As an atheist, I have to admit I admire Dr. McGrath. Far from being a dogmatic evangelist, his arguments are lucid, cogent, and well-presented. I feel I need to be challenged by intelligent counter-views, and appreciate his honesty, his common sense, and his logic. Thanks for uploading this video.
I actually can relate to McGrath. I was once an aggressive atheist, thinking "Religion is crippling to human knowledge!" But, I actually backed away from that, and soon thought, "Well, actually, there could be a God." and gave up atheism and became a theist.
Edwardhowton you have completely misunderstood McGrath's closing comment. He is an evolutionist not a creationist. His argument is not that Dawkins lends any credence to theism at all but that creationists use Dawkins to caricature atheism and win people to their side. And McGrath is against such tactics because evolution is one thing he stands shoulder to shoulder with Dawkins on. Thus he criticizes the New Atheism for implicitly and unintentionally supporting creationism. No shooting in the foot whatsoever.
@Tobytrim It dosn't bother me at all.I was an atheist for all but the last three years.I was the last person you could expect to believe in a God.But sometimes things happen that change your perceptions.I wish you well.
@Tobytrim I used to talk like you.I did not decide on a God as you put it.I can not prove there is a God to you no more than you can prove anything about the creation of the Universe to me.I read the Bible as a guide only.I am not saying the Bible was not manipulated by the hand of man.But overall the message of peace and love for your fellow man is good.I believe in a Universal spirituality and that is my God but being born in the west means i practice it in a way i find familiar.
Just type McGrath Dawkins into youtube and you can watch the Dawkins/McGrath interview in full. McGrath has a massive knowledge of Christian theology and history but doesn't really come off well when it comes to answering Dawkins questions.
I didn't think McGrath answered the question about whether be believed 1 child was saved by God while the remaining 10,000 were killed. He only seemed to say that its a good thing for the parents to give thanks to God. He wouldn't say that God actually saved the child. What was something that you believe Dawkins refused to consider?
I must say I'm very surprised at the number of highly critical & disparaging comments on this article. McGrath's comments regarding the consonance of Christian belief & the scientific enterprise have historical support; Copernicus, Kepler & others clearly believed the notion of a rational Creator grounded their belief in intelligibility of the world. Having studied molecular biophysics at postgrad level, I would've thought McGrath well qualified to comment on these philosophy of science issues.
@finbomartini "Modern Christianity as I've encountered offers fantastic moral guidance" I agree, I'm not a christian but its not a bad guideline to follow. Studying the words of Jesus I find no fault.
@jonesgerard That is just an assumption on your part. I'm very interested in this topic so I am constantly reading and trying to find new sources. I am curious though what evidence you think proves gods existence beyond all doubt.
As I tried to explain to you before, you have provided evidence for design, not creation. Design inherently denotes limitations because you have to intelligently manipulate an environment to achieve your goals. In saying that "topsoil" is necessary for life, you're saying it is not possible for God to create life without topsoil. We design watches because we can't tell time on our own. We design cars because we can't teleport. And your god "designs" universes because he can't create them.
SounzNice, I know literacy and logic are not among your bag of tricks, but let me say to anyone reading this that (as I explained before), creation and design are not only entirely separate concepts, but that they are mutually exclusive within a complex universe. It is not "semantics" to confuse a concept with its opposite, nor with anything that precludes its existence in the first place. Black is not white, up is not down, and your "designer" is not a god.
No, you are incorrect, the difference is not simply in confusing "creation" with "design"... you clearly stated that topsoil was evidence of creation. Even in using the wrong words, you're still wrong about the line of reasoning that suggests the existence of a god. Your argument rests on the notion that god is exactly the opposite of what he's supposed to be -- omnipotent. How can it be said more clearly than to state that a god who is infinitely limited is not a god?
SounzNice said, "But at the very least you should feel obligated to back yourself up" As I said before, the argument you proposed that I defend isn't one that I hold. Furthermore, there is never any logical obligation to replace a bad idea with another one. If an argument is logically incorrect, then it is incorrect irrespective of whether or not any other is ...or isn't.
I agree that it is a poor argument to say that God cannot exist simply because God is too complex. Its a poor argument because a believer can just say what McGrath said, "God is above evolution." I agree with dawkins that it isn't helpful to use that statement to claim God's existance because it doesn't point to any scientific proof. It merely describes something without limits capable of anything and everything and calling it "God."
If you had been capable of providing any rebuttal whatsoever to my arguments (instead of declaring "semantics" at mutually exclusive concepts), then I would have gladly engaged further with you. Sadly, such was not the case. "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against illogical propositions. Ideas must be concrete to act upon them." - Thomas Jefferson
I am only obligated to defend positions I actually hold. Making up a position for me and then asking me to defend it is a waste of time. But while we're on the subject of simplicity, let me make this clear: The moment your argument leads to "...because God can't..." then you've lost. Your argument consists of reasons why God needed topsoil. The only reason a god would "need" topsoil is if he is unable to achieve his goals without it. Didn't you know that necessity is the mother of invention?
Even Michael Behe clearly states that design is a "purposeful arrangement of parts" But an arrangement of parts is only made purposeful by the constructs under which those parts behave. Without limitations, constraints, and behaviors, all you have is "an arrangement of parts" ...a state of existence for which even a can full of trash qualifies. Designs exist because of what cannot otherwise be done. For further reading, look up the dictionary definition of the verb "to tune"
@nickallah Your message is a bit confusing to me, but yeah, of course Dawkins is the enemy of creationism. What I'm saying is that Dawkins has said he gives creationism to at least take the Bible as real, and not just cherrypick. Dawkins kind of says evolution makes The Bible obsolete, which is what creationists want to hear. Not sure if I'm clear enough, but oh well.
He was upset that science didn't answer all his questions so he chose religion. He said that just the idea of Christianity can transform someone. He just wants it to be true.
@nickallah Dawkins is in a way though. Dawkins has said numerous times that he don't think religion and evolution is incompatible. Just like creationists says. For people in America for example, where there's sometimes troubles around teaching evolution its difficult because some religious folks deems it as anti-religious. According to Dawkins, it is.
I would rephrase the question about existence of God to: How far we can go in this ever changing light of our knowledge and understanding? Just examine the paths of those who tried...
Furthermore, reducing all opposing arguments to mere "semantics" and wordplay is, itself, a snowjob. If you have a legitimate rebuttal to the argument at hand, then provide it and stop with the theater of your victory dance. Address the issue, or quit while you're "ahead".
SounzNice said, "Words themselves mean nothing" If that were true, then you would have just accepted that conversations have no value and wouldn't be engaging in one. Or are you now admitting to being a troll?
Creation (as proposed by theists who believe there was "nothing" before the Big Bang) is the ability to create "something" from "nothing". Such an ability necessitates the power to not only make matter, but to define how it works and what rules govern it. (You don't need to worry about the stability of the house of cards when it is you who decides whether or not gravity exists) Design is when you manipulate a pre-existing environment to achieve a goal that is otherwise unachievable.
Just because an accent can be described as affected doesn't null my point. It wasn't what I meant was affected about him. I meant his jargon and his circular logic. They are affected, put on, insincere, etc.
Creation and design would only be compatible if this universe were simple, but it is not. In the event of a complex universe in which a god "must" do this or that in order to make life "possible" (see "topsoil" argument previously provided), you are only declaring that such a god is not omnipotent. By calling him a designer, you are inherently taking the position that he lacks the ability to achieve his goals without great intelligence, which means he isn't omnipotent. Which means he isn't god.
The questioner asks McGrath what finally convinced him to become a Christian. He responds by saying that all his friends were Christians. His next reason is that science makes more sense with religion and there are other scientists who became Christians. Neither of these prove the existence of a being like God and therefore a reason to believe in him. A better answer would be that he has regular two way discussions with God. His 'reasons' are not reasons at all when you think about it
@Svankmajer creationists and evolutionists have the common belief that religion and science are incompatible. but they are essentially agreeing that the two of them are deeply opposed. so it logically follows that Dawkins is creationists best ENEMY, and not friend. I never heard Dawkins say that he doesnt think religion and evolution are incompatible. he always made it clear that they are INcompatible.
There is no evidence or logical basis for Mcgrath's statement that Dawkins is helping creationists and fundamentalists. Although moderate, he has shown a prejudice here in and a lack of smarts. He still can not refute dawkins central argument: what does the Christian religion offer as evidence, apart from their sincere faith and scripture (which most religions have), that their religion/God is true? None. And they criticise others for pointing this FACT out?
It is amazing to see a person of science speak with such disregard for logic. You can talk pretty all you want, but in the end, unless you can provide evidence for your claims, then it is a mute point and purely argumentative. Religion is very poweful and a huge business, they can buy anyone they want. So, now we have scientists speaking on behalve of religion. Money is everything, isn't it? If there ever was a god, it has to be money.
To be entirely honest and I'm not trying to offend anyone here, this is just what I think is happening. I think that religion in general, mainly Christianity are afraid in a sense that religion is slowly dying and maybe some of them see that they way they think cannot be used in a modern world of science and reason and so they are trying to have their cake and eat it by suggesting silly claims that religion can work with science and reason but I don't think it can. Its contradictory to say so.
You keep saying there's evidence yet you refuse to present it. I'm telling you there can be no evidence in either direction. If you have it, present it. THEN we have something to discuss.
@Handsdown09 Some people need to believe that if they follow a moral code they'll be rewarded, or they need to be offered an absolute correct way to behave rather than just following their own intrinsic moral compass. And it doesn't matter if religion is 'rarely chosen', your original point was 'why did he choose to be a Christian rather than follow any other faith?' He chose.
And yet the general public had never heard of him till he wrote The Dawkins Delusion - and now he is best known for debating the other side of the God argument.
Because he's not dogmatic to any side of the spectrum, and he doesn't limit himself intellectually like Dawkins, or Creationsists. Science,although credible, cannot answer all questions. It can't explain many things, and certainly there are other venues like philosophy and anthology and even some aspects of religion that give the whole case of our existance more consistency. No need to be close-minded,friend.
That's not what "affected" generally means. I meant that he has a very affected and overtly artificial way of expressing himself. It has nothing to do with his pronunciation and everything to do with what he's saying.
@jonesgerard I agree that getting people to actually read their scriptures is a surefire way to plant seeds of doubt - there comes a point where the number of questions they generate outweighs people's ability to explain them away. Religion vs god - I wonder if people who reject organised religion come up with religions of their own. I could say that I am religious in that way as well, in that you can have a religious sensibility, without accepting all the rules and baggage.
Saying that moral law comes from a deity is not evidence. Take the Ten Commandments. #1 You have to demonstrate there is a god. #2 you have to demonstrate that the god is the Hebrew god. #3 You have to demonstrate that this god gave the law. None of this can be demonstrated in any way. Finally, minus the first four, the law is merely a copy of Semitic civil law around at that time. That is not even an argument.
@Handsdown09 You cannot use biblical literalism to denounce religious morals then cast it aside. A priest has never imparted to me those old testament values, no Christian has ever even implied that to be proper conduct to me. We are not Moslem, the only thing a Christian has ever suggested I do in regards to moral code is be kind, loving, forgiving, compassionate and merciful. That's it. Modern Christianity as I've encountered offers fantastic moral guidance.
SounzNice said, "So ok, i win the soil argument" If by "win" you mean "logically inconsistent, incompatible with all existing evidence within reality, and contrary to the definitions of every word entailed".... .... then yes, you "win". Put a gold star on your forehead, because you're "special". Anyway, kiddo, I'm moving on. Have a good night.
Dawkins, in his enthused passion to rid the world of God, has done a lot to bring the issue of creation vs evolution into the public arena. The problem for Creationist and Intelligent Design in the media, is that they are heard indirectly, through those who oppose them. Presented in a negative way. If it weren't for the internet and specialist distributors and stockist, it would, generally be concealed from the public. No counter argument would be heard. I never heard one, until I was 28 (1994).
@prk30 Oh, and are you saying that evolution is only a hypothesis? And: "even scientists don't believe in evolution at all" I find this a pretty poor choice of words. I really hope you meant to say SOME because you phrased it as if scientists in general don't except it. And polls certainly show that the % of scientists who reject evolution entirely is a VERY small minority, and most of them (maybe some) aren't athiests.
I agree with you. He claims that science reinforces his christian beliefs then doesn't explain how. I don't believe he actually buys the stuff he tries to sell...
@Handsdown09 Also while you're right that fundamentally, most religions promote a similar ethos, they are all unique - slightly, maybe even superficially. Religions are not identical, Christians have a completely different lifestyle to Buddhists no? But they both advocate love and peace. So as a lifestyle choice, and if you're taking it seriously, something you're going to have to be dedicated to, the difference between religions is vast. The only odd one out I can think of is Islam.
@prk30 You never gave a solid answer to why Christianity is conisistent with science. You said christianity is the ground of modern science. Is that your answer to my original question? Explanation please? And you said logic is absolute, which is true, but how does christianity follow that logic and rationality? Saying things that contradict evidence, fact, and common sense seems to be very irrational, and thats not my opinion, that's "ABSOLUTE".
@Svankmajer Once again youve mentioned what creationists and dawkins have in common, and thats xtianity and evolution incompatibility. I think what you mean to say, or what alister means to say is that, dawkins seems to force people to "choose" xtianity or evolution. and creationists will then choose xtianity. but lol its not that simple. alister just wanted to sound bold in that statement and instead sounded idiotic. dawkins is obviously just being divisive is anything...
@Klash92 as for the existence of God, I'd say that it would be mathematics, like the universe cannot be both infinite in past and expansion, you cannot subtract infinity from infinity, and existence cannot create itself, X creates Y but X creates X is a contradiction.
@TheOmegajuice It seems we have misunderstood eachother. I was trying to point to the pointlessness of trying to give a complete and precise definition of God, whereas it seems like you thought I was saying there no definition at all. There are some adjectives that apply to God. Eternal is one, creator should be another one (for the God of the Bible). caring, loving, powerful, mighty, just and others can also be used.
@Handsdown09 On one side of your mouth you say I want evidence and on the other you refuse to look. 'Contempt prior to investigation' is the path you chose. Now your life will never be the same.
I can't be bothered reading the rest of these comments but I think thevodka religion dude is right. Like myself, you believe that there is no god. However strong that belief is, it is still a belief. At the same time I think thevodka is underestimating the word "belief". If you drop something you don't know it will fall on the ground but you strongly believe it based on a bunch of facts etc.. Yet there are some circumstances where the thing you dropped will not fall entirely to the ground.
is that directed at me or Poseidon? The fact is if the bible is the direct word of god then he has to take responsibility for the mistakes in it. For example thinking that we were the center of the universe.
to Thevodka I disagree with you, the burden of proof lies with you. Atheists such as myself believe in facts and evidence and science etc. If science make extraordinary claims they either say it as a theory at the moment or present a bunch of evidence. Science is not the one who (based on close-to-nothing) is claiming that there is a supernatural being/creator that is all-seeing all-mighty etc. (much like Santa Clause). Since you guys are making this extraordinary claim, the burden lies on you.
@stevebritgimp The Tamet kid is rather more than Kim Peek, he is able to communicate intelligently and explain what he is seeing "behind the curtain". HE astounded the skeptics who tested him, whilst rattling off Pi he says he is wandering through a mental landscape, the shapes are the numbers. If itys computing, its nothing like any form we know, its more like platonism. Consciousness is proving more slippery than researchers bargained for.
DNA validated Darwin's theory. Just as I can use DNA to demonstrate my common ancestor with any race and even my dad, likewise I can demonstrate the relatedness of all human beings and the common ancestor with apes. We don't even need fossils to demonstrate this. Do you have any science to back up what you're saying?
I'm very familiar with Lennox. His argument is exactly like every other Christian. He says, "because there are universal constants, there is a god." This is not evidence. I can tell you I have a black standard poodle, but to demonstrate it, I can provide photos, his papers, and a copy of his bloodline. This is the sort of evidence I require--not basic inference. You obviously require less evidence than me.
@SounzNice Saying that creation is all around is not evidence. Providing evidence and demonstrating is part of the scientific process. What if I say that the universe was created by Thor? You can dispute it. If a question cannot be demonstrated as true or false, it is meaningless. You have to do more than SAY the universe is created. You have to show it and I'm not going to spend my time giving you a science lesson.
Okay, so science convinced him okay. But why then did he choose christianity? Why not Islam, Olympian Greek faith etc?? That seems to be the big problem with these people. Perhaps they could justify believing in 'a god'....but a particular religion??? I do not think that is justifiable.
@Svankmajer yes its true, creationists ARE honest and take the bible literally. but why would creationists want to hear how the bible is obsolete by evolution. I just dont understand why alister would imply that dawkins is in a way creationists best friend. even if dawkins made it clear that he proposed that evolution is compatible, he would stil be rendered an enemy to creationists and not a friend. I dont get alister.
@Whatsifsowhatsit Again, I understand you, but to say "there is no God" versus "there is no proof of God" are two very different claims. One suggests they have already proved God's non existence, while the other merely claims there is nothing to suggest to them that God exists. However, that does not mean he does not exist, and there is still the burden on you to tell me why you know he doesn't exist. If you said "I'm not convinced he exists" I would understand.
This guy keeps repeating "science makes much more sense if christianity is true" but I have never heard him say how. I can also say that science makes much more sense if a sacrifice a human to the maya god in the mountains of Guatemala, but that doesn't make it true!
@nickallah Well, creationists usually have problems with theists claiming you can believe in evolution and religion at the same time. In USA there has been problems with teaching evolution because some christians has with success preached evolution = atheism, but their case has falled. Dawkins "kind of" gives creationists what they want to hear in that sense, because he has said that evolution was the reason he gave up faith as a youngster, and that he don't see what role god can have in it.
@jonesgerard I'll check out the Daniel Tammet programme - that looks interesting. I don't think, though, that the savants are doing anything that doesn't involve the circuitry in their brains. As for consciousness - I'm not sure what the definition of consciousness is, and as such I can't see how people could disprove that you couldn't build something that was conscious. If I'm conscious, I've been assembled from proteins, and I could be copied.
@Thensolomonsaid "The problem with most atheists is they think all christians see God as some white robed Charlton Heston figure sitting on a cloud" No, what bothers you believers about atheists, is that we don't see YOUR definition of "God" as any kind of a plausible possibility at all. We have no picture of any "god" at all, except what is painted by the fantasised claims of believers, or the texts they are informed from.
@Klash92 Actually, I'd say you should take the Gospels literally on the sense of the miracles and more importantly the Resurrection, because the resurrection is the basis of the Christian faith. physically speaking, not metaphorically speaking. Saint Paul didn't go into a city screaming RESURRECTION to convey a guy's ideas are passing on, he was screaming it to convey a guy came back to life.
@jimnebob If you find my writings offensive maybe you shouldn't be following a guy who claims that "there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
As an atheist, I have to admit I admire Dr. McGrath. Far from being a dogmatic evangelist, his arguments are lucid, cogent, and well-presented. I feel I need to be challenged by intelligent counter-views, and appreciate his honesty, his common sense, and his logic. Thanks for uploading this video.
I really like Alister McGrath and I oughta buy his book The Dawkins Delusion. And yeah Dawkins has made the creationists more vocal.
I actually can relate to McGrath. I was once an aggressive atheist, thinking "Religion is crippling to human knowledge!" But, I actually backed away from that, and soon thought, "Well, actually, there could be a God." and gave up atheism and became a theist.
Edwardhowton you have completely misunderstood McGrath's closing comment. He is an evolutionist not a creationist. His argument is not that Dawkins lends any credence to theism at all but that creationists use Dawkins to caricature atheism and win people to their side. And McGrath is against such tactics because evolution is one thing he stands shoulder to shoulder with Dawkins on. Thus he criticizes the New Atheism for implicitly and unintentionally supporting creationism. No shooting in the foot whatsoever.
Awesome interview! :D
@Tobytrim It dosn't bother me at all.I was an atheist for all but the last three years.I was the last person you could expect to believe in a God.But sometimes things happen that change your perceptions.I wish you well.
@Tobytrim I used to talk like you.I did not decide on a God as you put it.I can not prove there is a God to you no more than you can prove anything about the creation of the Universe to me.I read the Bible as a guide only.I am not saying the Bible was not manipulated by the hand of man.But overall the message of peace and love for your fellow man is good.I believe in a Universal spirituality and that is my God but being born in the west means i practice it in a way i find familiar.
Einstein was a theist actually, read more of his writings instead of taking on quote out of context :)
Just type McGrath Dawkins into youtube and you can watch the Dawkins/McGrath interview in full. McGrath has a massive knowledge of Christian theology and history but doesn't really come off well when it comes to answering Dawkins questions.
I didn't think McGrath answered the question about whether be believed 1 child was saved by God while the remaining 10,000 were killed. He only seemed to say that its a good thing for the parents to give thanks to God. He wouldn't say that God actually saved the child. What was something that you believe Dawkins refused to consider?
I must say I'm very surprised at the number of highly critical & disparaging comments on this article. McGrath's comments regarding the consonance of Christian belief & the scientific enterprise have historical support; Copernicus, Kepler & others clearly believed the notion of a rational Creator grounded their belief in intelligibility of the world. Having studied molecular biophysics at postgrad level, I would've thought McGrath well qualified to comment on these philosophy of science issues.
@finbomartini "Modern Christianity as I've encountered offers fantastic moral guidance"
I agree, I'm not a christian but its not a bad guideline to follow.
Studying the words of Jesus I find no fault.
@jonesgerard That is just an assumption on your part. I'm very interested in this topic so I am constantly reading and trying to find new sources. I am curious though what evidence you think proves gods existence beyond all doubt.
As I tried to explain to you before, you have provided evidence for design, not creation. Design inherently denotes limitations because you have to intelligently manipulate an environment to achieve your goals. In saying that "topsoil" is necessary for life, you're saying it is not possible for God to create life without topsoil.
We design watches because we can't tell time on our own. We design cars because we can't teleport. And your god "designs" universes because he can't create them.
I like your last sentence. It is a vital point very well stated. I am going to quote you!
Alister: " I think Richard Dawkins is one of creationisms best friend.." wow. I cant believe my ears
SounzNice, I know literacy and logic are not among your bag of tricks, but let me say to anyone reading this that (as I explained before), creation and design are not only entirely separate concepts, but that they are mutually exclusive within a complex universe.
It is not "semantics" to confuse a concept with its opposite, nor with anything that precludes its existence in the first place.
Black is not white, up is not down, and your "designer" is not a god.
You said "you can test there is a God". I want to know what your methodology is.
No, you are incorrect, the difference is not simply in confusing "creation" with "design"... you clearly stated that topsoil was evidence of creation. Even in using the wrong words, you're still wrong about the line of reasoning that suggests the existence of a god. Your argument rests on the notion that god is exactly the opposite of what he's supposed to be -- omnipotent.
How can it be said more clearly than to state that a god who is infinitely limited is not a god?
SounzNice said, "But at the very least you should feel obligated to back yourself up"
As I said before, the argument you proposed that I defend isn't one that I hold.
Furthermore, there is never any logical obligation to replace a bad idea with another one. If an argument is logically incorrect, then it is incorrect irrespective of whether or not any other is ...or isn't.
I agree that it is a poor argument to say that God cannot exist simply because God is too complex. Its a poor argument because a believer can just say what McGrath said, "God is above evolution." I agree with dawkins that it isn't helpful to use that statement to claim God's existance because it doesn't point to any scientific proof. It merely describes something without limits capable of anything and everything and calling it "God."
How do you test to know there's a god then? How do you know the Hebrew god is THE god? What is your method?
If you had been capable of providing any rebuttal whatsoever to my arguments (instead of declaring "semantics" at mutually exclusive concepts), then I would have gladly engaged further with you. Sadly, such was not the case.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against illogical propositions. Ideas must be concrete to act upon them." - Thomas Jefferson
I am only obligated to defend positions I actually hold. Making up a position for me and then asking me to defend it is a waste of time.
But while we're on the subject of simplicity, let me make this clear:
The moment your argument leads to "...because God can't..." then you've lost. Your argument consists of reasons why God needed topsoil. The only reason a god would "need" topsoil is if he is unable to achieve his goals without it.
Didn't you know that necessity is the mother of invention?
Even Michael Behe clearly states that design is a "purposeful arrangement of parts"
But an arrangement of parts is only made purposeful by the constructs under which those parts behave. Without limitations, constraints, and behaviors, all you have is "an arrangement of parts" ...a state of existence for which even a can full of trash qualifies. Designs exist because of what cannot otherwise be done. For further reading, look up the dictionary definition of the verb "to tune"
@nickallah
Your message is a bit confusing to me, but yeah, of course Dawkins is the enemy of creationism. What I'm saying is that Dawkins has said he gives creationism to at least take the Bible as real, and not just cherrypick. Dawkins kind of says evolution makes The Bible obsolete, which is what creationists want to hear.
Not sure if I'm clear enough, but oh well.
He was upset that science didn't answer all his questions so he chose religion. He said that just the idea of Christianity can transform someone. He just wants it to be true.
@nickallah
Dawkins is in a way though. Dawkins has said numerous times that he don't think religion and evolution is incompatible. Just like creationists says. For people in America for example, where there's sometimes troubles around teaching evolution its difficult because some religious folks deems it as anti-religious. According to Dawkins, it is.
I would rephrase the question about existence of God to: How far we can go in this ever changing light of our knowledge and understanding?
Just examine the paths of those who tried...
Furthermore, reducing all opposing arguments to mere "semantics" and wordplay is, itself, a snowjob. If you have a legitimate rebuttal to the argument at hand, then provide it and stop with the theater of your victory dance. Address the issue, or quit while you're "ahead".
SounzNice said, "Words themselves mean nothing"
If that were true, then you would have just accepted that conversations have no value and wouldn't be engaging in one. Or are you now admitting to being a troll?
Creation (as proposed by theists who believe there was "nothing" before the Big Bang) is the ability to create "something" from "nothing". Such an ability necessitates the power to not only make matter, but to define how it works and what rules govern it.
(You don't need to worry about the stability of the house of cards when it is you who decides whether or not gravity exists)
Design is when you manipulate a pre-existing environment to achieve a goal that is otherwise unachievable.
"It simply wasn't that simple...."
@jimnebob
If you don't understand my point by now I don't think there's much I can do to help you understand.
You don't "give up atheism". There's nothing to give up. It's non-belief. By that comment, it's obvious you were never an atheist.
Just because an accent can be described as affected doesn't null my point. It wasn't what I meant was affected about him. I meant his jargon and his circular logic. They are affected, put on, insincere, etc.
Considering he wasn't even trying to prove the existance of God, and that this topic sidesteps the issue at hand COMPLETELY, it seems normal.
@jimnebob
You're confused Darwkins isn't laughing at McGrath he's laughing at the thought of all those dead children.
@Klash92 alright, so just elaborate what you mean by sketchy evidence?
Creation and design would only be compatible if this universe were simple, but it is not. In the event of a complex universe in which a god "must" do this or that in order to make life "possible" (see "topsoil" argument previously provided), you are only declaring that such a god is not omnipotent. By calling him a designer, you are inherently taking the position that he lacks the ability to achieve his goals without great intelligence, which means he isn't omnipotent. Which means he isn't god.
@Klash92 what like Genesis creation? because since the 4th or 5th century, Augustine of Hippo said you don't have to take it literally.
The questioner asks McGrath what finally convinced him to become a Christian. He responds by saying that all his friends were Christians. His next reason is that science makes more sense with religion and there are other scientists who became Christians. Neither of these prove the existence of a being like God and therefore a reason to believe in him. A better answer would be that he has regular two way discussions with God. His 'reasons' are not reasons at all when you think about it
@Svankmajer creationists and evolutionists have the common belief that religion and science are incompatible. but they are essentially agreeing that the two of them are deeply opposed. so it logically follows that Dawkins is creationists best ENEMY, and not friend. I never heard Dawkins say that he doesnt think religion and evolution are incompatible. he always made it clear that they are INcompatible.
There is no evidence or logical basis for Mcgrath's statement that Dawkins is helping creationists and fundamentalists. Although moderate, he has shown a prejudice here in and a lack of smarts. He still can not refute dawkins central argument: what does the Christian religion offer as evidence, apart from their sincere faith and scripture (which most religions have), that their religion/God is true? None. And they criticise others for pointing this FACT out?
It is amazing to see a person of science speak with such disregard for logic. You can talk pretty all you want, but in the end, unless you can provide evidence for your claims, then it is a mute point and purely argumentative. Religion is very poweful and a huge business, they can buy anyone they want. So, now we have scientists speaking on behalve of religion. Money is everything, isn't it? If there ever was a god, it has to be money.
To be entirely honest and I'm not trying to offend anyone here, this is just what I think is happening. I think that religion in general, mainly Christianity are afraid in a sense that religion is slowly dying and maybe some of them see that they way they think cannot be used in a modern world of science and reason and so they are trying to have their cake and eat it by suggesting silly claims that religion can work with science and reason but I don't think it can. Its contradictory to say so.
I love this video!
You keep saying there's evidence yet you refuse to present it. I'm telling you there can be no evidence in either direction. If you have it, present it. THEN we have something to discuss.
@Handsdown09 Its not an assumption, its based on 100% consistency.
You're saying one thing but have already done the opposite.
@Handsdown09 Some people need to believe that if they follow a moral code they'll be rewarded, or they need to be offered an absolute correct way to behave rather than just following their own intrinsic moral compass. And it doesn't matter if religion is 'rarely chosen', your original point was 'why did he choose to be a Christian rather than follow any other faith?' He chose.
And yet the general public had never heard of him till he wrote The Dawkins Delusion - and now he is best known for debating the other side of the God argument.
Where would McGrath be without Dawkins? Nowhere.
Everything is just so INTERESTING to this man.
Yes, that is interesting
I thought McGrath was an evolutionist, not a creationist... or did I pick that up wrong?
Because he's not dogmatic to any side of the spectrum, and he doesn't limit himself intellectually like Dawkins, or Creationsists.
Science,although credible, cannot answer all questions. It can't explain many things, and certainly there are other venues like philosophy and anthology and even some aspects of religion that give the whole case of our existance more consistency.
No need to be close-minded,friend.
That's not what "affected" generally means. I meant that he has a very affected and overtly artificial way of expressing himself. It has nothing to do with his pronunciation and everything to do with what he's saying.
@jimnebob
You're the one who brought it up.
@jonesgerard I agree that getting people to actually read their scriptures is a surefire way to plant seeds of doubt - there comes a point where the number of questions they generate outweighs people's ability to explain them away.
Religion vs god - I wonder if people who reject organised religion come up with religions of their own. I could say that I am religious in that way as well, in that you can have a religious sensibility, without accepting all the rules and baggage.
Saying that moral law comes from a deity is not evidence. Take the Ten Commandments. #1 You have to demonstrate there is a god. #2 you have to demonstrate that the god is the Hebrew god. #3 You have to demonstrate that this god gave the law. None of this can be demonstrated in any way. Finally, minus the first four, the law is merely a copy of Semitic civil law around at that time. That is not even an argument.
@Handsdown09 You cannot use biblical literalism to denounce religious morals then cast it aside. A priest has never imparted to me those old testament values, no Christian has ever even implied that to be proper conduct to me. We are not Moslem, the only thing a Christian has ever suggested I do in regards to moral code is be kind, loving, forgiving, compassionate and merciful. That's it. Modern Christianity as I've encountered offers fantastic moral guidance.
SounzNice said, "So ok, i win the soil argument"
If by "win" you mean "logically inconsistent, incompatible with all existing evidence within reality, and contrary to the definitions of every word entailed"....
.... then yes, you "win". Put a gold star on your forehead, because you're "special".
Anyway, kiddo, I'm moving on. Have a good night.
Dawkins, in his enthused passion to rid the world of God, has done a lot to bring the issue of creation vs evolution into the public arena. The problem for Creationist and Intelligent Design in the media, is that they are heard indirectly, through those who oppose them. Presented in a negative way. If it weren't for the internet and specialist distributors and stockist, it would, generally be concealed from the public. No counter argument would be heard. I never heard one, until I was 28 (1994).
@prk30 Oh, and are you saying that evolution is only a hypothesis? And:
"even scientists don't believe in evolution at all" I find this a pretty poor choice of words. I really hope you meant to say SOME because you phrased it as if scientists in general don't except it. And polls certainly show that the % of scientists who reject evolution entirely is a VERY small minority, and most of them (maybe some) aren't athiests.
Wait, what? Dawkins being anti-religious by way of Darwinian evolution gives credibility to creationism how exactly?
I agree with you. He claims that science reinforces his christian beliefs then doesn't explain how. I don't believe he actually buys the stuff he tries to sell...
@Handsdown09 Also while you're right that fundamentally, most religions promote a similar ethos, they are all unique - slightly, maybe even superficially. Religions are not identical, Christians have a completely different lifestyle to Buddhists no? But they both advocate love and peace. So as a lifestyle choice, and if you're taking it seriously, something you're going to have to be dedicated to, the difference between religions is vast. The only odd one out I can think of is Islam.
@prk30 You never gave a solid answer to why Christianity is conisistent with science. You said christianity is the ground of modern science. Is that your answer to my original question? Explanation please? And you said logic is absolute, which is true, but how does christianity follow that logic and rationality? Saying things that contradict evidence, fact, and common sense seems to be very irrational, and thats not my opinion, that's "ABSOLUTE".
@Svankmajer Once again youve mentioned what creationists and dawkins have in common, and thats xtianity and evolution incompatibility. I think what you mean to say, or what alister means to say is that, dawkins seems to force people to "choose" xtianity or evolution. and creationists will then choose xtianity. but lol its not that simple. alister just wanted to sound bold in that statement and instead sounded idiotic. dawkins is obviously just being divisive is anything...
Also after reading your profile I'd love to hear you defend objective morality in an atheistic framework...
@Klash92 as for the existence of God, I'd say that it would be mathematics, like the universe cannot be both infinite in past and expansion, you cannot subtract infinity from infinity, and existence cannot create itself, X creates Y but X creates X is a contradiction.
@TheOmegajuice
It seems we have misunderstood eachother. I was trying to point to the pointlessness of trying to give a complete and precise definition of God, whereas it seems like you thought I was saying there no definition at all.
There are some adjectives that apply to God. Eternal is one, creator should be another one (for the God of the Bible). caring, loving, powerful, mighty, just and others can also be used.
i wonder how broadminded this scientst is. does he keep up with progress in other scientific fields? neuroscience, psychology, biology, etc
@Handsdown09 On one side of your mouth you say I want evidence and on the other you refuse to look.
'Contempt prior to investigation' is the path you chose.
Now your life will never be the same.
I can't be bothered reading the rest of these comments but I think thevodka religion dude is right. Like myself, you believe that there is no god. However strong that belief is, it is still a belief.
At the same time I think thevodka is underestimating the word "belief". If you drop something you don't know it will fall on the ground but you strongly believe it based on a bunch of facts etc.. Yet there are some circumstances where the thing you dropped will not fall entirely to the ground.
he is a man of extremes, he was an agressive atheist an he willbecome an agressive believer, an maybe when he wil be 100 he will become balanced
@jonesgerard Not sure what your point is there, bud.
is that directed at me or Poseidon? The fact is if the bible is the direct word of god then he has to take responsibility for the mistakes in it. For example thinking that we were the center of the universe.
to Thevodka
I disagree with you, the burden of proof lies with you. Atheists such as myself believe in facts and evidence and science etc. If science make extraordinary claims they either say it as a theory at the moment or present a bunch of evidence.
Science is not the one who (based on close-to-nothing) is claiming that there is a supernatural being/creator that is all-seeing all-mighty etc. (much like Santa Clause). Since you guys are making this extraordinary claim, the burden lies on you.
@stevebritgimp The Tamet kid is rather more than Kim Peek, he is able to communicate intelligently and explain what he is seeing "behind the curtain". HE astounded the skeptics who tested him, whilst rattling off Pi he says he is wandering through a mental landscape, the shapes are the numbers.
If itys computing, its nothing like any form we know, its more like platonism.
Consciousness is proving more slippery than researchers bargained for.
DNA validated Darwin's theory. Just as I can use DNA to demonstrate my common ancestor with any race and even my dad, likewise I can demonstrate the relatedness of all human beings and the common ancestor with apes. We don't even need fossils to demonstrate this. Do you have any science to back up what you're saying?
I'm very familiar with Lennox. His argument is exactly like every other Christian. He says, "because there are universal constants, there is a god." This is not evidence.
I can tell you I have a black standard poodle, but to demonstrate it, I can provide photos, his papers, and a copy of his bloodline. This is the sort of evidence I require--not basic inference.
You obviously require less evidence than me.
Never before has a man talked so much and said so little. (I might be quoting someone there but I don't know who)
@SounzNice
Saying that creation is all around is not evidence. Providing evidence and demonstrating is part of the scientific process. What if I say that the universe was created by Thor? You can dispute it. If a question cannot be demonstrated as true or false, it is meaningless. You have to do more than SAY the universe is created. You have to show it and I'm not going to spend my time giving you a science lesson.
Okay, so science convinced him okay. But why then did he choose christianity? Why not Islam, Olympian Greek faith etc?? That seems to be the big problem with these people. Perhaps they could justify believing in 'a god'....but a particular religion??? I do not think that is justifiable.
@Svankmajer yes its true, creationists ARE honest and take the bible literally. but why would creationists want to hear how the bible is obsolete by evolution. I just dont understand why alister would imply that dawkins is in a way creationists best friend.
even if dawkins made it clear that he proposed that evolution is compatible, he would stil be rendered an enemy to creationists and not a friend. I dont get alister.
@Handsdown09 Perhaps he wants ethical guidance and also believes in God, and finds the moral code of the Christian church particularly agreeable
@Whatsifsowhatsit
Again, I understand you, but to say "there is no God" versus "there is no proof of God" are two very different claims. One suggests they have already proved God's non existence, while the other merely claims there is nothing to suggest to them that God exists. However, that does not mean he does not exist, and there is still the burden on you to tell me why you know he doesn't exist. If you said "I'm not convinced he exists" I would understand.
@TheBrothersun My bad, replied to the wrong comment.
This guy keeps repeating "science makes much more sense if christianity is true" but I have never heard him say how. I can also say that science makes much more sense if a sacrifice a human to the maya god in the mountains of Guatemala, but that doesn't make it true!
@nickallah
Well, creationists usually have problems with theists claiming you can believe in evolution and religion at the same time. In USA there has been problems with teaching evolution because some christians has with success preached evolution = atheism, but their case has falled. Dawkins "kind of" gives creationists what they want to hear in that sense, because he has said that evolution was the reason he gave up faith as a youngster, and that he don't see what role god can have in it.
@jonesgerard I'll check out the Daniel Tammet programme - that looks interesting. I don't think, though, that the savants are doing anything that doesn't involve the circuitry in their brains. As for consciousness - I'm not sure what the definition of consciousness is, and as such I can't see how people could disprove that you couldn't build something that was conscious. If I'm conscious, I've been assembled from proteins, and I could be copied.
@Thensolomonsaid "The problem with most atheists is they think all christians see God as some white robed Charlton Heston figure sitting on a cloud"
No, what bothers you believers about atheists, is that we don't see YOUR definition of "God" as any kind of a plausible possibility at all. We have no picture of any "god" at all, except what is painted by the fantasised claims of believers, or the texts they are informed from.
@Klash92 Actually, I'd say you should take the Gospels literally on the sense of the miracles and more importantly the Resurrection, because the resurrection is the basis of the Christian faith. physically speaking, not metaphorically speaking. Saint Paul didn't go into a city screaming RESURRECTION to convey a guy's ideas are passing on, he was screaming it to convey a guy came back to life.
When he gets interviewed by Dawkins himself McGrath gets his arse kicked and just ends up sound like white noise.
@jimnebob
If you find my writings offensive maybe you shouldn't be following a guy who claims that "there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
@TheBrothersun Perhaps he wants ethical guidance and also believes in God, and finds the moral code of the Christian church particularly agreeable
I saw the same thing, but it worked with atheism too, either you are "religiously wired" or "atheism wired"
evidence never points to a god as an answer. the bibles logic is oppisitional to any idea of the scientific process.
@TheBrothersun just say we don't know. There is no reason for you to think you do. None. You can't draw conclusions from a question mark.
"Science is in line with the Christian faith."
Ace!