Alister McGrath

St.Michael · 22nd January 2007, 07:59 AM

Next month Alister McGrath publishes his response to The God Delusion. He already has one book published called Dawkins God.
I’m thinking of buying Dawkins Delusion, as I’m half way through TGD and would like to hear the opposing arguments.

Has anyone read Dawkins God? Is it a well presented case against Dawkins views or is it an attack on Dawkins himself? Would it be worth buying also?

Lothian · 22nd January 2007, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by St.Michael

Has anyone read Dawkins God? Is it a well presented case against Dawkins views or is it an attack on Dawkins himself? Would it be worth buying also?

Richard Dawkins has read it. He said

Quote:

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?

From here

Lothian · 22nd January 2007, 08:24 AM

I note the actual title is

The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine.

Without reading the book I spot an error. Atheists don’t deny the divine out of spite. They say there is no evidence of the divine.

Even if every single argument against god put forward by Dawkins is wrong that does not mean there is positive evidence for god.

It looks like the ID argument all over again. Rather than giving a scrap of evidence for their own theories they chose to attack the arguments of others then conclude that their theory (out of the million of possible theories) must therefore be right.

fuelair · 22nd January 2007, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by St.Michael

Next month Alister McGrath publishes his response to The God Delusion. He already has one book published called Dawkins God.
I’m thinking of buying Dawkins Delusion, as I’m half way through TGD and would like to hear the opposing arguments.

Has anyone read Dawkins God? Is it a well presented case against Dawkins views or is it an attack on Dawkins himself? Would it be worth buying also?

Read it, sure. Buy it - NO!!!

l0rca · 22nd January 2007, 09:53 AM

Is anyone else uncomfortable with how quickly we have all been labeled as atheist fundamentalists by every religious person who observes us?

Darat · 22nd January 2007, 09:54 AM

After nearly 6 years of it - no.

l0rca · 22nd January 2007, 09:57 AM

I seriously don't like being branded as a fundamentalist. I see their whole argument as escapism, but a very powerful form of escapism. They're placing a word on us which denies us any intellectual merit. Considering we urge skepticism, critical thinking, and science, I'm starting to wonder if the friction we are causing will harm science and philosophy.

cyborg · 22nd January 2007, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Is anyone else uncomfortable with how quickly we have all been labeled as atheist fundamentalists by every religious person who observes us?

You are talking about it as if the people using the term are really bothered if it is accurate or not.

They attack because they can do nothing else. They almost certainly don't like being reminded of the likely doubts that they have. A severe emotional attachment to an idea is not conducive to rational responses to its attack.

l0rca · 22nd January 2007, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by cyborg

You are talking about it as if the people using the term are really bothered if it is accurate or not.

They attack because they can do nothing else. They almost certainly don't like being reminded of the likely doubts that they have. A severe emotional attachment to an idea is not conducive to rational responses to its attack.

Yeah, that's basically part of how I elaborated on it one post above yours.

l0rca · 23rd January 2007, 03:16 AM

I'm listening to a speech Alister gave at a venue. He brings up some very good points so far, and he's quite even handed, not very scathing, and a gentlemen.

http://www.citychurchsf.org/openforu...er_McGrath.mp3

I think both Dawkins and Alister are guilty of muddled arguing. Dawkins is too sweeping, whereas Alister projects his intellectualism of faith upon his fellow man. Neither are equally holding us -- both the atheists and theists -- in an accurate average. Whenever Dawkins gives us a point of zeal and metaphor, without a strong hold on science, but purely speculation, there is Alister to ground him. Alister is definitely a stronger philosopher than him. If we're going to get anywhere (and I've been saying this for a while), we need to come up with much better arguments than insulting metaphors. We need to directly critique the arguments of theism, not critique its consequences. In fact, no where so far (and halfway through this speech I am) have I seen Alister rejecting Dawkins' philosophical arguments against the arguments of theism. Might this be because Dawkins doesn't present them?

After I finish my current essay, I'm going to write another one for a better argument for atheism; one without calls for delusion, or holes in reliance of poorer scientific or philosophical points.

I think we all need to be more objective here.

TheChadd · 23rd January 2007, 03:36 AM

Personally I see Dennett as the current leading atheist philosopher of Dawkins' ilk. Dawkins imo is giving the population a simplified version of such philosophy, so of course it'll be fairly easy to attack some of the simplified/metaphoric points which he may make in TGD.

Peter Soderqvist · 23rd January 2007, 04:23 AM

I have read both Mcgrath's Dawkin's God, and Dawkins' The God Delusion!
Richard Dawkins has said something to the effect that; Mcgrath have give me a fair review, and summarizing about my scientific work, but reject his rebutal; to reading Mcgrath was to read Teacup,Teacup,Teacup on every page!" It is said that Bertrand Russell's Teacup or The Flying Spaghetti Monster circulating around the planet venus, if we or, science is agnostic regarding God because of insufficent evidence pro,and con we should be equally agnostic about Teacups and Spaghetti Monsters too! It is not that Atheism and Theism is on an equal foot, no, not at all, all phenomena in the universe is amenable to an scientific explanation, god is simply an unnecessary explanantion, and too improbable to be real!

l0rca · 23rd January 2007, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by Peter Soderqvist

I have read both Mcgrath's Dawkin's God, and Dawkins' The God Delusion!
Richard Dawkins has said something to the effect that; Mcgrath have give me a fair review, and summarizing about my scientific work, but reject his rebutal; to reading Mcgrath was to read Teacup,Teacup,Teacup on every page!" It is said that Bertrand Russell's Teacup or The Flying Spageti Monster circulating around the planet venus, if we or, science is agnostics regarding God because of insufficent evidence pro,and con we should be equally agnostic about Teacups and Spagetti Monsters too! It is not that Atheism and Theism is on an equal foot, no, not at all, all phenomena in the universe is amenable to an scientific explanation, god is simply an unnecessary explanantion, and too improbable to be real!

I can see that you are trying, but... what is your primary language?

Lothian · 23rd January 2007, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by l0rca

If we're going to get anywhere (and I've been saying this for a while), we need to come up with much better arguments than insulting metaphors. We need to directly critique the arguments of theism, not critique its consequences. ..I think we all need to be more objective here.

Gods existence does not depend on who has the better arguements. Dawkins book says God probably doesn't exist as there is no evidence.

McGrath, I understand, says that some of Dawkins arguments are weak. Even if that was the case Dawkins main point stands. God probably doesn't exist as there is no evidence.

McGrath I understand appears to favour the existance of God. However he gets to that conclusion it is not through evidence.

l0rca · 23rd January 2007, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Lothian

McGrath, I understand, says that some of Dawkins arguments are weak. Even if that was the case Dawkins main point stands. God probably doesn't exist as there is no evidence.

McGrath I understand appears to favour the existance of God. However he gets to that conclusion it is not through evidence.

So far as I've been witnessed, McGrath doesn't give reasons for his belief, just arguments for the room in science to believe. He's missing the point on these arguments, but he never really states "why I believe".

I can understand this. Intelligent faith makes you a chicken for giving personal reasons.

chriswl · 23rd January 2007, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by St.Michael

Has anyone read Dawkins God? Is it a well presented case against Dawkins views or is it an attack on Dawkins himself? Would it be worth buying also?

I saw McGrath's book in a bookshop last year and spent a few minutes browsing through it. It was just terrible. The guy is an idiot (but he's a theologian so that goes without saying).

So he has now written two books with the name "Dawkins" in the title? He seems a little obsessed.

ceo_esq · 23rd January 2007, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by chriswl

The guy is an idiot (but he's a theologian so that goes without saying).

I daresay the reason it normally goes without saying is that it's such a foolish thing to say.

chriswl · 23rd January 2007, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by ceo_esq

I daresay the reason it normally goes without saying is that it's such a foolish thing to say.

I don't mean theologians are unintelligent, in terms of their IQs. Not at all. Just fundamentally stupid to abuse their intellect in the way they do. I have complete contempt for them.

Peter Soderqvist · 23rd January 2007, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by l0rca

I can see that you are trying, but... what is your primary language?

Soderqvist1: Did you understand it or not?
I can explain it for you, if there is some sentence there you do not understand.

Peter Soderqvist · 23rd January 2007, 11:00 PM

Mcgrath have no evidence in favor of God's existence!
His point is that science is neutral regarding God, because Science can neither prove, nor disprove God, so the scientific stance regarding god is agnostic, science has suspended judgment because of insufficient data, but that is not consistent because science ,or we ,or Mcgrath does'nt suspend judgment regarding the existence of Santa Claus becuase we cannot disprove Santa's existence. We simply take it for granted that Santa Doesn't exist because there is no evidence for his existence, and his existence is very improbable. Thus if we are consistent and are agnostic regarding God, then we should be equally agnostic regading Santa, or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or Teacups orbiting the planet Venus, and every proposition which we cannot prove one way or the other which is infinitely many!

Jekyll · 24th January 2007, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by St.Michael

Next month Alister McGrath publishes his response to The God Delusion. He already has one book published called Dawkins God.
I’m thinking of buying Dawkins Delusion, as I’m half way through TGD and would like to hear the opposing arguments.

Has anyone read Dawkins God? Is it a well presented case against Dawkins views or is it an attack on Dawkins himself? Would it be worth buying also?

A lot of it struck me as nit picking, read it to see all the places people could say, "Yeh, but what about ...." without affecting the strength of Dawkins' arguments at all.

I only read the first 3 chapters and while it didn't find any holes in Dawkins' arguments. It's the sort of book an apologist could point to to say that it shows the incompleteness of Dawkins' work, but at no point does it show(or try to show) that he is necessarily wrong in his arguments.

Thing · 25th January 2007, 12:33 PM

There's a review by Michael Shermer of McGrath's earlier book Dawkins' God, which orignally appeared in Science, here:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-04-19.html

22nd January 2007, 07:59 AM	#1
St.Michael Scholar Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 121	Alister McGrath Next month Alister McGrath publishes his response to The God Delusion. He already has one book published called Dawkins God. I’m thinking of buying Dawkins Delusion, as I’m half way through TGD and would like to hear the opposing arguments. Has anyone read Dawkins God? Is it a well presented case against Dawkins views or is it an attack on Dawkins himself? Would it be worth buying also?
St.Michael Scholar Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 121

22nd January 2007, 08:32 AM	#4
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by St.Michael Next month Alister McGrath publishes his response to The God Delusion. He already has one book published called Dawkins God. I’m thinking of buying Dawkins Delusion, as I’m half way through TGD and would like to hear the opposing arguments. Has anyone read Dawkins God? Is it a well presented case against Dawkins views or is it an attack on Dawkins himself? Would it be worth buying also? Read it, sure. Buy it - NO!!!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961

22nd January 2007, 09:54 AM	#6
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,804	After nearly 6 years of it - no.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

22nd January 2007, 03:45 PM	#8
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,974	Quote: Is anyone else uncomfortable with how quickly we have all been labeled as atheist fundamentalists by every religious person who observes us? You are talking about it as if the people using the term are really bothered if it is accurate or not. They attack because they can do nothing else. They almost certainly don't like being reminded of the likely doubts that they have. A severe emotional attachment to an idea is not conducive to rational responses to its attack.
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,974

23rd January 2007, 03:16 AM	#10
l0rca I know so much karate Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,100	I'm listening to a speech Alister gave at a venue. He brings up some very good points so far, and he's quite even handed, not very scathing, and a gentlemen. http://www.citychurchsf.org/openforu...er_McGrath.mp3 I think both Dawkins and Alister are guilty of muddled arguing. Dawkins is too sweeping, whereas Alister projects his intellectualism of faith upon his fellow man. Neither are equally holding us -- both the atheists and theists -- in an accurate average. Whenever Dawkins gives us a point of zeal and metaphor, without a strong hold on science, but purely speculation, there is Alister to ground him. Alister is definitely a stronger philosopher than him. If we're going to get anywhere (and I've been saying this for a while), we need to come up with much better arguments than insulting metaphors. We need to directly critique the arguments of theism, not critique its consequences. In fact, no where so far (and halfway through this speech I am) have I seen Alister rejecting Dawkins' philosophical arguments against the arguments of theism. Might this be because Dawkins doesn't present them? After I finish my current essay, I'm going to write another one for a better argument for atheism; one without calls for delusion, or holes in reliance of poorer scientific or philosophical points. I think we all need to be more objective here.
	Last edited by l0rca; 23rd January 2007 at 03:24 AM.

22nd January 2007, 08:10 AM	#2
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by St.Michael Has anyone read Dawkins God? Is it a well presented case against Dawkins views or is it an attack on Dawkins himself? Would it be worth buying also? Richard Dawkins has read it. He said Quote: 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? From here

22nd January 2007, 08:24 AM	#3
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	I note the actual title is The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine. Without reading the book I spot an error. Atheists don’t deny the divine out of spite. They say there is no evidence of the divine. Even if every single argument against god put forward by Dawkins is wrong that does not mean there is positive evidence for god. It looks like the ID argument all over again. Rather than giving a scrap of evidence for their own theories they chose to attack the arguments of others then conclude that their theory (out of the million of possible theories) must therefore be right.

22nd January 2007, 09:53 AM	#5
l0rca I know so much karate Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,100	Is anyone else uncomfortable with how quickly we have all been labeled as atheist fundamentalists by every religious person who observes us?

22nd January 2007, 09:57 AM	#7
l0rca I know so much karate Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,100	I seriously don't like being branded as a fundamentalist. I see their whole argument as escapism, but a very powerful form of escapism. They're placing a word on us which denies us any intellectual merit. Considering we urge skepticism, critical thinking, and science, I'm starting to wonder if the friction we are causing will harm science and philosophy.

22nd January 2007, 10:19 PM	#9
l0rca I know so much karate Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,100	Originally Posted by cyborg You are talking about it as if the people using the term are really bothered if it is accurate or not. They attack because they can do nothing else. They almost certainly don't like being reminded of the likely doubts that they have. A severe emotional attachment to an idea is not conducive to rational responses to its attack. Yeah, that's basically part of how I elaborated on it one post above yours.

23rd January 2007, 03:36 AM	#11
TheChadd Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 416	Personally I see Dennett as the current leading atheist philosopher of Dawkins' ilk. Dawkins imo is giving the population a simplified version of such philosophy, so of course it'll be fairly easy to attack some of the simplified/metaphoric points which he may make in TGD.
TheChadd Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 416

23rd January 2007, 04:23 AM	#12
Peter Soderqvist Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 305	I have read both Mcgrath's Dawkin's God, and Dawkins' The God Delusion! Richard Dawkins has said something to the effect that; Mcgrath have give me a fair review, and summarizing about my scientific work, but reject his rebutal; to reading Mcgrath was to read Teacup,Teacup,Teacup on every page!" It is said that Bertrand Russell's Teacup or The Flying Spaghetti Monster circulating around the planet venus, if we or, science is agnostic regarding God because of insufficent evidence pro,and con we should be equally agnostic about Teacups and Spaghetti Monsters too! It is not that Atheism and Theism is on an equal foot, no, not at all, all phenomena in the universe is amenable to an scientific explanation, god is simply an unnecessary explanantion, and too improbable to be real!
	__________________ A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! Last edited by Peter Soderqvist; 23rd January 2007 at 04:33 AM.

23rd January 2007, 04:28 AM	#13
l0rca I know so much karate Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,100	Originally Posted by Peter Soderqvist I have read both Mcgrath's Dawkin's God, and Dawkins' The God Delusion! Richard Dawkins has said something to the effect that; Mcgrath have give me a fair review, and summarizing about my scientific work, but reject his rebutal; to reading Mcgrath was to read Teacup,Teacup,Teacup on every page!" It is said that Bertrand Russell's Teacup or The Flying Spageti Monster circulating around the planet venus, if we or, science is agnostics regarding God because of insufficent evidence pro,and con we should be equally agnostic about Teacups and Spagetti Monsters too! It is not that Atheism and Theism is on an equal foot, no, not at all, all phenomena in the universe is amenable to an scientific explanation, god is simply an unnecessary explanantion, and too improbable to be real! I can see that you are trying, but... what is your primary language?

23rd January 2007, 12:47 PM	#14
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by l0rca If we're going to get anywhere (and I've been saying this for a while), we need to come up with much better arguments than insulting metaphors. We need to directly critique the arguments of theism, not critique its consequences. ..I think we all need to be more objective here. Gods existence does not depend on who has the better arguements. Dawkins book says God probably doesn't exist as there is no evidence. McGrath, I understand, says that some of Dawkins arguments are weak. Even if that was the case Dawkins main point stands. God probably doesn't exist as there is no evidence. McGrath I understand appears to favour the existance of God. However he gets to that conclusion it is not through evidence.

23rd January 2007, 12:53 PM	#15
l0rca I know so much karate Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,100	Originally Posted by Lothian McGrath, I understand, says that some of Dawkins arguments are weak. Even if that was the case Dawkins main point stands. God probably doesn't exist as there is no evidence. McGrath I understand appears to favour the existance of God. However he gets to that conclusion it is not through evidence. So far as I've been witnessed, McGrath doesn't give reasons for his belief, just arguments for the room in science to believe. He's missing the point on these arguments, but he never really states "why I believe". I can understand this. Intelligent faith makes you a chicken for giving personal reasons.

23rd January 2007, 05:17 PM	#16
chriswl Muse Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: S.E. England Posts: 944	Originally Posted by St.Michael Has anyone read Dawkins God? Is it a well presented case against Dawkins views or is it an attack on Dawkins himself? Would it be worth buying also? I saw McGrath's book in a bookshop last year and spent a few minutes browsing through it. It was just terrible. The guy is an idiot (but he's a theologian so that goes without saying). So he has now written two books with the name "Dawkins" in the title? He seems a little obsessed.
	__________________ A Darwinian fundamentalist is one who recognises that either you shun Darwinian evolution altogether, or you turn the traditional universe upside down and you accept that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the cause but the fairly recent effects of the mechanistic mill of Darwinian algorithms. --Daniel Dennett

23rd January 2007, 05:26 PM	#17
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Originally Posted by chriswl The guy is an idiot (but he's a theologian so that goes without saying). I daresay the reason it normally goes without saying is that it's such a foolish thing to say.
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940

23rd January 2007, 06:11 PM	#18
chriswl Muse Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: S.E. England Posts: 944	Originally Posted by ceo_esq I daresay the reason it normally goes without saying is that it's such a foolish thing to say. I don't mean theologians are unintelligent, in terms of their IQs. Not at all. Just fundamentally stupid to abuse their intellect in the way they do. I have complete contempt for them.
	__________________ A Darwinian fundamentalist is one who recognises that either you shun Darwinian evolution altogether, or you turn the traditional universe upside down and you accept that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the cause but the fairly recent effects of the mechanistic mill of Darwinian algorithms. --Daniel Dennett

23rd January 2007, 10:07 PM	#19
Peter Soderqvist Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 305	Originally Posted by l0rca I can see that you are trying, but... what is your primary language? Soderqvist1: Did you understand it or not? I can explain it for you, if there is some sentence there you do not understand.
	__________________ A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! Last edited by Peter Soderqvist; 23rd January 2007 at 10:12 PM.

23rd January 2007, 11:00 PM	#20
Peter Soderqvist Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 305	Mcgrath have no evidence in favor of God's existence! His point is that science is neutral regarding God, because Science can neither prove, nor disprove God, so the scientific stance regarding god is agnostic, science has suspended judgment because of insufficient data, but that is not consistent because science ,or we ,or Mcgrath does'nt suspend judgment regarding the existence of Santa Claus becuase we cannot disprove Santa's existence. We simply take it for granted that Santa Doesn't exist because there is no evidence for his existence, and his existence is very improbable. Thus if we are consistent and are agnostic regarding God, then we should be equally agnostic regading Santa, or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or Teacups orbiting the planet Venus, and every proposition which we cannot prove one way or the other which is infinitely many!
	__________________ A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! Last edited by Peter Soderqvist; 23rd January 2007 at 11:14 PM.

24th January 2007, 09:24 AM	#21
Jekyll Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: The other other place Posts: 1,589	Originally Posted by St.Michael Next month Alister McGrath publishes his response to The God Delusion. He already has one book published called Dawkins God. I’m thinking of buying Dawkins Delusion, as I’m half way through TGD and would like to hear the opposing arguments. Has anyone read Dawkins God? Is it a well presented case against Dawkins views or is it an attack on Dawkins himself? Would it be worth buying also? A lot of it struck me as nit picking, read it to see all the places people could say, "Yeh, but what about ...." without affecting the strength of Dawkins' arguments at all. I only read the first 3 chapters and while it didn't find any holes in Dawkins' arguments. It's the sort of book an apologist could point to to say that it shows the incompleteness of Dawkins' work, but at no point does it show(or try to show) that he is necessarily wrong in his arguments.
	__________________ And I looked. And behold a green horse, and his name that sat on him was death. ~Tyndale New Testament

25th January 2007, 12:33 PM	#22
Thing ...now with added haecceity! Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Beside myself Posts: 512	There's a review by Michael Shermer of McGrath's earlier book Dawkins' God, which orignally appeared in Science, here: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-04-19.html
	__________________ One evening I came home to find my wife dissolved in tears. After crystallizing her over a bunsen burner, I managed to elicit the reason. S. J. Perelman