McGrath Calls Dawkins. Results.
There has been a "quiet" response from Richard Dawkins’s people to the embarrassment that the atheistic propagandist received from a recent article written by Professor Alister McGrath.
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770
McGrath rightfully complains that he was completely, and conveniently, edited out of Dawkins’s TV documentary. Even though, or we might presume because, McGrath gave scholarly, rational, and sound answers to the atheist’s jabs for over an hour, he was not allowed to make Dawkins’s final cut, which, after all, was designed to make Christians look evil and stupid to begin with. Can’t have an Oxford Doctor of Philosophy messing up the atheist's tidy propaganda, can we?
As soon as I read McGrath’s article I remembered a game that one of my dear critics tried to play. After littering my blog site with atheistic posts, he ran back to the Dawkins online forum, and claimed victory in the "debate." He then began to "take bets" how long it would be before I deleted these alleged damaging and defeating posts from the atheists.
Well, you can see how defeated I am; and you can judge for yourself just how soundly I have been "trounced." (Note to the atheist: number of words, and number of times you repeat yourself, do not count towards intellectual weight of argument. I will, however, give you points for not getting dizzy while running in circles.)
And now we know who really likes to delete the embarrassing material, don’t we? So, I responded in the Dawkins forum thusly:
***
As for actual cowardly hack-jobs done by propagandistic editors, it was your champion Dawkins who chopped out the tough refutations from his TV series. McGrath writes:
"Dawkins and I . . . were also filmed having a debate for Dawkins's recent Channel 4 programme, The Root Of All Evil? Dawkins outlined his main criticisms of God, and I offered answers to what were clearly exaggerations and misunderstandings. It was hardly rocket science.
[...]
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."
***
Well, the "quiet" response has been to avoid responding to my post for over two weeks now, and to avoid any direct mention of McGrath’s article whatsoever. Rather, quietly, the entire hour-plus exchange, unedited, has appeared on google video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626&q=mcgrath+dawkins
There is also a small link on Dawkins’s website, with a string of typical atheists’ comments.
Sqeaky wheel gets the greasin.’
About the matchup, McGrath seems to me to be a particularly interesting opponent for Dawkins. The Oxford theologian’s testimony and qualifications meet Dawkins at every turn. He grew up in Belfast, experiencing the so-called religious conflicts (they are really purely political) first hand, so Dawkins’s manufactured rhetoric about Northern Ireland sounds a bit hollow compared to McGrath’s understanding of the situation. McGrath grew up as a committed atheist, so Dawkins has nothing on him there. McGrath completed his first Ph.D. in molecular biology, so Dawkins can’t play the "science" card against him either, not without being countered equally. McGrath found Christianity after an intellectual comparison of many religions, so Dawkins can’t pull the "you just grew up with Christianity" line. And McGrath is quite in touch with a vast array of intellectual Christian literature, and has contributed quite a bit to it himself, so he maintains a high level of competence and intelligence for the full time he speaks about the faith. He is likewise equally prepared and quick on his feet as Dawkins usually is.
In the exchange, I especially appreciate McGrath pressing the point that the murderous communistic governments of the twentieth century were indeed "institutionalized atheism." When Dawkins predictably tried to "correct" him on the issue, McGrath rightly insisted that atheism was not peripheral to Lenin, Stalin, et al, as the atheist claimed, but it was a core issue. This is one of the many points I show in The Return of the Village Atheist, and thank you to Dr. McGrath for sticking with the hard truth.
For those unfamiliar with McGrath’s works --- which now, I am guessing, number 40-50 volumes --- I suggest starting with his Christian Theology: An Introduction and Christian Theology Reader. On the atheism issue, see his The Twilight of Atheism, the wonderfully relevant "Intellectuals Don’t Need God," and Other Myths, and the recent The Dawkins Delusion.
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770
McGrath rightfully complains that he was completely, and conveniently, edited out of Dawkins’s TV documentary. Even though, or we might presume because, McGrath gave scholarly, rational, and sound answers to the atheist’s jabs for over an hour, he was not allowed to make Dawkins’s final cut, which, after all, was designed to make Christians look evil and stupid to begin with. Can’t have an Oxford Doctor of Philosophy messing up the atheist's tidy propaganda, can we?
As soon as I read McGrath’s article I remembered a game that one of my dear critics tried to play. After littering my blog site with atheistic posts, he ran back to the Dawkins online forum, and claimed victory in the "debate." He then began to "take bets" how long it would be before I deleted these alleged damaging and defeating posts from the atheists.
Well, you can see how defeated I am; and you can judge for yourself just how soundly I have been "trounced." (Note to the atheist: number of words, and number of times you repeat yourself, do not count towards intellectual weight of argument. I will, however, give you points for not getting dizzy while running in circles.)
And now we know who really likes to delete the embarrassing material, don’t we? So, I responded in the Dawkins forum thusly:
***
As for actual cowardly hack-jobs done by propagandistic editors, it was your champion Dawkins who chopped out the tough refutations from his TV series. McGrath writes:
"Dawkins and I . . . were also filmed having a debate for Dawkins's recent Channel 4 programme, The Root Of All Evil? Dawkins outlined his main criticisms of God, and I offered answers to what were clearly exaggerations and misunderstandings. It was hardly rocket science.
[...]
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."
***
Well, the "quiet" response has been to avoid responding to my post for over two weeks now, and to avoid any direct mention of McGrath’s article whatsoever. Rather, quietly, the entire hour-plus exchange, unedited, has appeared on google video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626&q=mcgrath+dawkins
There is also a small link on Dawkins’s website, with a string of typical atheists’ comments.
Sqeaky wheel gets the greasin.’
About the matchup, McGrath seems to me to be a particularly interesting opponent for Dawkins. The Oxford theologian’s testimony and qualifications meet Dawkins at every turn. He grew up in Belfast, experiencing the so-called religious conflicts (they are really purely political) first hand, so Dawkins’s manufactured rhetoric about Northern Ireland sounds a bit hollow compared to McGrath’s understanding of the situation. McGrath grew up as a committed atheist, so Dawkins has nothing on him there. McGrath completed his first Ph.D. in molecular biology, so Dawkins can’t play the "science" card against him either, not without being countered equally. McGrath found Christianity after an intellectual comparison of many religions, so Dawkins can’t pull the "you just grew up with Christianity" line. And McGrath is quite in touch with a vast array of intellectual Christian literature, and has contributed quite a bit to it himself, so he maintains a high level of competence and intelligence for the full time he speaks about the faith. He is likewise equally prepared and quick on his feet as Dawkins usually is.
In the exchange, I especially appreciate McGrath pressing the point that the murderous communistic governments of the twentieth century were indeed "institutionalized atheism." When Dawkins predictably tried to "correct" him on the issue, McGrath rightly insisted that atheism was not peripheral to Lenin, Stalin, et al, as the atheist claimed, but it was a core issue. This is one of the many points I show in The Return of the Village Atheist, and thank you to Dr. McGrath for sticking with the hard truth.
For those unfamiliar with McGrath’s works --- which now, I am guessing, number 40-50 volumes --- I suggest starting with his Christian Theology: An Introduction and Christian Theology Reader. On the atheism issue, see his The Twilight of Atheism, the wonderfully relevant "Intellectuals Don’t Need God," and Other Myths, and the recent The Dawkins Delusion.
3 Comments:
As usual, you're making a mountain out of a molehill and embellishing with your usual blather. Anyone who watches the video of McGrath can see why it was cut. He's BORING and rarely answers questions directly. Moreover, with his tilted head and affectations he comes off as the condescending one though Dawkins is usually accused of that (and often quite rightly).
I always get a chuckle from your mercurial choice of heroes in defence of theism. McGrath, who firmly believes in evolution, would think you are a foolish YEC crackpot. He would scorn your admiration for Jerry Falwell, and you will also notice that he and other prominent theist philosophers do not leverage Anthony Flew's late embrace of theism and creationism before his death. That is because it was clear to everyone that he was in the grips of senility after a brilliant career and decent thinking men choose to remember and respect him for the great philosopher he once was, rather than the doddering old man.
And as for your churlish comments concerning "littering" of your website by atheists, I can only say that the atheist commentary here is the only intelligent stuff I've read. You never engaged in the debate that you claim I said we trounced you in, unless you were speaking for your surrogates.
As for your argument for God you never came off your discredited one-note TAG argument and since your arguments are circular and your sycophants kept repeating them, it left me no choice but to repeat basic laws of logic and reason you fail to understand. You keep accusing atheists of bringing up the same old tired arguments. And that is because theists have never adequately addressed them. The case against God is a pretty simple one and there is very little new under the sun other than the relentless progress of science in displacing your God of the Gaps. If atheist arguments are stale it's because theist arguments are even more stilted and stagnant. Until the nonsense of religion dissipates, each new generation will have its prominant atheists who dare to speak the truth to all the people. Eventually truth will win.
Well, it was a mountain until McGrath said, "Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea!" (Matt. 21:21) Then the atheists scrambled to do damage control: "He was boring!" "He doesn't answer questions directly!"
Perhaps simplistic minds would more easily follow such a "direct" answer, but McGrath's responses generally indicate that the questions involve much more than the atheist can either see or admit. "Indirect" answers can also often signify someone being polite, or not "taking the bait" that is offered in a pointed question.
I hardly think McGrath would call or even "think" me foolish. If he can politely dialogue with am angressive atheist like Dawkins, he would have little problem with this brother in Christ.
I would not say that I "leveraged" Flew. After all, it's not like he actually became a Christian - only at best a deist. Rather, I only pointed out how even that tiny step was enough to make Dawkins bare his teeth. Rabid pitbull.
My advice to you: read more McGrath before you criticize him. Alot more.
I have read McGrath and I respect him as an intelligent and thoughtful scholar. I meant his interview with Dawkins was dull and rarely got far beyond "I believe in God because it works for me sort of argument". McGrath is a rather modern version of C.S. Lewis and his arguments ultimately fail for the same reasons Lewis' do. Of course, we disagree on that and it will probably resurface in our ongoing arguments.
Please note that I said McGrath would "think" not "call" your anti-scientific ideas foolish. He is too polite and gracious a man to name call. Unlike you, he also shows significant respect for atheists. He seems to be making a career on the back of Dawkins so the respect is deserved.
Post a Comment
<< Home