Skip to comments.Oxford atheist [Richard Dawkins] ridiculed by Anglican theologian during debate
Posted on 04/12/2007 1:27:09 PM PDT by freedomdefender
Crusading pro-evolution scientist Richard Dawkins has had his anti-religious claims ridiculed during an Oxford debate with a theologian who once was an atheist like the evolutionist, who is devout in his public denunciations of religion. "Having been an atheist, I discovered religion was in fact an enormously powerful, transformative power for good," said Alister McGrath, Oxford University's professor of Historical Theology.
"The claim that the scientific explanation ends everything, ignores fundamental realities. There's a whole range of human experiences, often involving a longing for something beyond us which brings legitimacy to our core notions and philosophical ideas."
The 54-year-old Anglican priest was debating with Dawkins during Oxford 's Literary Festival in March. Dawkins' post as professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford is funded by Hungarian-born Microsoft millionaire Charles Simonyi. His attacks on religion are frequent, and he set up a foundation in December to send atheist books and DVDs to schools in Britain and the United States.
"Far from being enriching, religion is stultifying, impoverishing and limiting," said Dawkins, whose book, "The God Delusion", has sold a million copies since publication in 2006. "Science and religion both attempt to answer the same questions - the difference is that religion gets the answers wrong," the atheist campaigner asserted.
McGrath said, however, science was unable to provide a "guiding moral vision". He noted that non-believers such as the writer Iris Murdoch had agreed on the necessity of a transcendent basis for ethical decisions.
"Although I can't prove Christianity, as I can prove the structure of DNA is a double helix, it is a hypothesis which makes perfect sense, and which gives direction and animation to life," said McGrath, who became a Christian after studying chemistry and molecular biophysics. McGrath recently published "The Dawkins Delusion" as a riposte to the scientist's book.
"Belief in God creates an explanatory framework, which enables you to appreciate and value the sciences while also seeing beyond the beauty and glory of the world to something enriching and ennobling," contended McGrath.
Describing his book as a "consciousness-raising exercise", Dawkins belongs to the London-based National Secular Society, which has since the 19th century campaigned to make Britain atheist. In his speech Dawkins said he had "disposed one by one" of arguments for God's existence, and believed it was "a form of child abuse" to assume children inherited their parents' religion "without consent".
McGrath, however, rejected this, arguing Dawkins had ignored "the dialectic between proving and giving reasons for something," and had falsely assumed science eliminated "the conceptual space for God". "Religion has the capacity to go seriously wrong - it can be dogmatic, intolerant and aggressive, as can other worldviews," said McGrath. "But it can also provide a moral stimulus and raise our imaginative capacities to new heights. For every grand tragedy involving religion, there've been ten thousand acts of personal kindness and social good."
Dawkins’ post as professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford is funded by Hungarian-born Microsoft millionaire Charles Simonyi. His attacks on religion are frequent, and he set up a foundation in December to send atheist books and DVDs to schools in Britain and the United States.
Interesting......waiting to see the usual suspects here......
What am I missing? What was the nature of the debate? What would a Christian debate an atheist regarding? If they were debating something utterly faith based, that makes as much sense as saying Princess Di had anything to offer humanity before she took a spin with the Egyptian playboy or that Hillary Clinton has anything sensible to offer...ever.
Ol’ Dawkins oughta read St. Thomas Aquinas. God is the Prime Unmoved Mover. Our reason and experience tells us there is a beginning and end. e. g. the “Big Bang”, everything from nothing. The alternative is “plenum in a flux”, i.e., a perpetual motion machine. Anyone ever seen or experienced a perpetual motion machine? By the way, the idea goes back to the Greeks, as does nearly everything, to a fellow named Xenophanes.
“As an Evolutionist, you won’t mind if my stronger organism sqeezes your neck until your biological processes cease.
Because, of course, science has nothing to say about that, except that my strenth trumps your weakness. Right?”
“a longing for something beyond us” is easily satisfied by stretching a hand and grabbing a bottle. The trouble starts if one does not have a bottle. “Spirituosen” were specifically invented for the spiritual thirst. Look up Omar Khayyam for further guidance.
There was a guy in our church who did street evangelism (not done much any more), anyway this guy (said he was an atheist) every week would hassle the church guy. So the church guy after months got sick and tired of the whole ordeal and got down on his knees and asked God to strike the guy blind. The atheist had a royal fit..claiming that it was horrible that the church guy would want him blind. So much for atheism.
Dawkins is just mad since he found out Mrs. Garrison used to be a man.
I love how atheists are blind to the fact that they need to look in a mirror when they talk.
But that's not what people like Dawkin say:
In his speech Dawkins said he had "disposed one by one" of arguments for God's existence, and believed it was "a form of child abuse" to assume children inherited their parents' religion "without consent".
The man has absolute faith that God is a false concept, and he wishes his faith to be a determining factor in how other people raise their children.
And that's what's wrong with atheism today. It's not about lack of faith. It's about hatred of God.
Your church guy needs work.
* ping * s
today mate, so I expect a cookie. ;0)
No need for hassling [unless one has fun from it, but it tends to wear out]. One could establish the eye contact, wait for the pause needed to swallow the saliva or to catch the breath, and then cut in: “not a cent”.
Not merely beyond us but above and beyond us. Anciwnt paganism was superior to the modern in that it did not assume that we are essentially dead matter assembled together for no end in view except to disintegrate.
If you want, you can download the podcast of the debate from here:
Correct. And there’s has been no vaild workinbg refutation of the philosophical and metaphysical proof for the existence of God that withstands a human’s own senses and reason. This is not a debate that started recently. Dawkins says nothing new. Atheism is much more a blind act of faith than a belief in God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.