tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post116256398585161481..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Taking On Dawkins' God:An interview with Alister McGrathRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39748026233911408882008-01-02T12:35:00.000-05:002008-01-02T12:35:00.000-05:00@Hiraeth:All Dawkins is saying in that quote is th...@Hiraeth:<BR/><BR/>All Dawkins is saying in that quote is that you first have to prove a phenomenon in order to debate about it. Theology assumes the existence of God. There is a big difference between writing what Vikings believed about Thor and concluding from Thor's existence.<BR/><BR/>Dawkins does look at all evidence provided for existence of God. If one wanted to find out whether evolution was true or not, he would have to look at the evidence and not necessarily at the conclusions you can draw from the theory.Maciek Trybilohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763597020990948702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64149504796361862702007-04-21T18:37:00.000-04:002007-04-21T18:37:00.000-04:00The guy is afraid to debate Alister McGrath.....My...The guy is afraid to debate Alister McGrath.....My faith in god has become stronger after reading his moronic book!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18374304509196895987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1169934765179433392007-01-27T16:52:00.000-05:002007-01-27T16:52:00.000-05:00Thank God for rhetoric.Thank God for rhetoric.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164139923079739802006-11-21T15:12:00.000-05:002006-11-21T15:12:00.000-05:00Hiraeth said: I imagine most people would not spe...<B>Hiraeth said: </B> <I>I imagine most people would not speak or write authoritatively about Viking Mythology or astrology without doing proper research.</I><BR/>How much research is necessary to discover, for example, that Thor is not responsible for lightning, or Mars in Gemini for the fact that you didn't get the promotion at work you hoped for? <BR/><BR/>Let's not forget that the "God Delusion" (the myth, not the book) is based on a tangle of tribal legends liberally dotted with flights of imaginative rewriting and invention, reassembled and shuffled over centuries of editing under the influence of this or that cleric or emperor, translated, mistranslated and retranslated scores of times over two thousand years. Let's remember that there is <B>no</B> historical evidence whatsoever for the bare existence of <B>any</B> of the principal characters in the latter part of the collection, and hardly any in the first part. Let's consider that there's little or no physical or archaeological evidence for any of the events recounted anywhere in it.<BR/><BR/>And then let's not be too surprised that people, rather than spending decades studying the ins and outs of turgid speculation and comparison made on the various aspects of the myths, should decide that it contains no information of relevance to the past, the present, or the future.<BR/><BR/>As Robert Heinlein said, "Theology is the most useless study of all. It has no subject matter." <BR/><BR/>And I write as one who was carefully brought up as a Presbyterian, and only became an atheist after successive ministers, vicars, chaplains and writers could not answer my questions. <BR/><BR/>I just can't get over how polite Dawkins has been!Archie Robertsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03023132179697037438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1162594148306513172006-11-03T17:49:00.000-05:002006-11-03T17:49:00.000-05:00Daniel, I read with some interest Dawkins' declara...Daniel, I read with some interest Dawkins' declaration:<BR/><BR/>“Yes, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content. I imagine that McGrath would join me in expressing disbelief in fairies, astrology and Thor’s hammer. How would he respond if a fairyologist, astrologer or Viking accused him of ignorance of their respective subjects?"<BR/><BR/>Dawkins here is guilty assuming his conclusion. I can see from the first point that Dawkins is indeed massively ignorant. He does not believe that he needs to read up on Christianity because it is devoid of meaning. He speaks with the authority that only a clever man speaking outside his field can exhibit.<BR/><BR/>If a Christian made that statement about evolution after writing a book about how untrue evolution is, would Dawkins accept that? Of course not! And I trust I would have sufficient grace to agree with him.<BR/><BR/>On the second, I imagine most people would not speak or write authoritatively about Viking Mythology or astrology without doing proper research. As an historian, I am only too aware that one does not have to agree with a position, or even believe in it, in order to take it seriously. Dawkins' problem is that he does not take religion seriously, as witness his examples.<BR/><BR/>Dawkins is simply seeking to excuse intellectual laziness. Now, doubtless Dawkins feels he has better things to do with his life than do in-depth reading about Christianity/religion in general. After all, the man is not a theologian or a philosopher.<BR/><BR/>However, when a man writes a book entitled 'The God Delusion', one does rather expect the man to have done his homework. After all, he does expect people to take the time to read his book. A book addressing the subject of God. In the preface, he apparently expresses the hope that Christians will read this book.<BR/><BR/>And of course Prof. Dawkins is quite devoid of condescension, as his numerous TV and radio appearances have demonstrated.Hiraethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745527476050999805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1162582586963359602006-11-03T14:36:00.000-05:002006-11-03T14:36:00.000-05:00Daniel,That quote made him sound like an ignoramou...Daniel,<BR/><BR/>That quote made him sound like an ignoramous, I agree with Steve. You didn't do your guy any favors there...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1162577342816226282006-11-03T13:09:00.000-05:002006-11-03T13:09:00.000-05:00Dawkins' attempt at self-defense is just as damagi...Dawkins' attempt at self-defense is just as damaging to himself asthe original interview with McGrath.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1162574208986063342006-11-03T12:16:00.000-05:002006-11-03T12:16:00.000-05:00You could've posted Dawkins' responses. I will do...You could've posted Dawkins' responses. I will do it for you:<BR/><BR/><I>Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, had a chance to comment on Alister McGrath’s interview with Science & Theology News.<BR/><BR/>Dawkins on McGrath saying he is hostile toward religion:<BR/><BR/>“I certainly do not think all religion is evil. But a good case can be made that a high proportion of evil today is religious — from Osama bin Laden to George Bush, from the Taliban’s treatment of women to missionary lies about condoms not protecting against AIDS, from the brainwashing in madrassas to the suppression of stem cell research.”<BR/><BR/>When McGrath argues the alleged Dawkins’ quote: “religious people are fools, demonical or mad,” Dawkins says:<BR/><BR/>“I am quite sure I never said that. My only statement that even comes close was not about religious people, but about anti-evolutionists. I wrote, in The New York Times in 1989, ‘It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.’ Now, that sounds terribly extreme and intolerant, doesn’t it? But think about it. All I was doing was stating, more clearly and unequivocally than appeals to some people, a proposition that they themselves would accept on reflection.”<BR/><BR/>McGrath challenges Dawkins’ knowledge of Christian theology. Dawkins responds:<BR/><BR/>“Yes, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content. I imagine that McGrath would join me in expressing disbelief in fairies, astrology and Thor’s hammer. How would he respond if a fairyologist, astrologer or Viking accused him of ignorance of their respective subjects?<BR/><BR/>The only part of theology that could possibly demand my attention is the part that purports to demonstrate that God does exist. This part of theology I have, indeed, studied with considerable attention. And found it utterly wanting.<BR/>As for McGrath’s book, I read it with genuine curiosity to discover whether he had any argument to offer in favor of his theistic belief. The nearest I could find was his statement that you cannot disprove it. Well, that may be true, but it isn’t very impressive, is it?”</I>nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1162569057216884982006-11-03T10:50:00.000-05:002006-11-03T10:50:00.000-05:00This isn't Dawkins, but the following should be of...This isn't Dawkins, but the following should be of interest:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.greer-heard.com/index.shtml" REL="nofollow">The Future of Atheism</A> with Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett, Feb. 23-24, 2006 at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14336155651560538168noreply@blogger.com