Search results
McGrath claims that there is a ‘lunatic fringe’ on both sides of the God debate. However what Dawkins does is try to suggest that the religious fundamentalists are representative of all religious people. This works for Dawkins’ audience who are not properly educated in religion (again showing the need for proper religious education).
Another interesting point which McGrath notes briefly is that Dawkins seems unable to distinguish between belief in God and religion, and yet there is a great deal of evidence that many believe in God without considering themselves part of an institutional religion. McGrath notes that Dawkins also has an extraordinarily selective reading of the ...
Jan 11, 2024 · McGrath's Response to Dawkins' Argument. McGrath argues that Dawkins' definition of faith as blind trust in the absence of evidence is a self-serving defining of faith, not a Christian definition. McGrath agrees with Dawkins that faith and beliefs are important, but points out that there are those who have 'faith' in Dawkins' worldview as well.
He gives an assessment of the debate between Dawkins and McGrath while arguing that both men fail to make the crucial distinction between belief in God and faith. He finds it hard to disagree with McGrath's conclusion that The God Delusion is more harmful to science than to religion because "most people have a greater intellectual and emotional investment in religion than in science."
- Alister McGrath
- 2007
May 18, 2016 · Alister McGrath, in his book The Dawkins Delusion, points out there are some questions which lie beyond the limits of science. When it comes to a scientific approach of these matters, such as the origin of life, McGrath admits natural sciences depend on inductive inference, which is a matter of weighing evidence and judging probability, not of “proof” (35).
Recalling Dawkins’s earlier work Climbing Mount Improbable, McGrath notes Dawkins’s admission that humanity’s existence itself is overwhelmingly improbable. But of course we exist. “We may ...
People also ask
Is there a logical inconsistency between Dawkins and McGrath?
Does McGrath agree with Dawkins?
Is Dawkins more accurate than McGrath?
Did Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath actually talk?
Why does McGrath call Dawkins an atheist fundamentalist?
Does Dawkins believe in God?
In the conversation with Dawkins, McGrath decides to try and deal specifically with what he calls the strongest argument in Dawkins’ book: Is there a link between violence and religious belief? He says: Religion can be an immensely powerful transformative force for good, and wherever those [wrong] actions take place they need to be condemned.
