have and continue to take an identical stance; bluntly put, our old book is right and everyone else's isn't." Once again this fails to take inot account anything theists actually say, in the RC an oral tradition stretching back to the 1st pope in the year 5AD is equally prevalent and there are few christians who would not accept some self-interpretation of the Bible, in fact even prominent saints such as Saint Augustine have argued against certain chapters of the Bible. Christians believe the Bible is an almaganation of books on God and therefore can't all be taken literally. some atheists would do well to challenge some of their own literature, darwin's theory of evolutions you could drive a bus through for example yet scientists appear to take it as the blind truth.
Well McGrath is again bashing Dawkins and to be honest i have not enough time to waste to read more than 2 Sentences. McGrath brings nothing new to the table. Same old "the bible said so rubbish". McGrath would have been right at home with Paula Zahn the other night with the other Atheist bashers. As much as you try to ignore these attacks it can get to you as bit. All the hard work work Richard does promoting the truth he must at times hold his head in his hands and sigh i know i do. BUT then after the sigh a breathe of fresh air and back at it.
Mark
FortunaAdiuvatForte, to know whether a deed is truly good, one needs to look beyond the action to why it was performed. Mother Theresa was by all accounts a bad woman, who's only reason for the supposed good she did was to guarantee herself, selfishly, a place in heaven. Similarly any religous "good" is suspect as they do their deeds to promote their faith, to escape hell for themselves, to find themselves a place in heaven. To truly do good, you must do it without thought of recompense in this life (or if you believe in it, the next).
So to say religions do good, is a fiction, and so far from what doing good truly means as to be unbelievable.
As for theology - what good has it done? Ever seen a bridge built by theology - well, it's invisible, you've got to have faith that it's there. It's, of course, the best, most greatest brigde ever conceived, and hence must exist, because if it didn't, it wouldn't be the greatest.
I prefer to walk across bridged built by engineers. I'm much less likely to fall in the water that way.
there is more documental evidence for the existance of Christ than for that of Julius Caesar.
This is an oft-claimed "fact". It is untrue. There is NO contemporary documentary evidence for the existence of Jesus. None. Zero. Not even the bible is contemporary.
What little extra-biblical evidence there is dates from well after the supposed time of Jesus and is of doubtful provenance. Much has been dismissed by biblical scholars as either embellishment of earlier writings or complete forgeries by christian apologists.
I would suggest to the poster that, if you wish to be an apologist for christianity, a small amount of research would avoid the embarrassment of making such ludicrous claims.
Just an observation...
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen — not only because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else,"
One can be deluded in believing that the Sun 'rises' as one can be deluded about religion. Or you can observe that the Sun APPEARS to rise, as the Earth spins on it axis every 24 hours. Knowlege, science (truth) and reason are the only things you should look to 'see things by'.
It is at least the second time McGrath has used this CS Lewis quote in his articles. Seems a bit odd to me.
The problem with theology as a discipline is that it takes the existence of God as a given. If God does not exist, then theology is a lot of gray matter exercised over nothing. Intellectual discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of pin seems pointless is angels don't exist.
The fact that religious people motivated (partly) by religious fervor did good things in the past, and continue to do good things today, does not make the existence of God more certain.
Theology is baseless speculation. It is utterly undistinguishable from zeus-ology and elf-ology and leprechaun-ology and unicorn-ology and demonology. Oh wait, that last one's a subset of theology, isn't it?
How can theology be a truth-apt subject? It's the supposed study of an entity no one knows anything about, not even if it exists, and its experts are often incapable of even defining this entity, much less saying anything meaningful about it.
A true academic discipline must have some way of figuring out what is true, and what is false. If its experts can't figure out what is true, they can't be said to _know_ anything about it, they're just speculating aimlessly. If you think I'm wrong, here's an easy way to prove it, all you have to do is answer this question:
How do theologians distinguish true theological theories from false ones?
Could the moderator(s) please stop posting articles from this McGrath asswit? He's a complete waste of space.
"There are few bridges that will survive the test of time better than religion." But that's not an answer to the question I posed. Typical for someone who thinks theology has any meaning in the real world. I commented about a bridge made by theology, not religion. I comment, in a satirical way, about a bridge built by that argument that is the height of arogance, the ontological argument, to point out the kind of nonsense that theologists come up with.
It seems to me that nice people, who tend to like the "nice" bits of religion are as horrified by it's nasty bits as that of Atheists, but instead of rejecting religion as a whole, they indulge in the mental masturbation that is theology, and become religious apologists, who use false argument, wiggle words, sophistry and semantic trickery to render their own heads innate moral obomination at the evils of religion to be nullified, and to render any thought that would contradict their chosen belief system to be compartmentalized from their rational thought centres.
Series of Tubes - Remeber, know thy enemy :-) McGrath is a hilarious, pompous twit. I'm fully enjoying his entertainment value.
How about we send Mr. McGrath an alternative title: "The questions science can answer if only you have an open mind."
From long experience as a science teacher, there is almost no use arguing with a theist. Expertly brainwashed they are faced with two alternative realities: either they are correct, or they are wrong and have made a fool of themselves for years. As no-one wants to be a fool they must be correct. ANY rationalization will do to keep their worldview. Mr. McGrath is just desperately trying to convince himself that he isn't a fool. What a pity that he attacks others in the process.
Having read his 'arguments' I find it quite amazing that Professor McGrath is able to extract a wage from one of the finest Universities we have.
I would be disappointed to read such weak comments had they come from a Professor in any field of higher education, or indeed any reasonably educated lay man, but when I consider that this is Professor McGrath's specialist subject the mind simply boggles.
