http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/mcgrath/lecture.html#_edn2
Conclusion.
This lecture has barely scratched the surface of a series of fascinating questions raised by the writings of Richard Dawkins. Some of these are directly, others indirectly, religious in nature. I am conscious that I have failed to deal with any of them in the detail that they rightly demand. I have opened up some questions for further discussion, and have not settled anything - except that the issues raised here are important and interesting. Dawkins asks all the right questions, and gives some interesting answers. They're not particularly reliable answers, admittedly, unless you happen to believe that religious people are science-hating fools who are into `blind faith' and other unmentionable things in a big way.
It's time to move the discussion on, and draw a line under the unreliable account of the relation of science and religion that Dawkins offers. An evidence-based approach to the question is much more complex than Dawkins' `path of simplicity and straight thinking'.
The question of whether there is a God, and what that God might be like, has not - despite the predictions of overconfident Darwinians - gone away since Darwin, and remains of major intellectual and personal importance. Some minds may be closed; the evidence and the debate, however, are not. Scientists and theologians have so much to learn from each other. Listening to each other, we might hear the galaxies sing.[51] Or even the heavens declaring the glory of the Lord (Psalm 19:1).
Thank you for listening!
Originally posted by ivanhoewhat is your point?
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/mcgrath/lecture.html#_edn2
Conclusion.
This lecture has barely scratched the surface of a series of fascinating questions raised by the writings of Richard Dawkins. Some of these are directly, others indirectly, religious in nature. I am conscious that I have failed to deal with any of them in the detail th ...[text shortened]... even the heavens declaring the glory of the Lord (Psalm 19:1).
Thank you for listening!
Originally posted by wedgehead2Read the lecture:
what is your point?
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/mcgrath/lecture.html#_edn2
It is particularly interesting for people opposing the views of political guru Richard Dawkins ... and of course the above lecture is also interesting for those parrotting his views .......
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhich part of the lecture were you hoping to target for discussion?
Read the lecture:
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/mcgrath/lecture.html#_edn2
It is particularly interesting for people opposing the views of political guru Richard Dawkins ... and of course the above lecture is also interesting for those parrotting his views .......
Originally posted by ivanhoeIn everything I've read of Dawkins, he merely says that evolution eliminates the need for God. We have a proven alternative answer to "where did life come from?" other than "Goddunnit."
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=59642
What do you think ? Does the evolution theory eliminate God from the scene as Dawkins suggests ?
Originally posted by telerionBut does it eliminate the need for God? How is "Chancedunnit" different from "Goddunnit"?
In everything I've read of Dawkins, he merely says that evolution eliminates the need for God. We have a proven alternative answer to "where did life come from?" other than "Goddunnit."
Originally posted by ivanhoeDawkins' contention is not merely that evolutionary theory renders your God (in particular) explanatorily unnecessary. He would agree with that I'm sure, but he claims something far stronger. If you read, for example, chapter 4 of The God Delusion, he argues that "there almost certainly is no God". Here, he means to say not that your God is explanatorily unnecessary, but rather that your God concept (or more generally, the concept of a divine creator) doesn't constitute any sort of probabilistically viable explanation at all. He thinks that any such creator would be "The Ultimate Boeing 747", and that his existence is just extraordinarily unlikely.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=59642
What do you think ? Does the evolution theory eliminate God from the scene as Dawkins suggests ?
Also, McGrath is just wrong when he says that Dawkins' arguments -- if correct -- only support agnosticism: if Dawkins is right, then it is extremely unlikely that God exists.
Originally posted by ivanhoeAlso, McGrath seems confused to me in his section on Faith and Evidence. Dawkins is using the word 'faith' more or less in the proper sense: as an epistemic pejorative. The point is that 'faith' (prima facie) constitutes dereliction of noetic duty. As Dawkins points out, one hallmark of 'faith' is endorsing propositional content even in the face of countervailing evidence. I would say that the most egregious sort of 'faith' is when the cognitive faculties are more or less capable; the epistemic environment is more or less congenial; but the mental exercise is ultimately aimed at something other than the production of only true endorsements. That's basically a form of self-delusion.
Read the lecture:
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/mcgrath/lecture.html#_edn2
It is particularly interesting for people opposing the views of political guru Richard Dawkins ... and of course the above lecture is also interesting for those parrotting his views .......
So 'faith' is defined more or less properly. Then the discussion should be over whether or not theistic belief qualifies as 'faith', as Dawkins seems categorically to suggest it does.
Originally posted by LemonJelloThat sounds pretty impressive, but can you tell me what it means ?
Also, McGrath seems confused to me in his section on Faith and Evidence. Dawkins is using the word 'faith' more or less in the proper sense: as an epistemic pejorative. The point is that 'faith' (prima facie) constitutes dereliction of noetic duty. As Dawkins points out, one hallmark of 'faith' is endorsing propositional content even in t tic belief qualifies as 'faith', as Dawkins seems categorically to suggest it does.