101. Comment #21198 by Richard Morgan on February 8, 2007 at 2:07 am

Mental illness. Neurosis/psychosis.

I have placed these words at the beginning of my comment in the hope that they will attract the attention of so many of my fellow atheists who are missing an important point when condemning Alister McGrath and his ilk.
Childish name-calling has the unfortunate tendency of discrediting otherwise valid arguments and the use of expressions such as: "A religious lunatic", "complete prat" and "lazy and complacent or perhaps just scared" apart from being in bad taste, are also untrue where people like McGrath are concerned.
The important point (which Dawkins has understood in his biologist's way) can be found in the pages of this site. We just need to apply a little first-year psychology to understand it.
In an interview, McGrath tells us:

"My parents (my father was a medical officer of health for Co Down; my mother was nurse at the Royal Victoria Hospital) belonged to the Church of Ireland and I tagged along to services most unwillingly, and when I was a boarder at Methody there were compulsory services, which I didn't like at all. But my parents were very good at letting me find my own way - but my way at that stage was reacting against the whole thing."

So, whether he liked it or not, his childish and susceptible mind was exposed to and conditioned by what we can call "religious thinking" (as others talk about "magical thinking"). The ideas and notions were planted in a mind ready to receive anything and everything; he was, if you like "programmed".
As a teenager, he "reacted against the whole thing" which is normal adolescent behavior. Had his parents been foaming-at-the-mouth Marxists, he may have reacted against that by reading the Bible and going to Mass. But in his case, atheism gave him the thrill of rebelliousness and the new-found independence from parental influence that adolescents are genetically programmed to seek.
Then he went out into the big bad world. Where did he find comfort? From other atheists? No. Rather it was in the company of people who were telling him, in a new way, things he was already programmed to accept and therefore "know".
Therefore it is perfectly logical that he should be able to say:

"First, Christianity made a lot of sense. It gave me a new way of seeing and understanding the world, above all, the natural sciences. Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life."
Without realizing it, he was "coming home" – psychologically speaking.
(Heck, even the writer of proverbs in the Old Testament understood that: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Proverbs 22.6
That is a neat bit of writing – it talks about "a child", skips over adolescence and continues with "when he is old". Exactly what happened to McGrath!)

Add to all this some interesting ideas found in the Benedict Carey article:

Children exhibit a form of magical thinking by about 18 months, when they begin to create imaginary worlds while playing. By age 3, most know the difference between fantasy and reality, though they usually still believe (with adult encouragement) in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. By age 8, and sometimes earlier, they have mostly pruned away these beliefs, and the line between magic and reality is about as clear to them as it is for adults.
It is no coincidence, some social scientists believe, that youngsters begin learning about faith around the time they begin to give up on wishing. "The point at which the culture withdraws support for belief in Santa and the Tooth Fairy is about the same time it introduces children to prayer," (Do You Believe in Magic? by Benedict Carey, NY Times)

….and the whole McGrath phenomenon makes sense. He's doing what he's been programmed to do.
I seriously liken all this to neurosis/psychosis (Freud was there before me!!) in the sense that attitudes and feelings are based on mental constructs that are not directly derived from sensorial experience of an external reality. Beliefs are not based on experience, but they shape the interpretation of the experience. "I see what I believe" is often just as true as "I believe what I see." (Maybe more so, but that is another discussion.)
Take paranoia for example. If I have slight paranoid tendencies, when I get on a bus I may have the unpleasant sensation that people are looking at me, judging me, and/or having unfriendly thoughts about me. I feel uncomfortable, because a part of me believes it is true, while another more rational part doesn't, so I am thrust into uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.)
However, if I am a fully-fledged, card-carrying paranoiac, I absolutely know for sure they are having evil thoughts about me. And if questioned, I will be able to advance some seemingly solid reasoning. (Ask any psychiatrist – psychotics can appear remarkably reasonable!) I have no doubts about it. In fact, I may have to kill them before they kill me! That is what psychosis is all about – acting out delusions.
So it is easy to see how people grow up to become believers – in varying degrees.
We have our gentle neurotics (in a recent survey in France, it was discovered that 50% of French people claim to be Catholics, and 50% of those Catholics claim to be atheists! Don't you just love those French people?,) the most harmless being perhaps C. of E. Then there are the murderous psychotics who destroy New York sky-scrapers, or bomb innocent families in the search for non-existent weapons of massive destruction.
So, my friends, there is no point insulting theists. They weren't reasoned into their neurotic/psychotic delusions so they will never be reasoned out of them. Cured, perhaps, but not reasoned. They are only behaving as they were programmed to do. And perhaps we atheists were programmed, in some way, to become atheists.
Quem sabe? (lol)
Efforts like those made by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are enormously useful in helping people who are in the process of curing themselves, or of being cured of their neuroses. There is, at the same time, a danger of their provoking the anger of the psychotics who may then feel obliged to act out their illusions. But that, too, is another discussion.
But please, let us remain above insulting the mentally ill, because it won't stop them from being ill. And unfortunately they are usually beyond the influence of reasonable argumentation. But by all means, let us share our ideas here on this site – we all need encouragement and moral support form time to time.
As that wonderful French author Frédéric Dard (SanAntonio) said:
"If God was able to create this whole universe and all that is in it without even existing, well, that is a real miracle."

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

102. Comment #21201 by BillySands on February 8, 2007 at 2:47 am

"I have known Dawkins for more than 20 years; we are both Oxford professors. I believe if anyone is "immune to argument" it is him. He comes across as a dogmatic, aggressive propagandist."

Hey, when you are right, you are right, and no ammount of ignorant pleading will change that. Perhaps McGrath is frustrated that his own piss poor arguements can not change the mind of a reasonable man, so he resorts to questioning his rationality. Surely then the only option in his own mind is that he must be right, and that he is the one that is immune to facts. Religion is one of those things that comes as a package. You have to decide that all that you belive is the only way, and anyone who disagrees on even the tiniest matter must be wrong, and if they fail to accept your religious point of view, then you label them closed minded.
If god appeared we would believe, simple as that mr McGrath (I cant call you professor, because to do so would devalue my own title)

Other Comments by BillySands

103. Comment #21204 by elfinabout on February 8, 2007 at 2:57 am

"Professor" McGrath:

To quote Stephen Roberts - "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Nothing more needs saying.

Other Comments by elfinabout

104. Comment #21206 by matt2112 on February 8, 2007 at 3:18 am

"It reminds us that we need to treat those who disagree with us with intellectual respect, rather than dismissing them - as Dawkins does - as liars, knaves and charlatans.

But when I debated these points with him, Dawkins seemed uncomfortable. I was not surprised to be told that my contribution was to be cut."

Probably because you accused him of something he didn't actually say.

"The Root Of All Evil? was subsequently panned for its blatant unfairness. Where, the critics asked, was a responsible, informed Christian response to Dawkins?"

Oh, that old chestnut. Look, if you make a programme about, say, the dangers of drugs, you concentrate on crack addicts and not those who enjoy a spot of afternoon tea.

Other Comments by matt2112

105. Comment #21211 by DerrickB on February 8, 2007 at 3:41 am

Just seen a lovely quote in a letter in this week's New Scientist:

"If atheism is a faith, then not playing chess is a hobby"

Perhaps we should all use in our email taglines!

Other Comments by DerrickB

106. Comment #21212 by Aussie on February 8, 2007 at 3:42 am

I went up to Oxford to study the sciences in 1971, expecting my atheism to be consolidated. In the event, my world was turned upside down. I gave up one belief, atheism, and embraced another, Christianity. Why? There were many factors. For a start, I was alarmed by some atheist writings, which seemed more preoccupied with rubbishing religion than seeking the truth.

Above all, I encountered something at Oxford that I had failed to meet in Northern Ireland - articulate Christians who were able to challenge my atheism. I soon discovered two life-changing things.

First, Christianity made a lot of sense. It gave me a new way of seeing and understanding the world, above all, the natural sciences. Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life.

Would he have converted to Islam if he had instead met articulate Muslims who were able to challenge his atheism.

It is all rather sad.

Other Comments by Aussie

107. Comment #21235 by socinius on February 8, 2007 at 6:42 am

I have known Dawkins for more than 20 years; we are both Oxford professors. I believe if anyone is "immune to argument" it is him. He comes across as a dogmatic, aggressive propagandist.

I find the above quotation very puzzling. I have listened to Richard Dawkins lecture in person, read several of his books including "The God Delusion" from start to finish, and have listened to countless interviews/debates/panel discussions with Dr. Dawkins. If anything, he comes across as someone very willing to listen to criticism of his views and very willing to concede points to his opponents if he believes the criticism(s) to be valid.

What makes such accusations of "immune to argument" and "dogmatic" especially ironic is the free pass given to Dr. Dawkin's religious adversaries. One need only think of the pronouncements of a Jerry Falwell or a Pat Robertson. The documentary, "Friends of God" was recently broadcast in this country (USA). In an interview with Jerry Falwell, he proudly proclaims, "America is a Christian nation and we are going to take it back in the name of God". I don't see how you can be much more "dogmatic" or "immune to argument" than that. Such a statement is breathtaking in its audacity (I know the mind of God and what he wants) and chilling in its implications (a theocratic state).

Such examples of Christian hubris are endless, the hatred and bigotry poured out against gays based primarily on the words printed in a 2000 year old book, the weekly Sunday sermons proclaiming that all human beings are worthless, wretched sinners who are going to everlasting suffering unless they submit to a series of nonsensical propositions: "born of a virgin, rose from the dead on the third day, son of a TriuneGod, and so forth.

When you scratch the surface of most of the "arguments" against gay rights, stem cell research, evolution, etc. you more than likely will find, at their base, a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. A doctrine that is based upon the words of Scripture itself: a dogmatic belief.

It's all very puzzling. I suppose it could be objected that the mainstream churches are not like the Fundamentalist churches at all and that it is a caricature to focus so exclusively upon Fundamentalism. Yet, it is very difficult to find content in what mainstream theism believes except to say that "God is love, a mystery, The Ground of Being, That which cannot be Named" and so on and so forth. But what does all that mean or is that question ruled out of bounds? It seems to translate into something such as "profound awe" or some such. It seems pretty arrogant to me to make mystical or vague theological statements and then accuse someone of dogmatism or shallow understanding when they ask what they mean. Again, such a stance seems to share a relation to fundamentalism—you are either in the club and "get it" or you are a shallow reductionist and don't "get it". If you don't "get it" then the attitude seems to be "I'm very sorry for you, obviously you are not sophisticated enough to "get it". How much more pompous can you get.

I think the real objection to Dawkins is that he simply asks both fundamentalists and modernists to put their cards on the table and explain themselves so that the rest of us can understand them and have a basis upon which to judge the truth or falsity of their beliefs. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Of course, that is the whole problem. The Fundamentalist would say something to the effect of "the true Christian cannot submit to the standard of fallen and prideful human reason" while the mainstream theist would shake his head in pity and wonder why the "humanist" can't recognize the "special" character of "religious language" –either you get it or you don't.

I think I'll go with Dawkins on this one.

Other Comments by socinius

108. Comment #21236 by MouthAlmighty on February 8, 2007 at 6:59 am

Mental illness. Neurosis/psychosis.

I have placed these words at the beginning of my comment in the hope that they will attract the attention of so many of my fellow atheists who are missing an important point when condemning Alister McGrath and his ilk.

Childish name-calling has the unfortunate tendency of discrediting otherwise valid arguments and the use of expressions such as: "A religious lunatic", "complete prat" and "lazy and complacent or perhaps just scared" apart from being in bad taste, are also untrue where people like McGrath are concerned.

The important point (which Dawkins has understood in his biologist's way) can be found in the pages of this site. We just need to apply a little first-year psychology to understand it.

As one of the guilty parties indulging in "childish name-calling" I thought I should respond...

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that the 'pathology' of belief - particularly the kind of belief exhibited in McGrath - is not lost on me. However, when I (and others) feel licensed to throw a derisive jibe in his direction, our target is not his intellectually crippling beliefs but his lamentable skills of argumentation.

More importantly, I believe it is far more respectful of the man's innate humanity and supportive of the freedoms I wish for him and myself to express and defend our respective positions to treat him as a fully capable combatant in the discourse. I choose this rather than as you suggest, to treat him as suffering from an affliction and, "remain above insulting the mentally ill, because it won't stop them from being ill" and to dismiss him as, "beyond the influence of reasonable argumentation."

Other Comments by MouthAlmighty

109. Comment #21263 by selfishJean on February 8, 2007 at 10:17 am

God, you atheists (or at least a sizeable number of their representatives on this site) have a superiority complex larger than, well, God's!Did McGrath have this kind of attitude in mind when writing that "atheism is just as intolerant as the worst that religion can offer"?

Just a minor point about one of the more frequent 'criticisms' (to give them an air of dignity) of McGrath - is belief in God really a 'simple' alternative? Isn't the 'God-delusion' actually rather complex - more so than atheism? So much so that it takes a lot more intellectual thought and commitment than a simple non-belief such as atheism?

Give McGrath a chance - he was only contributing to a newspaper article and could hardly be expected to submit a Phd thesis!

Other Comments by selfishJean

110. Comment #21272 by MouthAlmighty on February 8, 2007 at 11:09 am

God, you atheists (or at least a sizeable number of their representatives on this site) have a superiority complex larger than, well, God's!Did McGrath have this kind of attitude in mind when writing that "atheism is just as intolerant as the worst that religion can offer"?

Probably - but that doesn't mean it has any basis in reality. Present a forthright criticism of a person's beliefs/opinions about say, economic policy and back up your criticism with supporting verifiable evidence and the target of your criticism is obliged to take you seriously. However, do the same about a person's religious beliefs and the more thoroughgoing, well supported and robust your argument, the more "arrogant" you are. This doesn't mean that you are, but as a consequence the religionist is not obliged to take you seriously.

Just a minor point about one of the more frequent 'criticisms' (to give them an air of dignity) of McGrath - is belief in God really a 'simple' alternative? Isn't the 'God-delusion' actually rather complex - more so than atheism? So much so that it takes a lot more intellectual thought and commitment than a simple non-belief such as atheism?

Opting for the God delusion certainly is a simple alternative. Religion offers certainty regardless of truth - rationality offers truth but demands that it be held perpetually 'uncertain'.

Give McGrath a chance - he was only contributing to a newspaper article and could hardly be expected to submit a Phd thesis!

Unlike the likes of McGrath and his ilk, nobody here will accuse him of arrogance if he engages in robust, well-supported argument. Nobody is expecting a Phd thesis, just a bit of intellectual honesty.

(Edit: to fix 'blockquote')

(Edit: aaaggghhh!!!)

Other Comments by MouthAlmighty

111. Comment #21284 by skeptic_jellytot on February 8, 2007 at 1:25 pm

This is just a large load of steaming character assassination with misconceptions of atheism thrown in to spice it up!

I like the word assassination because it has double the 'ass', and in this case, I think the word 'ass' is very appropriate.

He backs up none of his assertions with quotes from the book, and, ironically states that Dawkins is a "dogmatic, aggressive propagandist".... much like... hmm... oh I don't know... YOU MAYBE?! Every single religious leader since... erm... 2000 years ago? Probably longer?

This is a blatant lack of respect for Dawkins who has opened the floor for debate; he treats the religious with at least some degree of intelligence, and they fling poo like monkeys. Just goes to show, doesn't it?

Other Comments by skeptic_jellytot

112. Comment #21295 by Red Foot Oakie on February 8, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Hey SANCUS, I didn't get your comment to my post until today.

What I was trying to say was that, it seems to me, that while children have no real power they are able to emotionally manipulate thier elders. In a way, almost everything outside of basic food and shelter that a child gets is due to some kind of manipulation of someone bigger and stronger (grown up) than they are. I'm painting with a broad brush and I know it, and I admit it, but appears to me that children can't 'get' or 'do' a lot on their own, so they have to manipulate an adult to either help them or simply do it for them.

I think that ability to manipulate people is a handy tool that we use throughout life, but as we get into the elderly years it becomes increasingly important. The elderly seem to be remarkably manipulative. Also I cannot help noting that in my part of the world, it is elderly women who are the lion's share of the population of any given church.

Again, broad brush, and I can't prove any of it, but there it is.

As for the imaginary friend = tooth fairie = god, that's even more of a tenious conneciton, but I have a gut feeling (forgive me Carl Sagan, wherever you are) that the connection is there.

Of course, maybe children just learn the imaginary friend thing anyway. Adults use the tooth fairy and Santa Claus to manipulate kids- but those two imaginary beings are kind of easy gateway beliefs- after all one deals with pieces of your body, one gives you physical stuff, so maybe after some of that action, the young mind is ready to move on to the more complicated issue of god(s).

Maybe. Hopefully that wasn't even more confusing than the original post!

Other Comments by Red Foot Oakie

113. Comment #21297 by Martha on February 8, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Alistair McGrath said: "Dawkins can no more 'prove' the non-existence of God than anyone else can prove He does exist."

"He" exists? So do I, and I'm a female.

Other Comments by Martha

114. Comment #21318 by Kristian Z on February 8, 2007 at 4:10 pm

I actually tried reading "The Dawkins Delusion". It started out arguing that we (the readers) shouldn't listen to what Dawkins says because, and I think this is almost litterally what he wrote, "Dawkins is nothing like us". Dawkins is nothing like us, therefore what he says should be disregarded. Dawkins, according to the author, is rich, has a good-looking wife and, as we know, is an Oxford professor, so what he says cannot possibly be relevant to us common people. I could hardly believe my own eyes. Never have I seen such a blatant ad hominem argument in print! I stopped reading after the first few pages. I was shocked to learn, reading the above post, that the guy is actually also an Oxford professor.

(If I recall correctly, he mentioned Mrs. Dawkins's good looks several times. Maybe he's just jealous?)

Other Comments by Kristian Z

115. Comment #21348 by grendelkhan on February 8, 2007 at 9:25 pm

Believing in God was only for sad, mad and bad people who had yet to be enlightened by science.

Dawkins, of course, would just respond that people such as this are senile or mad

I think this is the most pernicious of the straw men that have been flung at Dawkins in general and The God Delusion specifically. Granted, I'm only about halfway through the book, but I think if there were going to be assertions that people with theistic beliefs were uniformly sad, insane, or inherently bad, I'd have noticed them by this point.

The problem is that an apparently well-educated man like McGrath is unable to distinguish between someone saying "religion is a bad idea", and someone saying "religious people are bad". He's got plenty of company there, but that's still no excuse.

Consider how frequently PZ Myers gets critics saying, "look, Ken Miller is a theist, and he's an excellent scientist, in your face!" as if that's a response to anything PZ has ever said. It's the same nonsense--an attack on a belief system is taken as an attack on its practitioners.

A high-school student could make this distinction, but apparently it's beyond McGrath, or at least beyond his readers. He's managed to put together an entire book refuting claims that no one's ever made. It must be so much easier debating your opponents when they're made of straw. Here, I can point out some other responses to things no sensible atheist ever said.

So does Dawkins overstate the case for science in saying that it proves or disproves things relating to God?

Yes, and he's very naughty about this

Note that the relevant chapter is titled "Why there almost certainly is no God".

There are limits to science; science can't actually tell us the answer to lots of important questions such as whether there is there a God and what is the meaning of life.

Indeed, science can't answer those questions. But neither can religion, which is a major point made in the book. It's as though he's never read it, and come to think of it, perhaps the audience for The Dawkins Delusion hasn't.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's beneath serious contemplation. Why does this nonsense even make it into the paper?

Other Comments by grendelkhan

116. Comment #21363 by Avi Jacobson on February 8, 2007 at 11:24 pm

Dawkins often compares belief in God to an infantile belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, saying it is something we should all outgrow. But the analogy is flawed. How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood?

I'm surprised that no one has pointed out the following: McGrath argues that the only difference between the Santa Claus fantasy and the God fantasy is that former was created and disseminated with the goal of convincing and manipulating children (and did so successfully), whereas the latter was created and disseminated with the goal of convincing and manipulating adults (and did so successfully). This is the single "flaw" that McGrath cites in the Santa analogy; McGrath accepts, one can only assume, that in every other respect, the Santa fabrication and the God fabrication are equivalent. One is a fairy-tale accepted only by children, whereas the other is a fairy-tale accepted by adults.

Other Comments by Avi Jacobson

117. Comment #21399 by godisanidiot on February 9, 2007 at 3:16 am

"(If I recall correctly, he mentioned Mrs. Dawkins's good looks several times. Maybe he's just jealous?)"

What the *? He really is obsessed with RD on every level.

Other Comments by godisanidiot

118. Comment #21408 by Tom Day on February 9, 2007 at 4:04 am

McGrath is a deeply dishonest man, as are many of his theological colleagues. Their attempts to provide a respectable intellectual foundation for their religious beliefs, frequently involve flagrant and outrageous abuse of science and philosophy. Oxford University should not employ men like McGrath, who bring its academic reputation into disrepute. One example of this is the claim by McGrath's colleague, Richard Swinburne's, to have shown mathematically that God probably exists. I also read a report of a public lecture Swinburne gave in which he claimed to have shown (using Bayesian statistics) that the resurrection was 97% certain. Indeed, McGrath quotes Swinburne's mathematical proof of the likelihood of God's existence in his first book on Dawkins. For those that haven't read it, it makes no arguments in favour of McGrath's religious beliefs (the mathematical proof aside): it merely seeks to portray Dawkins as an extremist & castigates him for believing something doesn't exist, when this alleged non-existence cannot be proven. McGrath seems not to notice that this logic should also apply the other way round. But then the pursuit of truth has never occupied the minds of theologians.

Other Comments by Tom Day

119. Comment #21409 by Kristian Z on February 9, 2007 at 4:08 am

Hm. It seems there are several books called "The Dawkins Delusion", and the one I looked at was not the one by McGrath. My apologies to Mr McGrath! He's not the one obsessed with the personal life of Dr Dawkins. (I'd delete my post if I could.)

Other Comments by Kristian Z

120. Comment #21411 by Kristian Z on February 9, 2007 at 4:24 am

It appears the article (wouldn't even call it a book) I read, and which is also called "The Dawkins Delusion" (without question-mark), is written by a nobody called Sam Fryman.

Again, sorry for any confusion I may have caused by attributing what I recalled from Mr Fryman's article to McGrath.

Other Comments by Kristian Z

121. Comment #21418 by mikkala on February 9, 2007 at 5:59 am

This article, was simply a re-gurgitation of the same old arguments.
Dawkins has put forth an astoundingly articulate, and masterful work. McGrath or any other apologists like him, don't know how to deal with the simplicity of Richard's arguments. That's why we keep reading, what seems to be the same dilapidated responses to TGD.
As long as Richard, or other's like him, keep putting their face into the public's living rooms. Theists and apologists just keep spinning their tires until there's no tread left. Hopefully sooner than later.

Other Comments by mikkala

122. Comment #21464 by Tom Day on February 9, 2007 at 9:40 am

To Kristian Z:

Don't feel too guilty about your mistake. McGrath himself is someone who appears to have no scruples when attacking Richard Dawkins' ideas. Some of the comments in his book 'Dawkins God' (and indeed in the posted article) are unnecessarily personal and offensive, all part of an attempt to discredit by attacking a person's character, rather than by addressing the central arguments. Now I wonder why that is???

That said, we shouldn't stoop to his level of course.

Other Comments by Tom Day

123. Comment #21502 by NotWithoutMyMonkey on February 9, 2007 at 2:26 pm

I always find the veracity of the claims made by those asserting they were once an atheist highly dubious. Once an atheist the door is forever closed to irrational faith.

It seems to me that McGrath was never an atheist but rather became quite rightly disillusioned with organised religion of his upbringing borne from his observations and experiences in Northern Ireland. His disillusionment lasted until he found a warm and fuzzy Christianity in which to belong to while at Oxford. Here was a cosy, friendly, country vicar with tea and scones kind of Christianity that he could feel comfortable with rather than one fostering sectarian hatred and violence.

There is nothing in his piece that suggests that he found skepticism to be the only rational stance to take on matters supernatural until he rediscovered Religion. Consequently, he associates atheism with the kind of disillusionment he personally experienced rather actually comprehending what atheism actually is. I'm almost certain that he never stopped believing that 'something' divine existed even if it was no longer framed by the doctrines of his upbringing. Upon encountering a group of nice, charming, and quietly spoken Christians he again found a framework for his belief.

--------

What I find surprising is that even intellectual lightweights such as McGrath can become Professors at Oxford, but then it is a Professorship in Theology - which is about as worthwhile as a Doctorate in Tea-Leaf Reading (Capitalised of course). Anyone even remotely persuaded by his 'arguments' would be severely limited in their capacity for rational thought. The arguments are neither cogent nor well presented (window-dressed to sound authoritative if you like). The man likes to compare himself to Dawkins, he's clearly obsessed by him, but he is in no way, his intellectual equal.

Other Comments by NotWithoutMyMonkey

124. Comment #21570 by Clappers on February 10, 2007 at 12:33 am

I saw McGrath having a debate last year with Dan Dennett. Alistair McGrath is obviously practiced in his arguments, and managed to avoid answering every question that Dan posed. I am reminded that we should not mistake eloquence for truth.

I have previosly seen Steven Pinker and the Chief Rabbi debating with similar results. To questions that were asked, Pinker was direct and illuminating, Rabbi was humerous or anecdotal

Other Comments by Clappers

125. Comment #21695 by jjk on February 10, 2007 at 4:38 pm

I feel for you Professor Dawkins. Now not only do you have to deal with unsubstantiated attacks from faith heads but must deal with jealous backbiting from your own university. McGrath must resort to using your name in his book titles and being affiliated with you at Oxford to gain attention and credibility. If his arguments are as trenchant as he claims (noticibly lacking in his posting), I will look for his books to also be on The New York Times bestseller list any day now. Keep up the good work. You have clearly tapped into a large, receptive audience at what will hopefully become a turning point for mankind.

Other Comments by jjk

126. Comment #21715 by Human on February 10, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Dear Alister,

I have recently completed a four year research project into developmental psychology and deconversion from religious fundamentalism and believe I have the answer to the intent of your question:

How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood?

If I understand correctly you are asking "Why do intelligent adults such as me become Christians?" as a response to the charge that belief in God is akin to belief in Santa Claus.

The answer I have come to given my research is this:

Intelligent adults who become Christians tend to spend their intelligence on constructing rational (but not empirical) arguments to defend a commitment to a culture that was first embraced for primarily social and emotional reasons.

Your story seems to be a classic example of a 'reverse stereotype effect' when instead of slowly testing and deconstructing one's stereotypes of a belief system, one is so ashamed of themselves for sterotyping in the first place that out of penance they accept the whole system they once thought they criticised.

I'll send you a copy of the study results when they're published.

Finally, in defence of Alister, if we genuinely think there is no God then surely we are double-minded to lambast Alister personally when he has about as much free will as the rest of us. I'm not sure that emotive 'tit-for-tat' ever made a convert of anyone for the furtherment of truth.

Cheers,

Human

Other Comments by Human

127. Comment #21874 by archon88 on February 11, 2007 at 10:26 am

Do stop behaving as if you are Zeus, Professor McGrath.

Other Comments by archon88

128. Comment #22044 by ChrisChris on February 12, 2007 at 5:04 pm

I find it highly ironic that the most frequent criticism theists throw at atheists is to say we are just like them – dogmatic, irrational and fundamentalists. Of course, since they cannot provide evidence, argument or reason for their beliefs and claims, which they reached though neither of these means, that is all they can do, try to bring their opponents views and arguments down to their level. They do it with the hope that they can then say: "how can you call us dogmatic, irrational and fundamentalists when you are to". No, they don't try to argue and evidence their claims and beliefs; rather they simply try to equate them with their opponents.

Other Comments by ChrisChris

129. Comment #22046 by ChrisChris on February 12, 2007 at 5:26 pm

I find it highly ironic that the most frequent criticism theists throw at atheists is to say we are just like them!! – dogmatic, irrational and fundamentalists. Of course, since they cannot provide evidence, argument or reason for their beliefs and claims, which they reached though neither of these means, that is all they can do, try to bring their opponents views and arguments down to their level. They do it with the hope that they can then say: "how can you call us dogmatic, irrational and fundamentalists when you are to". No, they don't try to argue and evidence their claims and beliefs; rather they simply try to equate them with their opponents.

Other Comments by ChrisChris

130. Comment #23140 by skippip on February 26, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Reading through many pro-Christian comments on this web-site does lead to a rather stunning conclusion: the authors of most of them believe themselves invincible and can therefore write what they want and not be criticised. I've not yet seen someone say "Hey, my religion is not logical - I just like it and believe in it" - well fine, ok.

It is quite clear to me that to believe in God is equivalent to believing in a frozen penguin on Pluto - presently unproveable and unlikely. If that's what you want to believe, great but don't pretend it makes sense to anyone else or is defensible. But McGrath, at the start of the Dawkins Delusion, equates belief with non-belief. He rubbishes Dawkins's suggestion of a mind-virus for belief by suggesting there may be an equvialent for non-belief. Wow, try to swallow that one whole! If you believe that God created the universe would he really create a non-belief mind virus???

I'm going to bed to have a nice lie down...

Other Comments by skippip

131. Comment #23211 by skyhook87 on February 26, 2007 at 9:12 pm

Mcgrath talks about this footage of him and Dawkins ending up on the cutting room floor... Does anybody know if this footage is available for viewing anywhere?

Also, does anybody know if Dennett and Mcgrath's debate that took place last weekend was recorded and available for download? I found out about the debate from www.greer-heard.com .

Other Comments by skyhook87

132. Comment #24333 by philmillhaven on March 6, 2007 at 3:32 am

"we both believe in evidence-based reasoning"

Not much evidence-based reasoning in this article. McGrath argues God is different to the tooth fairy on the basis that lots of adults believe in it. But this isn't evidence-based reasoning, it is an opinion poll.

The rest of the article tells us:

* the Root Of All Evil? was panned for its blatant unfairness
* some bloke "who describes himself as a 'hardline Darwinian' philosopher, confessed that The God Delusion made him 'embarrassed to be an atheist'
* the work has attracted wide criticism from the secularist community

In other words we're presented with not a shred evidence for believing Dawkins is "immune to argument" or that "he behaves as if he's God". Time and again McGrath's reasoning consists of nothing more than an appeal to public opinion. Evidence-based reasoning? He either doesn't know what it is or he doesn't care.

Other Comments by philmillhaven

133. Comment #25441 by Chris M on March 13, 2007 at 6:25 am

Having read through a number of the responses to McGrath's article I am shocked at the sad state of critical thinking displayed by most of the participants. Most of the opinions expressed are emotive unsubstantiated comments that have missed the point of the argument. No wonder atheists are being accused of being more fundamentalist than the most fundamentalist religious nut around. These contributors either did not understand McGrath's article or have taken the fundamentalist view of "I have made up my mind do not confuse me with the arguments!"

One comment I find particularly puerile is the one that says " "Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life." Of course it brought 'purpose' for you: getting paid for studying fairyology."

The easiest response to this statement is to point out the number of "Please donate" links there are on this and the RDF websites. Is atheism becoming big business I ask?

Other Comments by Chris M

134. Comment #26063 by jgrice02 on March 16, 2007 at 11:47 am

To be dogmatic is to maintain a position or opinion without any willingness to change or recognize another position. To be dogmatic is to be adamantly set in one's ways, so much so that one is willing to defile and abash another position. To be dogmatic is to maintain a position with such vigor that one cannot even recognize the dogmatism. And every atheist who says one must have empirical evidence in order to have knowledge is taking a dogmatic approach to epistemology. That is where Dawkins is being dogmatic. And make no mistake, he is extremely dogmatic – on par with preachers in the church.

You are not a "freethinker" if you say, "I am open to any new knowledge so long as we arrive at that knowledge through empirical evidence." No, that is not freethinking at all. That is putting a steel cage around our epistemic faculties. It is also making a huge assumption which violates the premise of empiricism. I can see how scientists would struggle with this concept but any philosopher should recognize the hypocrisy of dogmatic epistemology. And anyone who argues that empirical evidence is necessary for knowledge, without exception, to the point that anyone who disagrees is labeled intellectual garbage, is manifesting a dogmatic worldview.

Read these posts and show me one freethinker. Show me someone who doesn't assume (ironically enough, without any proof) that empirical evidence is necessary for knowledge. The very first post was a request for the empirical "evidence" for God. Oh that the atheist would see... this is McGrath's point! Instead, the atheist walks around with a redundancy about them: "Where is the evidence?" the atheist demands, "I want proof! I want evidence! I will not believe ANYTHING without empirical evidence." And it is this militant demand for empirical evidence that exemplifies the height of atheistic dogmatism.

The irony is that atheists are so dogmatic that they cannot even recognize their dogmatism. They don't like the sound of "dogmatic" so they get all offended, when all the while they are blinded by their own worldview and guilty of the very thing they pass judgment on. I'm not saying theists are any less dogmatic, but at least some of them can be honest with themselves and admit their dogmatism. Sheesh…

Other Comments by jgrice02

135. Comment #26064 by BaronOchs on March 16, 2007 at 11:55 am

skyhook87 the debate with Dennett is linked on this page:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/lectures.html

About the 9th item down.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

136. Comment #26071 by Ewan D on March 16, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Perhaps you can enlighten us, jgrice02, where others have failed. Give us one example of an item of reliable knowledge attained through a non-empirical channel. Just one.

Share some of your received knowledge.

Other Comments by Ewan D

137. Comment #26075 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 16, 2007 at 2:10 pm

But please, let us remain above insulting the mentally ill, because it won't stop them from being ill. And unfortunately they are usually beyond the influence of reasonable argumentation. But by all means, let us share our ideas here on this site – we all need encouragement and moral support form time to time.
Comment #21198 by Richard Morgan on February 8, 2007 at 2:07 am




Mentally ill?

Well, I'd like to know who doesn't fit into that category. (lol) Listen, I been having a debate with a good friend of mine (and a fellow atheist) regarding the issue of morality. I've read Dawkins and Harris and others continually make the claim that you don't need "God" or "religion" to be person of "moral character"…..

Sam Harris:
"Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know."

What the f**k…..? Sam says "profoundly ethical"…… Don't get me wrong…. I don't have an issue with people living their lives according to some "moral code of conduct or ethics" however; I disagree with the implication that having "morals" or "ethics" somehow makes you a "better" person. I'm in the camp that finds it very invigorating and rewarding to know that this life is all you have….. and I have absolutely no conflict with exploiting peoples goofy belief systems for my own benefit……. My friend call me a "grifter" but I must say, Hey…. I'm aware of the consequences but…. that doesn't make they way I choose to live my life "wrong" or "immoral"….. I just haven't heard a good argument which would lead me to place "value" (whatever that may be) on other peoples pain and suffering…..

Seriously…. Am I missing something?

Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster

138. Comment #26077 by stuartM02 on March 16, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Comment 138:

I came across this comment and though I'd offer a reply from something similar I have been discussing with a friend - a theist at that. Although the terms of our conversations are a little different I will offer my "rational justification for minimising other people's pain and suffering"

(My grand title comes from your last comment, and I think its perhaps a little too much, never mind)

...here goes,

My argument essentially resides on justifying empathy. Your consciousness enables you to identify that other people are like you, in that they have experiences like yours: they feel pain and suffering in the same way you do. You are aware that these experiences have negative impacts on your existence and you are aware that they will have negative effects on others that have the same experience of existence. (you can identify this because we have evolved the concept we call consciousness)

Anyhow this was my explanation and my friend is yet to respond and is mulling it over - I'm not sure it's entirely sound yet, let me know your views.

The argument for morals from empathy is not something I have heard of before, but sure someone must have done it better.

Incidentally: once of the key characteristics to identify a psychopath is a lack of empathy. Maybe being a psychopath is a malfunction of your consciousness which cannot switch on empathy (identifying that other have the same experiences as you) I'm not trying to justify my view by this, but it's an interesting thought.

Other Comments by stuartM02

139. Comment #26082 by Ewan D on March 16, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Stuart:

'...once of the key characteristics to identify a psychopath is a lack of empathy. Maybe being a psychopath is a malfunction of your consciousness which cannot switch on empathy...'

You're right. The home of consciousness is of course the brain, and psychopatholgy can be the product of a localised in-born brain defect or brain damage through injury or deterioration affecting the neural mechanisms for compassion and empathy, fear, etc.

It doesn't make much sense to argue that such a person is morally responsible for his impulses, but if he's a risk to others and there's no cure there seems little alternative but to restrict his liberties. Such is the unfairness of the real world.

Other Comments by Ewan D

140. Comment #26083 by Toivo on March 16, 2007 at 3:15 pm

jgrice02, what do we have here? :-) Perhaps an epistemological relativist? Do you believe that all belief systems ultimately rest on unprovable assumptions or axioms? Do you believe that all belief systems rest on faith and faith alone? Science and faith being on par? Believing in astrology is no more or less reasonable than believing in astronomy? Just making suggestions...

However. Let me proudly announce that (drums)... I am the freethinker you were looking for. I make no assumptions and have 0 axioms. No faith either. Yet I am an atheist (defn: no belief in god(s))

Indeed, why do atheists demand that knowledge must be based on empirical evidence? I think they do it because empirical evidence is likely to make us acquire knowledge. You read books because you're likely to learn from them, you study scientific evidence because you're likely get knowledge out of it.

No assumptions or axioms or faith need apply.

Other Comments by Toivo

141. Comment #28716 by nerdfiles on March 30, 2007 at 1:21 pm

McGrath is just being juvenile with his sense of reasoning and overgeneralisations of Dawkins' argument:

"For instance, Dawkins often compares belief in God to an infantile belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, saying it is something we should all outgrow. But the analogy is flawed. How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood?"

Dawkins is comparing specifically the belief in Santa or the Tooth Fairy to the belief in God. He is not comparing the content of either of the entities. The point Dawkins is trying to make with that sort of comparison is simply belief in figments of our imagination should be removed. He is only referring to belief in things which maintain no evidence.

McGrath decides to pervert Dawkins argument by assuming that Dawkins is also comparing the content of "god" and "Santa" or the "Tooth Fairy." Why would Dawkins waste his time comparing entities which maintain no universal definition? It is not rocket science to understand that Dawkins is absolutely not comparing "god" with "Santa." McGrath is just playing a clever game of rhetoric.

People decide to believe in "god" as opposed to Santa because each character maintains a different scope of governance over our lives.

Santa has been constructed to be purely a childhood hero. And only during the month of Christmas celebration does this character ever come into discussion.

The Tooth Fairy has even less of a role in our adolescent lives.

This "god," however you wish to define it, is supposed to govern existence and the universe entirely, without proper justification, mind you.

In any case, it's easy to see why people don't randomly start believing in Santa in their adult lives. Characters like Santa were contrived to have a short lifespan within our belief. Characters like "god" were contrived to govern people completely, "without end," and so on.

McGrath may be able to woo moderates with his hand gestures and grace, but his arguments on print are amateur and riddled with logical fallacies.

Other Comments by nerdfiles

142. Comment #29568 by Frank Arthor Drake on April 3, 2007 at 12:43 pm

McGarth has been touted as someone intellectually up to Dawkins level. Anti-Dawkins types have been all over the net calling Dawkins a coward not to debate McGrath. Then the debate happened. It won't stop his critics from attacking him instead of the substance of his arguments.

In this article we have McGrath making the same sort of attacks i.e. on the man (instead of the ideas). And he backs his own views with personal history instead of substance. Who cares that he was once an atheist. If atheism were a "belief" system that might be interesting. Perhaps to some (like the young McGrath) it's a club to join. But for many of us it's simply what the word means on the surface. Not theistic. Other's here have pleaded for some evidence. Might at well wait for Godot.

McGrath's comment that he replaced one "belief" with another is playing cheap semantics.

I don't "believe" there is a pink elephant in my lap. I can't prove it's not there because a negative can not be proved. But if I claimed there was (in spite of how moronic that claim would be) would my point of view be of equal value? Moreover, would it even be the same sort of "belief"? Of course not.

My atheism is *not* a belief. It's not about what I believe, it's about what I don't believe. If the world had no religion I wouldn't even need the label.

I've read many books by Dawkins and I don't see the "pathological" hatred those threatened by him posit. While on occasion I disagree with him I've yet to locate the arrogance, sarcasm or disrespect those who dislike him so much so often allude to. Yes, he does not hold back when debunking notions.

But whatever amount of arrogance and intolerance one may attribute to him his critics routinely outdo him in this regard.

I had expected more from this McGrath guy - the supposedly intellectually up to up-to-snuff contender. How utterly unimpressive.

Other Comments by Frank Arthor Drake

143. Comment #45301 by Nuttybott on May 27, 2007 at 6:04 am

"9. Comment #20910 by kmccardle on February 7, 2007 at 2:22 am
The standard scientific stance is skepticism, one cannot solidly claim something exists until it can be shown to exist. Quarks are a perfect example of this. While they were theorized to exist, they were not accepted until solid evidence was found..."


I didn't believe in Quarks either until I saw them in "Dr Who" back in 1968...funny, squat little robots with spikes sticking out of their heads, who spoke in strange high-pitched childlike voices...

Other Comments by Nuttybott

144. Comment #56575 by newskin on July 16, 2007 at 1:01 pm

I'm sorry, correct me if I am wrong, but is his arguement: Dawkins, you can't prove God doesn't exist therefore he does. Nananana!

Other Comments by newskin

145. Comment #56586 by phasmagigas on July 16, 2007 at 1:34 pm

I can just hear the DM readership 'oh look, see that Darwin, er Dawkins fella is just a mean little bully, that just proves that hes wrong'.

im sure there arent that many atheists distancing themselves from dawkins, MG just likes to tell the world so. the root of all eveil needs to be reshown with that cut section, which is of course on youtube anyway. Im sure RD will have a reply to this section (edit, ah, aready did, succinct)


ad hominem at large.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

146. Comment #56595 by phasmagigas on July 16, 2007 at 1:45 pm

when people say atheism is another religion and thats its as dogmatic as religion does that mean the religious people are agreeing that religion is dogmatic?

Its incredible that when people criticise atheism they find it not ironic to say that its as bad as the worst of religion, well at least they agree with us there.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

147. Comment #102956 by Jake Atkisson on December 24, 2007 at 3:28 am

"Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life."


Oh, well, I only feel that my life has dignity and purpose if I carry my Lucky Snorkel around on my head everywhere I go. Some people try to tell me I'm being ridiculous, but they're just jealous.

In fact, I'm wearing my extra-lucky glow-in-the-dark snorkel right now, Professor McGrath. You seem to be a reasonable, rational person; can I ask you a few questions about your lucky snorkel?

...You don't have one? You don't -wear- one?!

Are you an idiot? Everyone knows that lucky snorkels are the most dignified, austere and purposeful things EVER! -IT SAYS SO RIGHT ON THE TAG-!

Good grief. When you mentioned 'dignity' and 'purpose', mein herr, I, for a moment, thought perhaps you understood the truth, saw through the pettiness of a rabble-filled world and knew what /I/ know.

I can see, now, that you're just another philandering religionist, however. This saddens me. I pray to the buoyant pasta being that you someday discover the truth, joy and perfect love of lucky snorkels.

Yours in Snorkely Eternity,
Jake

Other Comments by Jake Atkisson

148. Comment #104129 by bab on December 28, 2007 at 12:46 am

"But when I debated these points with him, Dawkins seemed uncomfortable. I was not surprised to be told that my contribution was to be cut.

The Root Of All Evil? was subsequently panned for its blatant unfairness. Where, the critics asked, was a responsible, informed Christian response to Dawkins? The answer: on the cutting-room floor."

I thought I'd resurrect this article because it says a lot about McGrath. Most of us have, of course, now seen the uncut version of this interview.
If he is claiming that his contribution is the responsible, informed Christian response to the 'Root of All Evil' then 'god' help them.

Other Comments by bab

149. Comment #104133 by dlitt on December 28, 2007 at 12:56 am

Alister McGrath is professor of theology at Oxford University.

That must be like having a degree in "Hamburgerology," from McDonald's.

I hope he's included Spaghettimonsterism, in his theological studies.

Other Comments by dlitt

150. Comment #158838 by threewiseman on April 11, 2008 at 5:29 am

I had thought Alister McGrath possessed at least a semblence of an argument but after reading this I'm not so sure.

Are people truly so insecure about their lives that they must turn to an imaginary sky god for purpose? Why not try talking to people? Why not study something real and meaningful to you? Why not travel to different countries, learn history, music, science, theatre? Why not go sky diving, sea diving, make films or write works of fiction? And if after all this you still can't see purpose in your life why not start a family? The person who can look their child in the eye and still hunt for purpose will never be satisfied. Not even in an eternal paradise.

Other Comments by threewiseman