tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post8810410744068771576..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: More on McGrathUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30548579447938723802010-03-27T12:36:51.535-05:002010-03-27T12:36:51.535-05:00I recently read a post by a theist in a discussion...I recently read a post by a theist in a discussion about Dawkins. The theist claimed that he had become more sympathetic toward Dawkins, not because he agreed with his arguments, but because he was annoyed that most of Dawkins' detractors resorted to ad hominem attacks. <br />The only one, he went on, who made any arguments that actually adressed Dawkins' points was apparently Allister McGrath. <br />I suppose I have to agree that strawman attacks are at least not as glaringly obvious as ad hominem fallacies. I just wonder were the disconnect was there. Clearly, this was an intelligent person, yet he still didn't appear to see the obvious flaws in McGrath's argumentation.effie_chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09569889445198478116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-363821829848691992010-03-23T11:07:15.999-05:002010-03-23T11:07:15.999-05:00Traicih:
You've probably already guessed this...Traicih:<br /><br />You've probably already guessed this, but theists watching the show will always complain that their side wasn't represented well. If you somehow got Lee Strobel on the show it still wouldn't matter, you and Matt would eat him alive. (No offense Russell.) The only thing that will ever get them to agree that their side was well represented is if their side wins. That's the problem, that's what they're looking for, they want their side to win. They want to be reassured that the beliefs that they hold can somehow be rationally defended. Until that day finally happens (And I'm not holding my breath.) their ready made excuse will always be "Well that just wasn't a good representative, it they'd argued with a real believer it would have been different." I was at home applauding last show when Matt told them that if they weren't satisfied with the people who were calling in, then they should get off their ass and call. Put up, or shut up. Sadly I doubt it will get much of a response. These people would much rather sit at home and complain about the poor arguments presented on the show then admit to themselves that they don't have anything better.<br /><br />P.S. Good luck Russel and Matt! I have a reasonable expectation, based on prior experience and evidence that you'll do the secular community proud. I wish it was being held somewhere near LA, I would have loved to see it in person.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15037873083458424998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53360749748789327642010-03-23T06:55:24.603-05:002010-03-23T06:55:24.603-05:00Finally read it. Again, I have no doubt now that M...Finally read it. Again, I have no doubt now that McGrath was an atheist for poor, frivolous reasons, if indeed he did not believe in God just because religious people in North Ireland were fanatics.Guillaumehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376749604845793465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26274240513774877832010-03-22T14:52:51.976-05:002010-03-22T14:52:51.976-05:00Tracieh:
About the need to 'retrain' peop...Tracieh:<br /><br />About the need to 'retrain' people. I had a similar discussion about making government employees use Linux instead of Windows. No matter how similar you make them, or how similar they already are, people who know nothing about computers will panic the moment you even mention the possibility of changing the OS. Especially if you consider that actually about 60% of the population can't attach files to e-mails, or change printer settings without help.<br /><br />People trust religion. They have grown up in it, and they are comfortable not asking questions. Anyone who wishes to change their religion (or remove it), has many things to do. Even if they do not rethink their position in life (Gee, if god didn't create us, then what did? Perhaps I should look into that evolution stufff), even if they do not change their Sunday plans (cause they didn't go to church in the first place), they'd still have to take at least a single mental step. People tend to be lazy in matters that don't concern them.<br /><br />So you have basically two categories. There are the people who are actively religious, who think about their views on the world. They usually have reasons they believe in a deity, and they need to be taught how to answer those questions without the need of god. That's the 'training'. The other category is people who really don't care about this at all. They just label themselves Christian, though it does not affect their daily live. They need to be motivated to think about their views. That's the 'training' for them.<br /><br />At the very least I wanted to remark that your comparison dealt with a choice after the fact, while the thing you're describing is already in effect.<br /><br />Even when describing the individual. It is not like they have a choice between cure A or cure B. They have been using cure A all of their life. Or rather, like I argued earlier, they have been receiving treatment A all of their life. They need to change their habits and way of thinking to get to treatment B.<br /><br />I mean, if a religious person who thinks the truth can be discovered by reading a book, they can become just as destructive as an atheist as they can as a theist. All they need is to read a book which tells them atheists should kill all believers because they're incredibly foolish.WriterBen01https://www.blogger.com/profile/09761407698941801260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17671012043183288442010-03-22T12:10:53.393-05:002010-03-22T12:10:53.393-05:00liminalD:
Thanks for your thoughts. If this is th...liminalD:<br /><br />Thanks for your thoughts. If this is their plan, good for our side. I can't tell you how many times I've had a theist lurker poke a head in to say, "I'm following this exchange, and my fellow theist looks like an idiot--what you guys are saying makes a lot of sense."<br /><br />I have seen this statement in many different forms and forums. And the more the apologist argues to choir, the more those "in between" people will fall to reason. The apologist with a captive audience and a solo voice may sound reasonable to someone unschooled. But get him in a room with a bright person who can reason and ask questions and pose problems, and suddenly the bloom is off the rose very quickly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69297172743954216922010-03-22T12:07:30.381-05:002010-03-22T12:07:30.381-05:00Hi Ben:
My point was that we have a system that p...Hi Ben:<br /><br />My point was that we have a system that provides an outlet for the good nature in people, but also leads them to do some really horrific things. And we have other systems that allow for the goodness outlet, but don’t required the “faith” and dogma that lead to bad problems. If a Baptist switches over to a Humanist charitable outlet, and leaves the Baptist system behind, then we retain the goodness outlet, and set aside the bad (faith).<br /><br />While we would still have bad systems in the world to get people to do bad things, at least religion wouldn’t be feeding into that any longer. So, we’d have one less “bad” influence, without losing the goodness outlet it provides to people. People who still want an outlet to do good could have that outlet, I don’t see what “retraining” would be required. A person building houses for Habitat for Humanity, for example, could just as easily work carpentry for a secular group doing the same thing. The only difference is that it wouldn’t require their willingness to follow with blind faith and unquestioning obedience to the dictates of a god (relayed conveniently to them from some other person)—which are the base stock for “bad” soup.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30673095406325431272010-03-22T11:46:25.144-05:002010-03-22T11:46:25.144-05:00Thanks again for an excellent post, Tracy.
I had ...Thanks again for an excellent post, Tracy.<br /><br />I had one thing to add about McGrath, and you might find this useful if you do any more posts about him.<br /><br />McGrath has a debate with Christopher Hitchens (you can find the whole debate on Fora.tv, and I wouldn't be surprised if you've seen it, but I'll bring up this point anyway). During the Q&A session at the end, McGrath makes a BLINDINGLY stupid error - Hitchens talks about the imposition of hell on non-believers, and McGrath responds by saying that he doesn't understand why Hitchens has a problem with hell since he doesn't believe in it. Needless to say, the audience bursts out laughing. Listen to the clip yourself, the question starts on section 21 (Q3 Vicarious Sacrifice) at time 1:11:25. The debate is titled "Christopher Hitchens Debates Alistair McGrath Georgetown University" on fora.tv.<br /><br />I can't believe that McGrath is one of the more respected apologists. I hear him speak and his intellectual vacuousness is astounding. I can't believe this is the best the religious side has to offer.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17355582340887198408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-32514451683708752492010-03-22T10:08:34.124-05:002010-03-22T10:08:34.124-05:00I have serious doubts that he was an atheist at al...I have serious doubts that he was an atheist at all. I think it's more likely he's lying for Jesus. He picked what he thinks is the reason a lot of atheists don't believe and claims the same is true of himself to try to convince nonbelievers to convert. Too common of a tactic.kopdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03887294932899817122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12052812211028627492010-03-22T05:19:49.682-05:002010-03-22T05:19:49.682-05:00Hey Tracieh, lovely post. Just one comment.
"...Hey Tracieh, lovely post. Just one comment.<br /><br />"Let's say we find a treatment for all terminal varieties of cancer that permanently paralyzes 20% of the people who use it, but positively cures the other 80%. If we later discover a similar cure that paralyzes 10% of the patients, and cures 90%--would anyone argue we should continue using the first treatment for the "good" that it does, if it offered no added benefit over the new drug? Who could reasonably, in good conscience, suggest such a thing?"<br /><br />I think this isn't an acurate comparison. A cure is something that is only applied once, so when someone is presenting symptoms, a choice needs to be made: cure A or cure B. The choice always goes to the best cure.<br /><br />We are talking though of a more permanent situation. A computer and a printer are, for the sake of this comparison, always better than a type writer. Yet making people depart from what they already know means they will have to learn some new techniques. It is for that reason that it takes such a long time for new technology to be implemented.<br /><br />Even in medicine there are examples of that. There have been studies that demonstrated that a lot of the after care patients receive are superfluous. For instance keeping the temperature constant for them while they recover. It has no shown effect, just makes health care more expensive, yet is still used in every hospital.<br /><br />My point is that your comparison bypasses these problems. Ideally we would want cure B, naturally. So... how to improve it. Perhaps calling them treatments. There is treatment A and treatment B. Doctors will need to be schooled in order to use treatment B, so not everyone can receive it yet. But naturally, eventually we want treatment B to replace treatment A. No matter the effort, no matter the cost of transvering it, if treatment B is better, then our eventual goal should be to have that instead of A. Anyone arguing we should keep treatment A has a hidden agenda.WriterBen01https://www.blogger.com/profile/09761407698941801260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33038010344629255432010-03-20T18:32:58.262-05:002010-03-20T18:32:58.262-05:00Another great read Tracie, thanks for posting!
Da...Another great read Tracie, thanks for posting!<br /><br />Darin said: "he knows his livelyhood and esteemed social position rest on his ability to convince other believers that there is nothing to worry about. as long as his answers (or straw man objections) dont crumble at the first listen of a believer, he has succeeded."<br /><br />I think this is a point we too often miss, I forget who said it first, but the religious apologist is NOT generally trying to defeat an atheist's arguments and convince the ATHEIST, generally the apologist is trying to convince the already-religiously minded or undecided AUDIENCE of the superiority of the religious position. All he or she has to do is discredit or confuse the position being set forth by the atheist, prevent it from being stated clearly and logically, so countering with logical responses is less important than SOUNDING more intelligent, reasonable and affable and making the right sort of incredulous faces and exclamations at the right times. The apologist knows that the theatrics of it all, creating the right IMPRESSION, will do more to sway the audience than any logical argument put forward, he or she knows that most people don't judge a position or set of values or beliefs on their own merits but rather accept or reject them on the basis of subjective judgements made about the person offering them. As much as we might loathe the idea of stooping to that level and copying those tactics, we're never going to win because we're not playing the same game.liminalDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06621859737411962756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-32631902238705868222010-03-20T14:53:06.159-05:002010-03-20T14:53:06.159-05:00Tracie, i think McGrath understands the question b...Tracie, i think McGrath understands the question but is too smart to answer, because he knows his position is intellectually vacuous. the same goes for his arguments against dawkins. he knows his livelyhood and esteemed social position rest on his ability to convince other believers that there is nothing to worry about. as long as his answers (or straw man objections) dont crumble at the first listen of a believer, he has succeeded. <br /><br />it may be that he is not knowingly dishonest and could be self deluded, but he is not interested in an honest discussion either way. as i see it the communication interference is deliberate. and if it isnt then all dialog with him is even more hopeless.Chef to Dethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11118281725619494060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-7548320119276720262010-03-20T13:03:19.349-05:002010-03-20T13:03:19.349-05:00Just re-read it. I guess my reading comprehension ...Just re-read it. I guess my reading comprehension is less than stellar when coming just out of bed.Aaberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11112805671156847191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85465352755827174152010-03-20T12:22:34.193-05:002010-03-20T12:22:34.193-05:00Raymond:
The irony is that I selected McGrath in ...Raymond:<br /><br />The irony is that I selected McGrath in response to the question we often get (which is usually more of a criticism) that we abuse "regular" Christians and don't dialog with real educated, intelligent theologians.<br /><br />Russell hosted a local pastor on the show as a result, and we immediately got a response from a seminary student asking us why we didn't have an educated theologian on the program. The guy Russell had on was degreed, but not in philosophy or theology; and it seemed as though it mattered not at all that he was a professional pastor, and not of the wingnut right variety--but the more moderate variety we're also often accused of ignoring.<br /><br />McGrath is not only a degreed theologian, but holds a degree in the sciences and is a self-labeled ex-atheist. I would think this qualifies him as an good choice for the best arguments for faith in god. That's part of why I took the time to listen--to see what he offered that theists kept telling us we were missing.<br /><br />It turns out I'm still "missing" it; but I'm trying to at least demonstrate I'm not just "hearing"--but listening to the point of micro-analyzing everything I'm hearing. I'm scrutinizing his message in an attempt to really examine it for what might be there that I could possibly overlook.<br /><br />But I still can't find anything.<br /><br />Really, I know there are a lot of people in positions of religious authority who are really not very bright. The "Great Debate" with Hitchens about whether the "church is/is not a force for good" in the world demonstrated that. Audience reaction was really clear that the two Catholic leaders failed not only to convince anyone of their point, but lost a good number of supporters according to an audience poll at the end (compared to a poll at the start).<br /><br />But McGrath isn't just paid to preach or administrate a church. This man has the credentials I've been told should equal a good explanation of faith--something superior to what a "regular" Christian can offer. If that's the case--where is it? I'm posting his own words and explaining the problems I see. And if someone else can explain how what he is saying is valid in some way I'm overlooking, they're welcome to do so...?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65433108572573060672010-03-20T10:53:52.409-05:002010-03-20T10:53:52.409-05:00Tracie if you think that McGrath has a poor unders...Tracie if you think that McGrath has a poor understanding of Dawkins points then here is an even worse example of the genre:<br /><br />http://www.mq.edu.au/mqvideos/pell_barker.html<br /><br />I came across this via pharyngula under the heading "I was dumber after listening to that". Its a debate between Cardinal George Pell and Dan Baker.<br /><br />If you feel like dropping a few iq points and have an hour spare then you may find it interesting/annoying (delete where applicable).Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16439248183580550162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81527404400446727012010-03-20T08:46:41.297-05:002010-03-20T08:46:41.297-05:00Guillaume:
I'm really disappointed, in that I...Guillaume:<br /><br />I'm really disappointed, in that I thought I had cut this thing down pretty respectably. But the moment I posted it and then looked at it posted at the live blog, I realized how long it was. I'm hoping I at least deleted most of the unnecessary repetition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39353846911695854212010-03-20T08:37:40.853-05:002010-03-20T08:37:40.853-05:00Thanks Aaberg:
No, my point was that if I'm a...Thanks Aaberg:<br /><br />No, my point was that if I'm an atheist arguing religion is not the sole source of morality, I might present religiously motivated acts of cruelty and nonreligiously motivated acts of kindness. The point would be nonreligious people can be moral, and religious people can be immoral.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24739653717884052802010-03-20T08:00:20.762-05:002010-03-20T08:00:20.762-05:00Wow! When you say more, you mean more! I'll re...Wow! When you say more, you mean more! I'll read it as soon as I can.Guillaumehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376749604845793465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33387749455907760332010-03-20T07:58:20.900-05:002010-03-20T07:58:20.900-05:00"And this would generally be put forward alon..."And this would generally be put forward along with examples of nonreligiously motivated acts of kindness."<br /><br />I may have misunderstood something, but didn't you mean "cruelty", not "kindness"?Aaberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11112805671156847191noreply@blogger.com