Print
They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays
by PZ Myers, Pharyngula
Thanks to rowed for the link.
Reposted from:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/they_let_anybody_onto_the_facu.php
A few readers sent me a link to this interview with Alister McGrath; most thought it was worth a laugh, but one actually seemed to think I'd be devastated. I'm afraid the majority were correct: everything I've read by McGrath suggests that here is a man whose thoughts have been arrested by a temporal lobe seizure that he has mistaken for a lightning bolt from god. He'd probably be flattered to be compared to C.S. Lewis, but I see some similarities in the shallowness of their thinking that they believe they've deepened by tapping into theological tradition, but I'm sorry — my bathroom tap could drip for millennia, but it's a nuisance, not Niagara.
It also doesn't help that his argument is basically one of dogma and contradiction.
He's actually right on one thing: we are approaching the question of god as a scientific problem, and the question of water on Mars is a pretty good analogy. We can't see it here, we aren't there, we have to build a case on inference from evidence and we have to design tests to evaluate the possibilities. That's been an eminently successful strategy for humanity. So why can't we bring them to bear on the god question? I've highlighted his answer: he says we just can't. He doesn't say why we can't, it's just a dogmatic assertion. Keep this in mind, though, because he's going to contradict himself in a moment.
Also, I'd like to know what he means by this category of "scientific objects". Everything is a scientific object, from distant stars to grains of dirt, from the first picoseconds of the Big Bang to pillow talk between lovers. If we can ask a question about it, it can be science. McGrath may think this is a useful strategy for a critique, but all it amounts to is setting up his premises as unquestionable. We simply do not have to accept that.
For a guy who is about to claim to understand science, he sure is clueless about the fundamentals. This is not about proof. Science does not use proof. We favor evidence, and the work consists largely of the slow accumulation of evidence in support of ideas, not magically potent proofs that establish an idea as unassailable. What we have on the atheist side is a growing body of evidence that demonstrates the sufficiency of natural processes in generating phenomena that were once considered "obviously" the handiwork of a god — the steady decline of the relevance and support for the god hypothesis. At the same time, we see theologians like McGrath and pseudoscientists like those of the Discovery Institute trying to support their god/designer hypothesis with handwaving, sloppy logic, mangled evidence, and bald-faced assertions of unquestionable premises. Our side is growing in strength and has a solid foundation, theirs is a shambles. That's why scientific thinking will favor atheism.
Now of course, maybe they'll get their act together, throw out the charlatans, discard the historical relics cluttering up their beliefs, and actually assemble some evidence of their own; then we'll have some real competition. I don't think it will happen, but I could be surprised.
As for his claim that the default position is "not being sure" — he's being dishonest. His position and the religious position in general is one of certainty in their dogma in spite of the lack of evidence (this is called "faith," and is considered a virtue by the religious; it's called "gullibility" and is considered an error by the rational). The scientific position is that they've had a few thousand years to make their case and they've failed, while a few centuries of scientific progress has revolutionized human culture, and theirs is a dead argument.
Whoa. What happened to "of course there's no way you can bring those criteria to bear on God"? What about "God may not be in the same category as scientific objects"? One moment he's claiming you can't study god like you would the possibility of water on Mars, and next he's claiming the validity of using observation and theory to justify the existence of the remote and directly unseen. How … inconsistent.
It's true, scientists do use chains of observation to make reasonable inferences about the cause of a pattern, make hypotheses about that cause, and then design experiments based on those hypotheses to assess their ideas about the cause. Theologians do the first part. They observe phenomena, and make assertions based on traditional mythology (i.e., not reasonable), but then they refuse to test their ideas — they enthrone them as dogma and insist that you cannot bring scientific (i.e., logical and empirical) criteria to bear on them. And then when someone like Dawkins dares to apply the next step in scientific reasoning to their claims, they cry "Unfair!" and stamp their feet and try to take their ball home.
We examine the pattern of evidence, and in biology for instance, we don't see evidence of any kind of god meddling in our history. Even those biologists who believe in a god will tell you that they don't see evidence, they see possibilities: maybe God flipped this nucleotide that way to generate that useful mutation. It's indistinguishable from a chance event, though, and they can't show any causal agent, but they find solace in the idea that maybe it happened. There is no good reason to insert a god into the pattern, other than that the scientist may have been brought up in a superstitious tradition that demands one.
That's pretty funny.
Well, heck, how can anything be based on science, then? I'm listening to the stereo right now: if the physics and electronics and materials engineering behind that widget are scientific subjects in constant flux, how can it possibly be working?
That's actually the powerful secret of science. We embrace the change. We build on a foundation of good observation, but we are free to abandon old paradigms to find better ones that more accurately describe the universe and that are more productive in leading us deeper into understanding it. Gods are the old paradigm, the one that has failed, the useless idea that takes us nowhere.
Now I find that claim bizarre, especially since earlier in his screed McGrath claims that the "most serious, negative reviews" of Dawkins' work have come from his fellow atheists. Are we his claque or are we his most serious critics? And good grief, read the comments at RichardDawkins.net — this is not a coterie of fan boys and girls praising their leader, but an undisciplined mob, each with their own idea of what atheism means, agreeing with Dawkins in some points and nit-picking him on others (and this diversity, while a negative as far as getting a coordinated response from atheists, is also one of our strengths, since there is a kind of Darwinian savagery about the internal workings of the atheist movement.) And, by the way, I think one of the goals of the Out Campaign (which is a good example of Dawkins' ideas not being automatically accepted) should be to get more representatives of atheism up there so that the religious apologists have to quit pretending that atheism consists of Richard Dawkins and his army of clones.
I also don't see this kind of event McGrath describes happening often. More likely, someone would stand up and say, "How dare you criticize Richard Dawkins so stupidly!"
One last nugget of foolishness, and then I'll drop McGrath.
Amazing. He's not dogmatic, but he accepts the Nicene creed.
I've read it. Actually, the Nicene creed was probably the major trigger for my own abandonment of religion. It's a statement of the major premises of Christian belief, and I was required to memorize it in my confirmation classes, and we also went through it and discussed each clause. I quickly realized that the first line, "We believe in one God," was not true for me. Further, the subsequent lines were further assertions that I found either false (that there was a "maker of heaven and earth") or self-contradictory (there's also a Jesus, who is a god, and a Holy Spirit, who is a god?) or gibberish (the Virgin Mary nonsense and the resurrection, which somehow redeems us). It doesn't hold up under the critical examination of a 14 year old, so I'm baffled about how an educated adult can find it at all persuasive. I've found my own preferred version of the creed on a t-shirt:
That's patent humorous insanity, but the Nicene creed is worse: it's patent insanity that takes itself seriously. That anyone could look at it "very closely" with any objectivity at all and accept it, from triune god to virgin birth to 'dead' god to resurrection and ascent to final judgment, and argue that it is right is incredible. McGrath was adamant in insisting that atheists need to prove the nonexistence of god, but what I'd like to see is one scrap of evidence for any piece of the exceptionally silly Nicene creed — not proof, but just some rational reason for me to believe one single line of this dogma that McGrath accepts.
My confirmation teacher (a very nice and enthusiastic lady) and my pastor (also a decent fellow) couldn't do it. Neither could any of the books I'd read after and since. McGrath sure hasn't. McGrath claims that atheists misrepresent Christianity, but if the Nicene creed is the core of the belief, I don't see how we're misrepresenting it: it's a collection of absurdities. Maybe Mr McGrath should try spending more time actually defending that nonsense convincingly than simply whining about the atheists who are picking on his beliefs…but I don't think he can do that, either.
Reposted from:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/they_let_anybody_onto_the_facu.php
A few readers sent me a link to this interview with Alister McGrath; most thought it was worth a laugh, but one actually seemed to think I'd be devastated. I'm afraid the majority were correct: everything I've read by McGrath suggests that here is a man whose thoughts have been arrested by a temporal lobe seizure that he has mistaken for a lightning bolt from god. He'd probably be flattered to be compared to C.S. Lewis, but I see some similarities in the shallowness of their thinking that they believe they've deepened by tapping into theological tradition, but I'm sorry — my bathroom tap could drip for millennia, but it's a nuisance, not Niagara.It also doesn't help that his argument is basically one of dogma and contradiction.
I think Richard Dawkins approaches the question of whether God exists in much the same way as if he'd approach the question of whether there is water on Mars. In other words, it's something that's open to objective scientific experimentation. And of course there's no way you can bring those criteria to bear on God. I think Dawkins seems reluctant to allow that God may not be in the same category as scientific objects. That's an extremely important point to make in beginning to critique him.
He's actually right on one thing: we are approaching the question of god as a scientific problem, and the question of water on Mars is a pretty good analogy. We can't see it here, we aren't there, we have to build a case on inference from evidence and we have to design tests to evaluate the possibilities. That's been an eminently successful strategy for humanity. So why can't we bring them to bear on the god question? I've highlighted his answer: he says we just can't. He doesn't say why we can't, it's just a dogmatic assertion. Keep this in mind, though, because he's going to contradict himself in a moment.
Also, I'd like to know what he means by this category of "scientific objects". Everything is a scientific object, from distant stars to grains of dirt, from the first picoseconds of the Big Bang to pillow talk between lovers. If we can ask a question about it, it can be science. McGrath may think this is a useful strategy for a critique, but all it amounts to is setting up his premises as unquestionable. We simply do not have to accept that.
A second point, which clearly follows on from this, is that Dawkins clearly believes that those who believe in God must prove their case and atheists have nothing to prove because that's their default position. But I think that's simply incorrect and it's obviously incorrect.
Really, the only obvious position is to say: We don't know, we need to be persuaded one way or the other. The default position in other words is: not being sure.
For a guy who is about to claim to understand science, he sure is clueless about the fundamentals. This is not about proof. Science does not use proof. We favor evidence, and the work consists largely of the slow accumulation of evidence in support of ideas, not magically potent proofs that establish an idea as unassailable. What we have on the atheist side is a growing body of evidence that demonstrates the sufficiency of natural processes in generating phenomena that were once considered "obviously" the handiwork of a god — the steady decline of the relevance and support for the god hypothesis. At the same time, we see theologians like McGrath and pseudoscientists like those of the Discovery Institute trying to support their god/designer hypothesis with handwaving, sloppy logic, mangled evidence, and bald-faced assertions of unquestionable premises. Our side is growing in strength and has a solid foundation, theirs is a shambles. That's why scientific thinking will favor atheism.
Now of course, maybe they'll get their act together, throw out the charlatans, discard the historical relics cluttering up their beliefs, and actually assemble some evidence of their own; then we'll have some real competition. I don't think it will happen, but I could be surprised.
As for his claim that the default position is "not being sure" — he's being dishonest. His position and the religious position in general is one of certainty in their dogma in spite of the lack of evidence (this is called "faith," and is considered a virtue by the religious; it's called "gullibility" and is considered an error by the rational). The scientific position is that they've had a few thousand years to make their case and they've failed, while a few centuries of scientific progress has revolutionized human culture, and theirs is a dead argument.
As someone who has studied the history and philosophy of science extensively, I think I've noticed a number of things that Dawkins seems to have overlooked. One of them is this: One of the most commonly encountered patterns in scientific development is seeing a pattern of observations and then saying, in order to explain these observations, we propose that there exists something that is as yet unobserved but we believe that one day will be observed because if it's there, it can explain everything that can be observed.
Of course, if you're a Christian you'll see immediately that that same pattern is there in thinking about God. We can't prove there's a God but he makes an awful lot of sense of things and therefore there's a very good reason to suppose that this may, in fact, be right.
Whoa. What happened to "of course there's no way you can bring those criteria to bear on God"? What about "God may not be in the same category as scientific objects"? One moment he's claiming you can't study god like you would the possibility of water on Mars, and next he's claiming the validity of using observation and theory to justify the existence of the remote and directly unseen. How … inconsistent.
It's true, scientists do use chains of observation to make reasonable inferences about the cause of a pattern, make hypotheses about that cause, and then design experiments based on those hypotheses to assess their ideas about the cause. Theologians do the first part. They observe phenomena, and make assertions based on traditional mythology (i.e., not reasonable), but then they refuse to test their ideas — they enthrone them as dogma and insist that you cannot bring scientific (i.e., logical and empirical) criteria to bear on them. And then when someone like Dawkins dares to apply the next step in scientific reasoning to their claims, they cry "Unfair!" and stamp their feet and try to take their ball home.
We examine the pattern of evidence, and in biology for instance, we don't see evidence of any kind of god meddling in our history. Even those biologists who believe in a god will tell you that they don't see evidence, they see possibilities: maybe God flipped this nucleotide that way to generate that useful mutation. It's indistinguishable from a chance event, though, and they can't show any causal agent, but they find solace in the idea that maybe it happened. There is no good reason to insert a god into the pattern, other than that the scientist may have been brought up in a superstitious tradition that demands one.
So my question, therefore, is: How on earth can Dawkins base his atheism on science when science itself so to speak is in motion, in transit?
That's pretty funny.
Well, heck, how can anything be based on science, then? I'm listening to the stereo right now: if the physics and electronics and materials engineering behind that widget are scientific subjects in constant flux, how can it possibly be working?
That's actually the powerful secret of science. We embrace the change. We build on a foundation of good observation, but we are free to abandon old paradigms to find better ones that more accurately describe the universe and that are more productive in leading us deeper into understanding it. Gods are the old paradigm, the one that has failed, the useless idea that takes us nowhere.
Another thing of interest to you, seeing as we're talking to a Catholic audience, is that I've spoken in many lectures about Richard Dawkins and critiqued him. And very often atheists will stand up and say: "How dare you criticize Richard Dawkins!"
It's almost as if there's a new dogma of the infallibility of Richard Dawkins in certain circles and I find that bizarre.
Now I find that claim bizarre, especially since earlier in his screed McGrath claims that the "most serious, negative reviews" of Dawkins' work have come from his fellow atheists. Are we his claque or are we his most serious critics? And good grief, read the comments at RichardDawkins.net — this is not a coterie of fan boys and girls praising their leader, but an undisciplined mob, each with their own idea of what atheism means, agreeing with Dawkins in some points and nit-picking him on others (and this diversity, while a negative as far as getting a coordinated response from atheists, is also one of our strengths, since there is a kind of Darwinian savagery about the internal workings of the atheist movement.) And, by the way, I think one of the goals of the Out Campaign (which is a good example of Dawkins' ideas not being automatically accepted) should be to get more representatives of atheism up there so that the religious apologists have to quit pretending that atheism consists of Richard Dawkins and his army of clones.
I also don't see this kind of event McGrath describes happening often. More likely, someone would stand up and say, "How dare you criticize Richard Dawkins so stupidly!"
One last nugget of foolishness, and then I'll drop McGrath.
The second point I'd want to make is that certainly I believe in the Nicene Creed, but I don't believe it because someone has rammed it down my throat. I believe it because I've looked at it very closely and I believe it to be right. I am very happy to be challenged about that because I believe in being open and accountable.
Amazing. He's not dogmatic, but he accepts the Nicene creed.
I've read it. Actually, the Nicene creed was probably the major trigger for my own abandonment of religion. It's a statement of the major premises of Christian belief, and I was required to memorize it in my confirmation classes, and we also went through it and discussed each clause. I quickly realized that the first line, "We believe in one God," was not true for me. Further, the subsequent lines were further assertions that I found either false (that there was a "maker of heaven and earth") or self-contradictory (there's also a Jesus, who is a god, and a Holy Spirit, who is a god?) or gibberish (the Virgin Mary nonsense and the resurrection, which somehow redeems us). It doesn't hold up under the critical examination of a 14 year old, so I'm baffled about how an educated adult can find it at all persuasive. I've found my own preferred version of the creed on a t-shirt:
Christianity: The belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
That's patent humorous insanity, but the Nicene creed is worse: it's patent insanity that takes itself seriously. That anyone could look at it "very closely" with any objectivity at all and accept it, from triune god to virgin birth to 'dead' god to resurrection and ascent to final judgment, and argue that it is right is incredible. McGrath was adamant in insisting that atheists need to prove the nonexistence of god, but what I'd like to see is one scrap of evidence for any piece of the exceptionally silly Nicene creed — not proof, but just some rational reason for me to believe one single line of this dogma that McGrath accepts.
My confirmation teacher (a very nice and enthusiastic lady) and my pastor (also a decent fellow) couldn't do it. Neither could any of the books I'd read after and since. McGrath sure hasn't. McGrath claims that atheists misrepresent Christianity, but if the Nicene creed is the core of the belief, I don't see how we're misrepresenting it: it's a collection of absurdities. Maybe Mr McGrath should try spending more time actually defending that nonsense convincingly than simply whining about the atheists who are picking on his beliefs…but I don't think he can do that, either.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, August 2, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 113 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #60690 by v4ri4bl3 on August 2, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Excellent article. I caught myself thinking, "Wow. Dawkins' writing seems to be improving quite a bit," before I realized it was written by someone else.No offense to Dawkins. I think he's brilliant. But I also think this guy is a better writer.
He doesn't seem to use too many words or, it would seem, any words that don't fit well or flow easily. A nearly perfect article.
I agree it is amazing to think how certain individuals are comfortable following this line of reasoning. It is so patently erroneous and yet they seem to fly by with it, no problem. But then again this is the whole problem with religious ideology in the first place. Convincing yourself that it is acceptable to believe nonsense.
Other Comments by v4ri4bl3
3. Comment #60691 by rmercad2 on August 2, 2007 at 5:34 pm
"Reason cannot debate with absurdity."No but it can kill it.
Intolerance for the intolerant!!!!
Atheist Jihad!!!!
Just kidding=)
Other Comments by rmercad2
4. Comment #60695 by Yorker on August 2, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Very good article by PZ, one of his best I'd say. Other Comments by Yorker
5. Comment #60697 by tieInterceptor on August 2, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I would dare anyone to read or 'look closely' at the Nicene Creed and be convinced by it (or even understand it truly).But the dare has one rule, it must be presented to someone that has never been indoctrinated or know about Christianity (much).
no one would buy it served cold like that, I bet anything.
I doubt that McGrath really studied the text and found the phrases and logic of it 'just fine' and went with it. For him it was the other way around, Accepted the religion first, then the Creed was just another bit of text that had to be digested as part of the Christian package that Alister ordered...
basically he is dishonest, or deluded, probably a bit of both.
Amazing article, so enjoyable to read clear thinking.
.
Other Comments by tieInterceptor
6. Comment #60700 by rmercad2 on August 2, 2007 at 5:50 pm
You guys don't like the idea of atheist jihad?Other Comments by rmercad2
7. Comment #60706 by monkey2 on August 2, 2007 at 5:56 pm
When I first saw Alistar McGrath debating with RD. (#14 Top 100 Articles). I came away feeling very stupid because I couldn't follow AM's argument. I thought it was because I was out of his league. Him being an Oxford Professor of Historical Theology.
Thank you PZ for demonstrating so clearly that he just talks nonsense.
Other Comments by monkey2
8. Comment #60708 by SRWB on August 2, 2007 at 5:59 pm
What I would like to say is ... McGrath is still full of shit and Hitchens' comments about "enemas and being buried in a matchbox" came to mind!PZ's article is outstanding. Lots of good info to add to the growing arsenal of reason and logic here.
Other Comments by SRWB
9. Comment #60710 by Linda on August 2, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Dawkins seems to terrify McGrath in this interview:http://richarddawkins.net/article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews
He looks like he's wetting his pants trying to come up with a response to Dawkins that doesn't come across as utterly preposterous. McGrath tends to fumble while attempting to skirt the issues of his belief in science fiction tales of a virgin birth and the resurrection of corpses.
Most likely McGrath is only interested in keeping his job and pension plan after all his book sale revenues must be pathetic and no doubt his anti-TGL publishing attempts will quickly be sent to discounters' remainder shelves.
Meanwhile Mark Roberts another guy who calls himself a professional theologian (snake oil salesMAN) admitted to Hitchens that that his historian self could never believe such things but in wanting to maintain his job as a delusion peddler he had to say that yes resurrection is true.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1291,The-Great-God-Debate,Hugh-Hewitt-Show-Christopher-Hitchens-Mark-Roberts
Roberts is worried that loss of his belief system would be a personal Armageddon. There just aren't enough mental health counselors around obviously.
Other Comments by Linda
10. Comment #60711 by troodon on August 2, 2007 at 6:07 pm
What a masterful dissection of McGrath's fuzzy ideas and contradictions. I'm looking forward to his book, "Natural Revelation". http://www.morris.umn.edu/ummnews/View.php?itemID=2341Other Comments by troodon
11. Comment #60712 by jonecc on August 2, 2007 at 6:12 pm
v4ri4bl3:If you're not familiar with PZ Myers, it's well worth checking out his blog.
It's a mixture of science, secularism and Internet gossip, usually about the first two. Oh yeah, and he has this weird thing about squid. Mind you, since I started going there, so do I.
Other Comments by jonecc
12. Comment #60724 by Dr Benway on August 2, 2007 at 6:36 pm
One moment he's claiming you can't study god like you would the possibility of water on Mars, and next he's claiming the validity of using observation and theory to justify the existence of the remote and directly unseen. How … inconsistent.Hey, don't knock this sly strategy of equivocation. I've seen What the Bleep Do We Know? I know about The Secret. This flavor of bullshit can run many more years before everyone catches on. See Dianelos on the McGrath thread for a further taste.
The trick is to equivocate between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. Here's the game:
1. Establish that materialism, idealism, and deism are all reasonable metaphysical positions. Establish that science cannot offer any evidence to distinguish one metaphysical position from the other. Say, "God is outside science," or "non-overlapping magesteria."
2. Once you've got a metaphysical God on the table, a God outside reality, a God that cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method, do a slide from metaphysics to physical reality. Give the metaphysical God interventionist qualities. Assert that your God became a man, died, rose from the dead, answers prayer, provides an inner knowing, etc.
3. Fail to note that an interventionist God becomes a part of our shared phenomenological world, and thus ought to be studied as we study all other phenomena. Fail to note that you've got no evidence for this God - a fatal flaw for your side. If anyone points this out, jump back to #1. Bamboozle.
4. Say, "Theism has more explanatory power concerning:
- those wacky QM observations
- consciousness; so mysterious!
- (insert other gap in scientific understanding).
Theism posits that God causes reality and consciousness. Naturalism (metaphysical naturalism) can't posit anything because naturalism (methodological naturalism) has all those ugly gaps!
5. Conclusion, an echo of #1 but with a twist: "Theism (interventionist God, part of physical reality) wins and naturalism (metaphysical naturalism) loses!"
6. Epilogue: Jesus, holy ghost, crackers, nice bits of the Bible, Dawkins is a fundie, buy my book, etc., etc.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
13. Comment #60742 by Zaphod on August 2, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I don't think PZ is a better writer than Richard as such but he is more abrasive and comedic. He combines reason and logic with some great quips and humour. Alistair McGrath is an intellectually dishonest flea and I am glad whenever anyone takes him down a peg. He seems to attack stupid atheist stereotypes and sometimes it as if he is just making shit up.I am looking forward to PZ's book.
Other Comments by Zaphod
14. Comment #60752 by ross on August 2, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Excellent summation Dr. Benway.All too often they try to have it both ways - God is outside of matter, (after all he created it, don't y'know), but can intervene without being detected.
This has been an exasperating line of argument.
Other Comments by ross
15. Comment #60753 by hasty toweling on August 2, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I don't know about PZ being a better writer than Dawkins. They're both very good, but with two very different styles. PZ's concise prose may be a touch more effective at debating, but Dawkins' flair makes for fascinating science reading. I'm thinking in particular of The Ancestor's Tale or especially chapter two of The Selfish Gene.Other Comments by hasty toweling
16. Comment #60754 by philos on August 2, 2007 at 7:42 pm
I don't mind McGrath being Oxford Faculty; since Dawkins spends the time in debate with him in interviews and varied retort, Dawkins obviously respects him in some ways and not in others - and so worthy to throw the bone to on occasion. That is what a Liberal Education is about.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE3/LibEd.html
Other Comments by philos
17. Comment #60756 by robotaholic on August 2, 2007 at 7:44 pm
How do you assign credibility to someone who thinks a talking snake coerced humankind into the slavery of doing things that an invisible sky being says is wrong? - this guy calls himself a scientist - that's bull*#)%- he may as well be a realian, believe in reptoids or faeries. To think that someone who has a magical worldview can criticize a preeminent British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer- is utterly backwards. That psudoscientist author Alister McGrath will find no reader in me! Other Comments by robotaholic
18. Comment #60757 by Crazymalc on August 2, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Wow. Nice work.I've never seen the alternative creed before. Very good.
This type of thinking was one step on my path to Atheism. I caught myself as one stage saying, "Hey wait a minute... A snake in a garden testing a whatsit, a dude on a cross fixing in, seven headed dragrons with three eyes eating the earth... Hmmmm."
Here (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/86) is a talk from a lady who went through a similar stage and catching herself with her absurd beliefs
Other Comments by Crazymalc
19. Comment #60769 by maton100 on August 2, 2007 at 8:03 pm
We got 'em! Thanks PZ...http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com
Other Comments by maton100
20. Comment #60770 by philos on August 2, 2007 at 8:06 pm
McGrath is an educated, reasonable man - in some ways better than others.As to his credibility, that depends on what subject of course; Oxford University thinks he's credible in something. After all, they are the ones who brought him aboard.
Other Comments by philos
21. Comment #60772 by Goldy on August 2, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Philos, so is Michael Behe at his university. Yet read this http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htmOther Comments by Goldy
22. Comment #60775 by troyreynolds86 on August 2, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Monkey2,You shouldn't have felt bad about not understanding McGrath and don't ever think that because you cannot follow an argument that the argument comes from someone that is just out of your league. McGrath may be an Oxford theologian, and he is obviously intelligent and learned, but if ever you feel that way again about an argument that you cannot make heads or tails of just do a bit of reading and never assume yourself to be so inferior. Instead think of it as a failure of the speaker to clearly describe his position. I would doubt that any person on this website is sooooo mentally inferior to anyone that we can not understand the intelligable and able to recognize nonsense.
Other Comments by troyreynolds86
23. Comment #60776 by philos on August 2, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Therefore, all academics who aren't evolutionists and those who don't subscribe to the Darwinian worldview shouldn't be in a University? What about the English Department, who may know nothing, nor care, about evolution, them too? How absurd.Please, look at the Liberal Education link provided above.
I'd love to debate more but gotta go
watch Behe on Colbert...
Sincerely,
- a 6.8 Agnostic
Other Comments by philos
24. Comment #60779 by waxwings on August 2, 2007 at 8:29 pm
"no one would buy it served cold like that, I bet anything."Haha, well said, sir.
Other Comments by waxwings
25. Comment #60799 by Veronique on August 2, 2007 at 9:18 pm
5. Comment #60697 by tieInterceptor on August 2, 2007 at 5:43 pmI think I'm pretty close to your stated criteria (but I am learning all the time:-))
Spot on, mate.
I really like PZ's writing, it's just different from Dawkins. I am so glad he's coming on board with the writers' team. One more:-)
Crazy, thanks for that link. Haven't seen it for ages. She's very good and very funny:-)
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
26. Comment #60810 by AdrianB on August 2, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Everything that I read or hear from this man always includes the phrase "I used to be an atheist....."Does he really think this gives him some sort of moral high ground. It seems rather childish to keep on repeating this.
Does anybody else think he is just plain lying though?
Lying for God is okay I guess.
Other Comments by AdrianB
27. Comment #60812 by ridelo on August 2, 2007 at 11:45 pm
I'm envious about how PZ always knows how to poke his finger on the sore spot. Splendid article.Oops, maybe I will be accused of belonging to his claque also!
Other Comments by ridelo
28. Comment #60813 by Russell Blackford on August 2, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Anybody? Hmmmm, I might just test that next time there's a job in my field.Other Comments by Russell Blackford
29. Comment #60815 by Tumara Baap on August 2, 2007 at 11:58 pm
This isn't the first pot-shot I've seen hurled at Dawkins' writing, and frankly it's a little irritating. The only Dawkins book many of you have read is probably The God Delusion. TGD, in contrast to Dawkins earlier books like the superb Ancestor's Tale, is dumbed down for mass consumption ... imbued as it is with repetition and emphasis for the sake of clarity and glossed in a more layman language than what Dawkins' mind naturally revels in. A second point is that the British style is more embroidered with nuance and reflection at the expense of tight and punchy delivery. Some of us Americans are not used to this. (At least we don't have to put up with the tortuous ruminations of Russian analysis, or the comically coerced sophistication of the French, or the pithy hyberbole of Indians and Arabs!). Those who've read Dawkins' works more extensively no doubt consider him a writer par excellent.Other Comments by Tumara Baap
30. Comment #60817 by Russell Blackford on August 3, 2007 at 12:17 am
What I actually find difficult about someone like McGrath is that he can't seem to make up his mind about whether to believe in God as some kind of transcendent explanation of how the universe comes to be ordered, or how reason comes to be trustworthy, or whatever exactly it is that he thinks needs explaining by the ontological prioity of reason and consciousness (or whatever the sophisticated view of God is supposed to be) ... while also believing in the barbaric and parochial doctrines of the Nicene Creed. I realise that there's no formal contradiction here, but the two mindsets are miles apart.Other Comments by Russell Blackford
31. Comment #60835 by Flagellant on August 3, 2007 at 1:00 am
A very well written and persuasive article; it encouraged me to read the McGrath piece, (http://ncregister.com/site/article/3287/) in full. I found more assertions on which to comment. Here are a few: So curiously I think The God Delusion is written to reassure the faith of atheists who are puzzled by the persistence and, in many places, the resurgence of religionNo it's not; there may be one or two people whose atheism needs shoring up but the majority of Dawkins's audience/readers have positive reasons for seeking his views. The 'acolytes' include 1. People who find religious 'faith' too difficult to accept and who want to find out more about this delusion, 2. People who find the real, i.e. religious, fundamentalists threatening, 3. Atheists who want to read a rational critique of religion, the better to be able to refute more of the unsound arguments they come across and 4. (Lots more positive reasons. Add your own...)
When you read The God Delusion, it's extremely aggressive, it's very dismissive…No it isn't, you twerp! A major plaint of TGD is that faith has unjustifiably been treated with too much respect and accepted without question as a 'good' thing. (And by the way, the most 'aggression' I've ever seen/read from Dawkins is a slight tetchy aside, on his own website, about people posting to an inappropriate thread.)
The God Delusion works as a piece of writing only if the reader is very ignorant or very prejudiced against religious believersSpeak for yourself. The book works very well for open-minded, inquiring readers and for those genuinely puzzled about why and how 'people of faith' believe as they do. Readers are generally puzzled how faithheads can believe rubbish, not by the alleged 'resurgence' of religion.
Mcgrath's article is far more lucid than his discussion with (the extremely polite and patient) Dawkins on this site. PZ has got the big points but there's still plenty of opportunity for more 'quote-mining' and refutation, though. (http://ncregister.com/site/article/3287/)
Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
[Minor edit for clarity, grammar, and punctuation.]
Other Comments by Flagellant
32. Comment #60842 by gcdavis on August 3, 2007 at 1:22 am
I'd like to see the likes of McGrath turn their attention to other religions, McGrath on Islam or Hinduism would be interesting, rather than spending his energy on trying to discredit atheism. There are huge differences of belief and dogma between faiths but do you see them criticising each other, no. In fact they support each others privileges, a cosy cartel (maybe the US regulators should look at this instead of BA fare fixing!). Of course the reason is clear, once one religion is undermined the entire edifice of all religions will eventually crumble. They are all fellow travellers. Other Comments by gcdavis
33. Comment #60847 by bluehillside on August 3, 2007 at 1:58 am
Excellent article by PZ.Flagellant picks up the quote from McGrath that "...TDG is written to reassure the faith of atheists...".
No! It's been said many times before, but the important point here is that atheism is not a "faith", or even a belief system. Carl Sagan said that extraordinary claims require exraordinary proofs. As Sam Harris points out, the "proofs" for the existence of god are either non-existent or terrible, and an atheist is just someone who isn't convinced by them.
It's an old trick that McGrath tries - that atheism is just another faith, and so no different in essence to religious faith - but it's stupid and wrong, and needs to be challenged therefore.
Other Comments by bluehillside
34. Comment #60850 by Flagellant on August 3, 2007 at 2:21 am
Thanks for that, bluehillside. D'accord.While we're at it, pace gcdavis, what on earth is McGrath (an Anglican) doing dealing with the National Catholic Register? I'm not sure that they'll like his
MAJOR FORTHCOMING BOOK: Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution ... [a] magisterial 500+ page analysis of one of the world's great religious movements(Source: McG's website.)
Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
Other Comments by Flagellant
35. Comment #60851 by tieInterceptor on August 3, 2007 at 2:25 am
gcdavis ... I wish I had your abatar! Other Comments by tieInterceptor
36. Comment #60856 by JAJansenJr on August 3, 2007 at 2:34 am
I find the debate as to whether there is or is not a god unsatisfying. The arguments pro and con are unconvincing. For myself it is a faith choice that there is a Creator. The arguments over the Nicene Creed seem unconvincing to me. The fact that there is no proof of the points of the Creed which then leads to the Creed being seen as false is unconvincing. What I do find convincing are the arguments that people sometimes unacceptably proceed from a faith choice to do things in the here and now that are unkind at best and horrifying at worst. As to proof that a Creator exists the jury is out. Same for the Nicene creed. Perhaps there will be an answer some day, as there was in the case of the debate between Ludwig Boltzman and Ernest Mach over the existence of atoms. See http://www.amazon.com/Boltzmanns-Atom-Launched-Revolution-Physics/dp/0684851865for some reading on this subject. No one seriously doubts the existence of atoms - the evidence is substantial. Still, I am glad Richard Dawkins writes as well as he does on the subject matter in "The God Delusion" and his other works, as the questions discussed deserve discussion, and
in particular the issue of irrational behavior based on points of "religious faith" must be addressed. The irony is that I find Richard Dawkins writings in the best tradition of rational discussion of religious faith.
Other Comments by JAJansenJr
37. Comment #60861 by Roger Stanyard on August 3, 2007 at 2:43 am
I can't quite make ot what McGrath is all about. On the one hand he appears to be of the liberal evangelical wing of the Church of England, but at the same time getting himself involved with some serious nutcases. I note that he has got mixed up with the European Leadership Forum which looks to be a training organisation for Evangelical fundamentalist in Europe. One of its arms is the European Scientific Network where McGrath has been a prominent speaker.The speakers at its July 2007 conference were Andy McIntosh, Geoff Barnard (both of Truth in Science), Alister McGrath, the Oxford-based Intelligent Designer John Lennox, Dr Hans Peter Kriegel (co-chairman of the Christian Professors Initiative Munich) and Dr Richard Carhart (Director of the European Scientific Network). Carhart, who appears to be an advocate of Intelligent Design, states that one of his objectives is to "counter erroneous worldviews". One shudders at the totalitarian idea.
Amongst others that have been involved in the organisation are Charles Thaxton (one-time scientific editor of Of Panda's and People) and the old-earth creationist Hugh Ross who Answers in Genesis have, in prodigious quantities, long spat venom at because he is not the "right kind" of creationist (i.e. he is bad for AiG's business activities).
On the other hand, McGrath seems to have been a staunch critic of the takeover of Wycliffe Hall (the main Anglican evangelical centre within Oxford University) by illiberal fundamentalists. It seems to me that both Oxford and Cambridge are prime targets for religious fundamentalists and they are having some considerable success. The Church of England has now become part of the problem rather than the solution to religious fundamentalism. The Archbishop of York recently wrote to the British Centre for Science Education claiming that those who opposed teaching of creationism and Intelligent design in state schools were themselves fundamentalists for doing so (eyes roll).
Cambridge seems to be increasingly infiltrated by fundamentalists through such organisations as the evangelical the Cambridge Scholars Network: Science. I was informally invited to attend its July 2007 event at Sidney Sussex College by an academic theologian who appears to have been involved in the European Leadership Forum. I turned the offer down because the academic was also involved in a theological diploma mill selling PhDs for £500 a go.
The organisation, the European Theological Seminary, based in Greenisland near Belfast, was later to be unmasked by the BBC. I had received a veiled threat that I may get into trouble for exposing it. Weirdly, one of Answers in Genesis's full time staff, Robin Greer, had been publicised by AiG as having received two doctorates from the organisation. In his own right, without these, he was well qualified.
Amongst the people involved in the Cambridge Scholar's event were Richard Carhart, John Lennox and Peter Williams. The latter is a theologian at Aberdeen University who has also played a role in the European Leadership Forum as well as presented a lecture for Genesis Agendum. The Cambridge Scholars Network describes itself as a joint project between Christian Heritage and the European Leadership Forum. The evangelical Christian Heritage is based at the Round Church in Cambridge and is headed by Ranald Macaulay, son-in-law of the fundamentalist evangelical Francis Schaeffer, founder of the L'Abri Fellowship. Macaulay is on the council of reference of Biblical Creation Ministries alongside, amongst others, Andy McIntosh and Geoff Barnard.
Reading through the web site of Christian Heritage, it is difficult not to conclude that that it is a deeply fundamentalist and reactionary organisation, opposed to the Enlightenment (which it claims, undermined all morality), science and personal freedom. One wonders where its money is coming from as it appears to employ several full-time staff.
I've written to a number of people involved in the Cambridge Scholars Network to determine precisely what their views are on creationism. Take it for granted that I have not even received an acknowledgement. It seems that creationists/IDers are like vampires; they are quite willing to suck blood from people when their activities are kept in the dark but as soon as daylight is cast upon them, they run away to the darkest shadows.
Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education
Other Comments by Roger Stanyard
38. Comment #60863 by Paul Creber on August 3, 2007 at 2:55 am
#60810 by AdrianBEverything that I read or hear from this man always includes the phrase "I used to be an atheist....."
Does he really think this gives him some sort of moral high ground. It seems rather childish to keep on repeating this.
Does anybody else think he is just plain lying though?
For an excellent summary of McGrath's muddled, contradictory recollection of his own biography, take a look at NMcC's comment here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews
Other Comments by Paul Creber
39. Comment #60864 by gcdavis on August 3, 2007 at 3:01 am
JAJansenJr Do you believe in fairies? This is not a facetious question. I find no evidence for them, do you?
Other Comments by gcdavis
40. Comment #60866 by Tyler Durden on August 3, 2007 at 3:04 am
Christianity: The belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
I'd much rather wear a t-shirt emblazoned with this on it than a giant scarlet "A" :-)
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
41. Comment #60867 by gcdavis on August 3, 2007 at 3:07 am
JAJansenJr You say "As to proof that a Creator exists the jury is out."
Your analogy is apt. A jury considers the evidence presented by both sides.
Where is your evidence?
Other Comments by gcdavis
42. Comment #60869 by rokort on August 3, 2007 at 3:08 am
Nice piece PZ.I listened to an interview on the radio this morning with Eugène Sutorius. He's known as the first attorney in the Netherlands who in the 80's started the whole debate on euthanasia here by supporting doctors who had euthanised patients and had gotten into trouble because there wasn't clear legislation on this. Now there is, and most people here find the laws on euthanasia acceptable.
He came accross as a very intelligent and reasonable man but i nearly choked on my cerials when he started talking about the role of religion in his life. He didn't run away from the nasty side of religion or the insignificance of earthly life or anything, but what struck me was that he constantly said that we don't have a clue how we came here or how the universe is constructed and THEREFORE we have to be irrational on the matter of god.
He doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand we DO know more and more about how we came here and how the universe is constructed and he simply neglects science for that matter. This simple thing makes all the difference for a lot of religious people i think. It's not necessarily an easy task to homeschool yourself on scientific stuff, so all the more easy for religites to persuade people to just accept irrational explanations and forget about skepticism and inquiry.
The beauty, wonder, facts, and education of science should be way higher on the priority-list of schools, and in a more lucid way woven into our daily lives. Plus if it were up to me, a scientist shouldn't be "allowed" to be religious. If he/she can't be rational on god, how can i trust their scientific scrutiny?
Other Comments by rokort
43. Comment #60870 by bouwe on August 3, 2007 at 3:11 am
Comment #60850 by Flagellant :Oh great, sounds like the flea has migrated from Dawkins to Dennett (but only ripping off the title, apparently).
MAJOR FORTHCOMING BOOK: Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution ...
(Source: McG's website.)
It is apt that McGrath chose the title "The Dawkins Delusion", but not in the sense that he thinks. McGrath has a "Dawkins Delusion" to go along with his God Delusion, in that he really believes he "understands" Dawkins (and atheism in general for that matter), when he has in fact deceived himself into misunderstanding Dawkins and atheists in general.
If someone can be bothered, there is another book there. Just as McGrath wrote "Dawkins' God," someone should delve McGrath's peculiar delusions (ie. misunderstandings, misrepresentations) and call it "McGrath's Dawkins", except the writer won't have to resort to any distortions, just tell it like it is.
Phew. Hard to keep track of all the fleas.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Comment #60724 by Dr Benway
Excellent summary of the Danielos Delusion, Dr.B....in a short-hand way, you get to the crux of the matter in the same way that PZ has done above with McGrath...maybe you should write the book!
Other Comments by bouwe
44. Comment #60871 by Tyler Durden on August 3, 2007 at 3:19 am
Comment #60697 by tieInterceptor:I would dare anyone to read or 'look closely' at the Nicene Creed and be convinced by it (or even understand it truly).
But the dare has one rule, it must be presented to someone that has never been indoctrinated or know about Christianity (much).
Very well put!! I reckon this is the ultimate fear of the religious hierarchy: people will cotton on to this pathetic garbage before the priests, pastors and reverends have had enough time to get their claws into them. In society today, the right to vote, leagally drink, have sex, drive a car, all have an age restriction, so should religion.
"Timmy, when you're 16 you can choose your own religion, political party, motor vehicle, alcoholic beverage and sexual partner - until then, put that bloody bible down!" :)
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
45. Comment #60872 by Omnibus on August 3, 2007 at 3:27 am
Does anybody else think that Roger Stanyard's post is worth a thread in itself, and for us Brits is indicative of why we should be getting the truth about these groups into the public arena asap?Other Comments by Omnibus
46. Comment #60875 by Tyler Durden on August 3, 2007 at 3:49 am
Comment #60856 by JAJansenJr:Perhaps there will be an answer some day...
The religious herd will already tell you the answer exists, yet without any proof or evidence. And even if science were to "prove" the non-existence of God through empirical evidence, they probably wouldn't change as faith is belief despite the evidence!
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
47. Comment #60885 by scooternyc on August 3, 2007 at 4:29 am
"a dogmatic assertion" Of all the intelligent things said, this stood out to me and for this reason: a person is either indoctrinated into religion (no choice) or he/she comes into it through some overwhelming emotional situation for which sucker is sought.
Now, just to build upon the meme theory, if a person is "wired" for victimization, then the indoctrination need only be the catalyst for triggering the meme into action – flipping on the switch. Often in childhood – which, I agree with Dawkins, is child abuse and for the very reason I've stated – you've flipped on the switch of victimization, which is a life-long altering paradigm that can take decades to undo.
A person seeking sucker from religion/god when an emotional event of catastrophic proportions occurs in adult life, is again, flipping on the switch, intensified, of the "victimization" meme which already existed; probably played out in other ways but didn't get "intensified" until this triggering event.
The dogmatic assertion is one made without the precepts of personal responsibility and accountability. This reveals the victimized nature of the individual's meme.
Great article. While some criticize Dawkins approach, etc. I tend to favor all levels of discussion because each style can bring to the table something that hasn't yet been revealed and would lend much to the discussion.
Other Comments by scooternyc
48. Comment #60897 by GBile on August 3, 2007 at 5:10 am
In the McGrath-interview I found the followingWhat I do think is enormously important is to mount a public defense of the Christian faith that shows it as reasonable, attractive and plausible.
Reasonable ??
Attractive ??
Plausible ??
I am looking forward to this defense, but don't think it will ever come. And then again, it must be easy to 'construct' other faiths which are even 'better'.
Maybe we should organize a contest.
Other Comments by GBile
49. Comment #60906 by j.mills on August 3, 2007 at 5:37 am
Comment #60885Quote: "some overwhelming emotional situation for which sucker is sought."
Okay, I'm a nitpicker. But it's SUCCOUR!!!
Other Comments by j.mills
50. Comment #60912 by Flagellant on August 3, 2007 at 5:45 am
Easy to make the succour/sucker mistake when discussing religion...Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
Other Comments by Flagellant
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it."
Richard Dawkins
"Religions do make claims about the universe--the same kinds of claims that scientists make, except they're usually false."
Richard Dawkins
"Man is a Religious Animal. Man is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion -- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven.... The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste."
Mark Twain
"Most of what we strive for in our modern life uses the apparatus of goal seeking that was originally set up to seek goals in the state of nature."
Richard Dawkins
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
Christopher Hitchens
Other Recommended Reading
American Theocracy
Kevin Phillips
The Portable Atheist
Christopher Hitchens (editor)
On The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
The End of Faith
Sam Harris
The Quotable Atheist
Jack Huberman
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #60688 by Audley Strange on August 2, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Other Comments by Audley Strange