Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Barney Gumble · 10-06-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Dawkins gives some decent reasons here.

I love this quote:

Quote:

McGrath challenges Dawkins’ knowledge of Christian theology. Dawkins responds:

“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?

Spot-on, IMO.

ziffel · 10-06-2006, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by primitivefuture

You atheists need to get some balls and actually engage in public debating and not snort out hate messages behind the computer screen.

You write this as if a) atheists always avoid debates with theists (ludicrous), and b) as if Islam was devoid of hate messages. Please.

hallq · 10-06-2006, 07:00 PM

I find Dawkin's position here rather unfortunate. McGrath is a pretty poor apologist, and Dawkins is in some ways the ideal person to rip into him, with his emphasis on the lack of a need to disprove the existence of God. The arguments against debating creationists are largely non-applicable here. For example, given that theology is a non-field, Dawkins can't complain that McGrath ought to be critiquing him in professional journals.

fatpie42 · 10-07-2006, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallq

I find Dawkin's position here rather unfortunate. McGrath is a pretty poor apologist, and Dawkins is in some ways the ideal person to rip into him, with his emphasis on the lack of a need to disprove the existence of God. The arguments against debating creationists are largely non-applicable here. For example, given that theology is a non-field, Dawkins can't complain that McGrath ought to be critiquing him in professional journals.

McGrath is a poor apologist, but he has done the reading and so has the ability to make up fairly sophisticated poor arguments. Thing is that Dawkins field is science. So when creationists make poor arguments with a dodgy mixture of science and religion, Dawkins is the perfect person to debate with them. It is when someone is debating pure theology that Dawkins seems like a poorer candidate to pick. Certainly Dawkins will have looked into some theology for his later book, I suspect, but I don't think he's ready to debate theology.

McGrath needs to be knocked down by a theologian (or at least a theology-wise atheist). Not Dawkins.

hallq · 10-07-2006, 08:38 AM

The thing is, though, it wouldn't end up being a debate about theology--it would end up being a debate about when its reasonable to believe things and such. Scientists, in my experience, tend to do at least as well as philosophers here, because they have experience working out difficult questions about how the world actually is.

lpetrich · 10-07-2006, 09:30 AM

Alister McGrath's main argument seems to be "Atheism is Communism (boo! hiss!) Communism is on the way out (neener! neener!) Watch how atheism is being tossed into the trashcan of history (nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!)"

Which I think Richard Dawkins would find almost too dumb to be worth talking about.

primitivefuture · 10-07-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Why doesn't God debate with Richard Dawkins about the existence of God?

Is he scared that he might lose such a debate? Surely he could win the debate simply by turning up. I would suppose doing so would benefit him.

Because God is superior and the Creator of humans? Once you lose life, there will be no need for a debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barney Gumble

Spot-on, IMO.

Those are reasons for Dawkins to debate the Christian, not back down!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

McGrath is a poor apologist, but he has done the reading and so has the ability to make up fairly sophisticated poor arguments. Thing is that Dawkins field is science. So when creationists make poor arguments with a dodgy mixture of science and religion, Dawkins is the perfect person to debate with them. It is when someone is debating pure theology that Dawkins seems like a poorer candidate to pick. Certainly Dawkins will have looked into some theology for his later book, I suspect, but I don't think he's ready to debate theology.

So he rejects something he has little comprehension over? Sounds ludacrous to me!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

McGrath needs to be knocked down by a theologian (or at least a theology-wise atheist). Not Dawkins.

The question is over the existance of God, not which religion is the true religion.

hallq · 10-07-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Because God is superior and the Creator of humans? Once you lose life, there will be no need for a debate

I love this argument. It amounts to "BWAHAHAHAA... one day, there will be lots of evidence for my claims!"

hallq · 10-07-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Alister McGrath's main argument seems to be "Atheism is Communism (boo! hiss!) Communism is on the way out (neener! neener!) Watch how atheism is being tossed into the trashcan of history (nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!)"

Which I think Richard Dawkins would find almost too dumb to be worth talking about.

Indeed. My biggest worry if Dawkins agreed to such a debate is that McGrath would fail to have given him a coherent position to critique after 90 minutes.

EverLastingGodStopper · 10-07-2006, 07:48 PM

Mod note: The PA&SA forum is specifically "Not a place for religious discussion or theological debate." It's appropriate to discuss Dawkins and debating here, but not to engage in religious debate, yourselves. Please keep this in mind.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-06-2006, 07:00 PM	#13
hallq Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 204	I find Dawkin's position here rather unfortunate. McGrath is a pretty poor apologist, and Dawkins is in some ways the ideal person to rip into him, with his emphasis on the lack of a need to disprove the existence of God. The arguments against debating creationists are largely non-applicable here. For example, given that theology is a non-field, Dawkins can't complain that McGrath ought to be critiquing him in professional journals.

10-07-2006, 08:38 AM	#15
hallq Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 204	The thing is, though, it wouldn't end up being a debate about theology--it would end up being a debate about when its reasonable to believe things and such. Scientists, in my experience, tend to do at least as well as philosophers here, because they have experience working out difficult questions about how the world actually is.

10-07-2006, 09:30 AM	#16
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Alister McGrath's main argument seems to be "Atheism is Communism (boo! hiss!) Communism is on the way out (neener! neener!) Watch how atheism is being tossed into the trashcan of history (nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!)" Which I think Richard Dawkins would find almost too dumb to be worth talking about.

10-07-2006, 07:48 PM	#20
EverLastingGodStopper Banned Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 16,665	Mod note: The PA&SA forum is specifically "Not a place for religious discussion or theological debate." It's appropriate to discuss Dawkins and debating here, but not to engage in religious debate, yourselves. Please keep this in mind.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.