Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

[stahrwe]

I expect to receive deserved criticism for posting a video without an accompanying trascript here. In an effort to mitigate the criticism somewhat let me say that my primary reason for objection to videos presented on BT is that they are heavily one sided and often misrepresent information, at least in my opinion they do. In this case the video is a conversation between Richard Dawkins representing the atheist position, and Alister McGrath, former atheist, representing the Christian position. The video covers many of the objections to God, Faith, and Christianity which I have encountered here at BT. The interview with McGrath was produced by Dawkins as part of a video series he was going to release. The final DVD series did not include anything from this interview so I also plead importance that it be heard. I also mention that McGrath, though a Christian is not a creationist so some of his answers deviate from what I would have said.

Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

From "Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews" 3-DVD Set Buy it not at: http://richarddawkins.net/store/index.p ... ducts_id=6 This interview was filmed for the TV documentary "Root of All Evil?" but was left out of the final version. Time restrictions dictated that not all interviews filmed could be used. This was especially regrettable in the case of the McGrath interview, which is therefore offered here now, unedited. See more videos like this at http://richarddawkins.net/home

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=647427 ... 369344626#

Finally, I don't know how long this video will be available for viewing but if it is available due to the generousity of Dr. Dawkins I extend my thanks to him for that. Should he ever feel the need for answers to the questions which Alister McGrath struggled with he should feel free to contact me, I had no such difficulties.

[Dexter]

Finally, I don't know how long this video will be available for viewing but if it is available due to the generousity of Dr. Dawkins I extend my thanks to him for that. Should he ever feel the need for answers to the questions which Alister McGrath struggled with he should feel free to contact me, I had no such difficulties.

You're going to quote Bible passages to Dawkins? I'm sure he'll be very impressed.

[stahrwe]

Finally, I don't know how long this video will be available for viewing but if it is available due to the generousity of Dr. Dawkins I extend my thanks to him for that. Should he ever feel the need for answers to the questions which Alister McGrath struggled with he should feel free to contact me, I had no such difficulties.

You're going to quote Bible passages to Dawkins? I'm sure he'll be very impressed.

Finally, I don't know how long this video will be available for viewing but if it is available due to the generousity of Dr. Dawkins I extend my thanks to him for that. Should he ever feel the need for answers to the questions which Alister McGrath struggled with he should feel free to contact me, I had no such difficulties.

You're going to quote Bible passages to Dawkins? I'm sure he'll be very impressed.

Shallow thinking , assumptions? Why would you assume that? You did not have time to watch the video between when I posted it and your reply. McGrath did not quote the Bible. The discussion was more philosophiclly oriented. I understand your desire to marginalize me by I am not offended by the term fundie, nor does it intimidate me when you suggest I would use the Bible though it this case it was not part of my plan.

[DWill]

How odd that these two didn't take a seat to have their talk. I watched half an hour and hope that is enough to make an observation or two. As stahrwe noted, McGrath isn't a Bible literalist, which gives a boost to his claim that that his religion is rational and makes sense of the world for him. I mean that on a relative scale, yes, McGrath's is a rational religion. To some extent, monotheism itself is more rational than animist or polytheist religions. There is relatively little superstition in Christianity, pushing it upwards on the scale of rationality. McGrath is moderate, but he uses a similar approach to that of the more conservative. He didn't make concessions to faith, but claimed that his belief has a rational basis. Creationists, too, try to prove their beliefs to be scientifically valid, true without recourse to faith.

Dawkins tried to draw out of him just how his beliefs were entirely rational and how they made sense of the world for him. He didn't get satisfaction in this regard. McGrath answered confidently, though non-dogmatically, but was not able to get across just how the Christian faith explains the world to him. I wouldn't expect him to be able to do that. Religious belief draws on a different aspect of the mind from the conscious, rational aspect. It relies on a sense that many individuals have, originating in the unconscious. In terms of how we now understand the unconscious, that itself doesn't make religious belief irrational.

[stahrwe]

I agree about not sitting down. I think that is a Dawkins strategy as he seems to do that in other similar situations I have seen. Or, perhaps he did not intend to spend as much time with Alister as he did.

I agree with some of DWill's observations especially how Alister is a bit disadvantaged not being a literalist. I had better answers in a number of instances than Alister did, on the other hand, I felt in several instances that Dawkins belabored points on very thin logical grounds.

[Interbane]

I understand your desire to marginalize me by I am not offended by the term fundie, nor does it intimidate me when you suggest I would use the Bible though it this case it was not part of my plan.

What errors did you see that you would have a plan to answer them? You're speaking of breaks in logic on Dawkin's part? Or perhaps his answers don't sound reasonable to you regardless of logical fidelity. Perhaps there are reasons his answers don't sound reasonable to you, and perhaps those reasons have nothing to do with Dawkin's arguments.

[Randall R. Young]

I understand your desire to marginalize me by I am not offended by the term fundie, nor does it intimidate me when you suggest I would use the Bible though it this case it was not part of my plan.

I have to say, stahrwe, your responses seem strangely disconnected from the posts you are quoting. Is this some sort off debating style? Dyslexia? I don't understand why you quote remarks that you don't appear to understand.

For instance, you brought this video to my attention after I asked Harry about Tillich's "ground of being" concept. This video had precisely nothing to add to that argument, except to repeat Tillich's claim. In fact, McGraph rejected and rebuffed repeated opportunities to elucidate the matter, but chose to keep it to himself.

If I were a trial lawyer, I'd shout out "RELEVANCE, your Honor!"

[stahrwe]

I understand your desire to marginalize me by I am not offended by the term fundie, nor does it intimidate me when you suggest I would use the Bible though it this case it was not part of my plan.

I have to say, stahrwe, your responses seem strangely disconnected from the posts you are quoting. Is this some sort off debating style? Dyslexia? I don't understand why you quote remarks that you don't appear to understand.

For instance, you brought this video to my attention after I asked Harry about Tillich's "ground of being" concept. This video had precisely nothing to add to that argument, except to repeat Tillich's claim. In fact, McGraph rejected and rebuffed repeated opportunities to elucidate the matter, but chose to keep it to himself.

If I were a trial lawyer, I'd shout out "RELEVANCE, your Honor!"

This attempt was fairly amateurish and a bit thumby.

In a court room the proper protocol is to rise and say, "Objection your honor; or Your Honor I object," and then state your reason. You are suffering from too much exposure to television court dramas. Dyslexia is a condition where perception of word or letter structure is experienced. It does not affect one's intelligence only that an individual has to expend extra effort to overcome it.

I thought the discussion of philosophers was overwrought in the discussion. McGrath should have objected (to use your approach) to their relevance. Honestly, who cares what a philosopher thinks about Jesus? He or she is trying to explain the need for God in humanistic terms which are irrelevant.

[stahrwe]

I understand your desire to marginalize me by I am not offended by the term fundie, nor does it intimidate me when you suggest I would use the Bible though it this case it was not part of my plan.

What errors did you see that you would have a plan to answer them? You're speaking of breaks in logic on Dawkin's part? Or perhaps his answers don't sound reasonable to you regardless of logical fidelity. Perhaps there are reasons his answers don't sound reasonable to you, and perhaps those reasons have nothing to do with Dawkin's arguments.

1) There is a fundamental flaw in Dawkins' logic in requiring God to be answerable to him or anyone's satisfaction with respect to what He (God) does.

2) I thought the discussion with respect to disasters/who is saved, etc. was belabored, partly due to Dawkins' obsession and partly due to McGrath's too professorial approach. They were both clearly enjoying the interchange too much and clarity suffered.

I need to go back and watch it again, the lack of a transcript strikes again.

[Interbane]

1) There is a fundamental flaw in Dawkins' logic in requiring God to be answerable to him or anyone's satisfaction with respect to what He (God) does.

For any coherence of definition, there are situations in which it would be immoral for god to not act. You could rationalize in an exemption here by claiming that expecting an infinite being to act in knowable ways is expecting too much. But then, it's also an assumption that he would be exempt. A good half of an infinite set of numbers are even or odd. Quite a bit can be said about infinite things, in fact.