Richard Dawkins and Alistair McGrath - Christianity 1of8

[GambitFox79]

Why does this have so few views???? You finally have an intellectual, well-mannered discussion. And so few views. 

[MrKerpelWatson]

haha sound problem!

[PAC0423]

I'm actually shocked by the negative comments about Mcgrath. I love Dawkins, and Hitchens, but I also truly respect Alister Mcgrath. To deny that the man is an intellectual powerhouse is to deny the clearest evidence. He is a theologian of first class, with only a small percentage of his work going towards the debate between theism and atheism. He is be polite, and he's called blithering. Christians who are rude or abrasive are critiscized too. What in the world are you satisfied by?

[lanksareit]

What a blathering skate McGrath is.

[bilsim]

This video restores my faith in intelligent debate between theism and atheism, after watching some debates and reading many aggressive comments from both sides, it's really refreshing to see two people making good cases for what they genuinely believe.

[FourFifteenAM]

I enjoy debates involving Dawkins much more than those involving Hitchens. Hitchens always comes off as a prick. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the arguments he makes, but it's his demeanor that throws me off.

[allegromarcato]

@FourFifteenAM I love when he trashes De Souza, he deserves the worst!!!

[MrJenkster]

Why can't Dawkins always be like this? Why did he suddenly just go all out attack and un-willing to discuss to the manner he does in this video?

[personsname0]

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and ethologist who has spent decades researching and making scientific analysis of the claims he makes, written numerous books, given lectures at major universities all over the world and is privy to the most exclusive scientific circles on earth - He most likely won't be returning to study fossils, because that would involve palaentology, one of the better known branches of geology. Just thought I'd let you know before you say something stupid again.

[nickreed60]

Just Wikied this Dawkins chap, he coined the term "Meme" i wounder if he lieks mudkipz?

[philosophyteacher]

@nickreed60 but has this Dawkins got any empirical evidence for 'memes' or is just a simple minded faith head comment like a flying teapot going round the earth ? a meaningless comment from a biology teacher who should stick to fossils.

[SuperGeo1987]

@philosophyteacher eh, memes is a hypothesis that was put forward by dawkins. in his book, the selfish gene, he made it clear that he did not want to take ownership of the hypothesis, in the sense that he did not want to test it out, he just wanted to plant some seeds in the minds of others. he did not make any claim that he could prove that memes were a genuine phenomenon, but there is mounting evidence emerging that he was right,

[SuperGeo1987]

@philosophyteacher this evidence comes from research one memes by other scientists, spawning a branch of science called memetics. PS paleontologists study fossils, as do zoologists. A biologist may study a number of things, and this term is a cross-specialisation generalisation of scientists in the biological field. A microbiologist studies micro-organisms, a biotechnologist studies metabolic pathways, and the technological applications of biological systems.

[unitethechurch]

@SuperGeo1987 LOL, the study of memetics lasted about as long as the journal of memetics. NOT VERY LONG. It is a bankrupt hypothesis

[SuperGeo1987]

@philosophyteacher there are a lot of different schools of biology. the more you learn about it, the more you realise the broadness of scope that it has. it has links to chemistry, and thermodynamics, technology and even quantum mechanics. science is fascinating. I'm studying BSc Natural Science, and I have not read a single chapter from any of my books that I didn't find absolutely enthralling.

[MlSHKlN]

6:41 6:47 i love it when he does that lol

[Yarooo1000]

Read the phiosopher Kierkegaard .You won't find the answer -because there are no real answers -yet -but it can open your mind to a better way of looking at the problem.However Kierkegaard only looked at Chistianity and 'becoming a Christian' -but nevertheless its an aspect worth considering

[mcrage81]

they need to agree to disagree unless they can talk about solid science and evidences that does point to a creator.

[DualShooter]

@tennisgurl206 Yes, programs have no sentience of their own, if they do something smart it is because the programmer gave it instructions on what he would do in that situation. Any A.I. is just an echo of the intelligence and creativity of the programmer.

[Markemark44]

...Sorry....HE IS NOT Human...Anyone? anyone??..

[Markemark44]

@tennisgurl206 Yes...WE tend to Forget....

[Kairusan]

@tennisgurl206

I understand. Most, if not all, Christians believe what they do due to personal experiences--I personally had none. I also liked most of Jesus' moral teachings, but I think they're more universal things and not necessarily from the Christian God or Jesus--in fact, older religions were mentioning these things before Jesus was born. Questioning myself and everything else is central to my "beliefs" also. Looks like we're in a relatively similar boat with different views.

[Kairusan]

@tennisgurl206

As a former Christian and someone who has a Christian family and almost all Christian friends, I don't see how one can actually truly be both Agnostic and Christian. If you don't know if God exists, why should you dedicate yourself to Jesus? Why should you choose the Bible over any other holy book? I would expect an Agnostic Theist to not have an organized religion or to be something like Spiritualism or Shintoism that doesn't specify a specific entity.

[unitethechurch]

@Kairusan firstly thankyou for your non antagonistic tone. Theres a difference between knowing Jesus and believing in Jesus. Knowing him is the difference, knowing Christ and the witness of the spirit which comes after giving ones life to Jesus makes a huge difference to the evidence (even thought it is subjective). I also take Alistair's view that we have many competing world views to choose from, Christianity makes sense of the evidence in the best way, thats why i believe it.

[Kairusan]

@unitethechurch

I'm glad it didn't come out as someone speaking with an antagonistic tone. I don't intend to attack anyone of any religious belief.

I fully understand your thought process on this and I respect your beliefs. It seems, from what I've read here, that you have an open mind and really thought things through before dedicating yourself to what you believe now. I respect that--we need that from more people.

[unitethechurch]

@Kairusan Now I do not have certainty on my belief nor do I claim to. Infact most of the things I believe are faith positions (I believe the material world exists and that other people have minds). Their are two kinds of faith. 1. My assent to belief is the first kind since I do not have certainty, faith in this sense is assent to belief without having certainty of that belief. 2. Faith is trust, it is active, it is trusting in a person.

[punnet2]

@unitethechurch Faith is what you use when you don't have actual evidence.

[unitethechurch]

@punnet2 Your understanding of what faith is, is extremely juvenile. You seem to believe that all Christians hold a Fideistic view in regards to faith and reason. Faith is what we employ whenever we take a position on any issue when we do not possess perfect information. Reason alone can distinguish very few truths. In almost all cases we must make an inference to what we consider to be the hypotheses with the greatest explanatory power.

[punnet2]

@unitethechurch Accusations of juvenility from someone with an imaginary friend -- the irony!

Sorry once again, but you only demonstrated that you have to mischaracterize my statements in regard to the Miller experiment et al. to have even the pretense of credibility. 

Once again: If your evidence and reasoning were sound, you would not require faith to make up the difference. Your reliance on faith is your admission that you lack proof.

[unitethechurch]

@punnet2 Also way to stalk me on youtube and post comments that only demonstrate that your an idiot (I'm wondering when you will start talking about a flying spagheti monster). Simply because I demonstrated your lack of scientific knowledge in regards to the emergence of life on our planet by naturalistic means. I will now ignore you as my life is better spent talking to people who arn't idiots.

[punnet2]

"Stalk", you say? It was you who decided to resume the exchange 6 months later by flooding my page with comments of a rather callow nature. Then, incapable of soundly defending your beliefs, you again you take to indignantly scurrying away.

Such cowardice is to be expected of a christtard who can't think beyond the confines of his bronze age faith.

[Kairusan]

@tennisgurl206

To be honest, I haven't seen these videos in almost half a year and I can't remember the points he made. If he can willingly admit he has no idea whether God exists or not, then yes he is. I would have to meet him and find out what he believes before I can determine whether he's Gnostic or Agnostic.

[Kairusan]

@tennisgurl206

You're correct.

My point, however, was that Christians tend to take the Gnostic side instead of the Agnostic side. It's possible to have an Agnostic Christian, but I have yet to meet one.

[DualShooter]

@Hazylynx I don't recall the Bible ever saying the world is flat, and I wouldn't call any AI program 'alive' :\

[DualShooter]

@Hazylynx What does the modern day have to do with it? Did you think Atheism was a recent invention? It has been around since AT LEAST 500 B.C. - go read Psalm 14 for evidence.

[Markemark44]

Alistair is certainly OVER Animated....doesn't Seem even Human...anyone? Anyone?

[szczepanski666]

Alistair has an invisible macaw on his left shoulder

[NurEineStimme]

Get a new cameraman.

[dmc967]

wow these guys are actually incredibly nice to each other and Alister is a much better explainer than any clergyman or, as dawkins puts it, "apologist." However, Alister still is moving on shaky ground because he is moving to prove their is a god while dawkins is moving to disprove god, but positively prove nothing. Meaning that alister needs more evidence while dawkins siumply needs to poke holes

[DualShooter]

I find more and more that whenever I try to debate this issue with Atheists they inevitably pull out the 'oh just fuck off' card, which is very useless. Why can we not be having productive debates like these two?

[EdwardNS1]

@DualShooter

Give us same solid evidence of god or fuck off

as simple as that...

Evidence or gtfo

^.^

[welshforever95]

@DualShooter I hate it when people do that, it's as if they've said all they know in their first sentence and have nothing else to contribute to the conversation -.-

[s4stem]

Wow... What a proper discussion..... This is how those of opposing views should discuss things.

[Lightmane321]

isn't it nice when a christian & an atheist can get along so nicely & be so respectful to each other

[lightbrownpoop]

i'm sure that deep down dawkins was calling him an idiot. cause ya know, everyone who disagrees with the 'holy' dawkins is a 'fool'...it's really weird, whenever the camera is on dawkins, i get a sense of darkness/hopelessness, but when it's on mcgrath its the total opposite, a spirit of light/hope...strange indeed.

[Kairusan]

Funny how the Christian is talking like an Agnostic/Atheist.

[jbz3]

This camera man sucks.

[DJHyperRhythm]

As soon as I turn this video on, I'm like, WHAT THE HECK IS WITH THE CAMERA?!?!?!?! lol (I'm a christian for those wondering)

[homospaienism]

fuck off christian

[aricandisgood]

I really enjoy listening to the sound of both of their voices.

[gromitwallaby]

There is a different between saying "belief despite lack of PROOF" and "belief despite Contrary proofs".

Christians may lack rational/empirical certainty for the beliefs.

But then -- even scientific theories themselves are not accepted on the basis of rational/emperical certainty, either!

Science itself works on a set of assumptions that are not themselves testable or empirically verifiable (law of non-contradiction, understandibility and predictability of univese, etc.)

[ojoreakatheoj]

wrong. your view of the scientific method is backward

[gromitwallaby]

No: We accept the underlying, rational intelligibility of the universe as a basic assumption underlying science --- yet we cannot demonstrate these assumptions scientifically.

[ojoreakatheoj]

Sure, science assumes that the universe is real and that we can learn something about it.

That assumption is not analogous to the assumption that a god exists.

[gromitwallaby]

Fair enough. But I simply make the point: Whether IS a personal cause to the universe is just not a matter in which science is able to provide data.

One can still make an "educated" choice based on a philosophical "inference to the best explaination" -- But In the end, it really comes down to a faith choice, doesn't it?

For me, I think a personal, powerful, rational God gives me at least reasonable grounds (NOT proof!) for expecting a universe that enables successful, rational discovery.

[ojoreakatheoj]

I agree with your first point, that we do not have scientific evidence which explains the origin of the universe with certainty.

The difference between us is that I'm comfortable with the answer "we don't know because there isn't enough evidence," but you posit a creator god. But there isn't empirical evidence for it.

I only accept the possibility of the big bang because of the empirical evidence to support it (e.g. the expanding universe)

[God4Dunoon]

you just know that dawkins case for reality just got busted... any takers??

[Raffzeee]

I would like to thank you for my fetish

[John23478s]

Next you will be telling me beauty is skin deep and that none of the people with him creep and also pretend to be deep in order to sustain his order and allow their finances to swell as this shallow well becomes less and less clear and mud, dye.... no, my friend I forgive you, if I have to go through hell again for you only I will for I love God's green earth with my heart.

ps

PonyTailedDJ

Jonathon Bates

John23478s

[flyheat]

My mistake. It was the other guys book. : )

[flyheat]

How self absorbed is Dawkins?! It even starts with him reading his own sack o' shit book! lol

[PonyTailedDJ]

I am pay for sex at licensed brothels I drive my car with a Christian symbol on the back while listening to the stone roses - second coming, I where a t-shirt that says i am the UK's most persecuted Christchurch. I do none of this with pride.

I do it in silent demonstration even if my radio is slightly loud. Maybe I should get a sub woofer and play some violence glorying music much louder?

[ronhudsonjr]

im not sure what you are trying to say? so are you a real christian or not?

[sumopromark]

...the hell do you mean by REAL Christian?

[PonyTailedDJ]

My opinion:

He is a scary looking character and it is in decline, yep lets forget the people who would give there lives without hurting anyone to what they believe, or sorry are you not a militant aethiest?

What a convenient time to make this point Professor Richard Dawkins, infact there is no better time than now and no better place than here.

[Raffzeee]

Why are you so homophobic? Did you know these kinds of beliefs show your own insecurity about being a gay yourself. Why not be comfortable with your sexuality?

[Domzdream]

A scary looking character indeed. This Alistair.

[TekLok]

When Dawkins asks McGrath what is his reasoning behind his faith he basically says that he isn't dealing with objective evidence but rather issues dealing with subjective views. ("What is the meaning of life" for example. The answer would be different for every individual) They are two different things completely. So his reasoning behind his faith is based on matters of various opinions or beliefs where there is no final answer. Isn't that like saying that his faith is based on faith? (lol idk?)

[bucketheadkfc]

Alistair McGrath tilts his head way to much, he must have a kink in his neck

[rorshak73]

One articulate modest clear thinker delivering clear statements paired up with one pompous, windy gasbag going round in self-referential meaningless circles.

Guess which one is which...

[JJGMTS]

I absolutely despise Alistair McGrath.

[ghostmanno12]

why? any rational reason?

[JJGMTS]

He whines for about a minute after each of Dawkins' questions in this series, and then proceeds to answer an entirely different question in an entirely unsatisfactory manner, while constantly maintaining this pseudo-intellectual facade. The man is a deluded fraud.

[llamafarmingguru]

I think possibly your prejudices may be getting in the way. If their was more clear debate of this nature, with people carefully listening to the others point then the world would be a better place.

[JJGMTS]

I genuinely don't think my prejudices are getting in the way, and I'd add that I actually do my best to have as few as possible. I agree with your second point entirely - the world almost certainly would be a better place if there was more of this discussion, but it is necessary that there is clear discussion, and Alistair McGrath clouds the waters of this debate significantly with his rambling non-answers. I have nothing against the man himself, just the way he debates.

[richiebellis123]

Although I can understand the thinking process of many believers, to suggest the burden of proof lies with those that question this belief goes against the flow of fair play. If you make a fantastical claim, it is for you to prove it, not to simply attempt to disprove certain scientific claims and therefore assume the moral highground. Science never claims to have all the answers, just more questions. Belief to me serves a quick fix to allow us to get on with our daily lives without confusion.

[jbz3]

1. Life is improbable so it couldn't have happened on its own.

2. God is also improbable so it couldn't have happened on its own, either.

3. God must exist so probability may not be important for existence.

Therefore,

4. Improbability of life has absolutely no argumentative merit.

[TheHarbinger09]

Excellent point!!!

[Jestepher]

If only people on YouTube could have discussions like the above intellectual powerhouses.

[jbz3]

NO U!! (jk jk)

[Arppis]

People need to get smarter and less offensive/defensive. They need to be more neutral about things.

[Lahi53]

I could not agree more. We need to be more concerned with following the argument, and take a step back to see how our emotional response is affecting our outlook, either positively or negatively.

[tomsim22]

@Jestepher lol good call

[jlmdfnbo]

@Jestepher Please explain if you're still alive after these 2 years how McGrath is an intellectual :D

[qigong1001]

Nothing logical or excellent about this debate. Dawkins is arguing with a child who learned big words. In a sense it is not a real debate. Its like arguing about the validity of Yoda from Star Wars as a real entity. This is more of an attempt to shake McGrath from his emotional attachment to his imaginary friend.

[LGwalt]

Maybe you should look into McGrath's background before you pronounce him a "child who learned big words." Has anyone asked YOU to lecture at Oxford?

The reality is that McGrath has a much broader background to discuss these matters than does Dawkins, who knows very little outside his specialty of Biology.

[LGwalt]

Your argument assumes its conclusion in its premises (intelligent design doesn't exist because it doesn't exist).

And while evolution is always claiming to be "scientific," in fact it does not meet its own definition of "science" (which philosophers of science wouldn't endorse anyway).

[qigong1001]

LGWALT, if you don't thing evolution is scientific, There have been thousands of research studies verifying its validity. You cannot name one legit study to contradict its claims! Evolutions claims have been confirmed through not only biology, but geology, fossil records and MOST IMPORTANT molecular genetics. And it is logical to say intelligent design doesn't exist, just like the tooth fairy doesn't exist. If you think it does, than the onus is on YOU to prove it, not for me to disprove it.

[LGwalt]

Evolution is a collection of assumptions about what happened in the inaccessible past, it is not falsifiable because it would have to be tested over billions of years.

You say that "there is not one legit study to contradict its claims." What is your definition of "legit study?" One that confirms your presuppositions.

You presuppose intelligent design daily. You don't question the intelligent design of every automobile you see, although you cannot prove it was intelligently designed.

[qigong1001]

LGwalt, first off, you don't need billions of years to show evolution. Examples, are beak formation of finches, color changes in prey to avoid predation, bacteria that evolve their biochem to exploit resources (see Lenski study), and the list is endless. You clearly know nothing about biology.

A legit study is one that is heavily critiqued by peers and always repeated independantly to confirm results.

[qigong1001]

Lgwalt, As for your metaphor that since an automobile which is designed by humans, shows intelligent design. It should be obvious, that the only logical conclusion from your metaphor is that humans are responsible for DESIGN. Not a fantasy god. You need to think, before you repeat other peoples poor arguments.

[LGwalt]

Again, you make a circular argument. You say it's "obvious" that the ONLY "logical" conclusion is that only humans are responsible for design.

But the only way that can be the ONLY conclusion is if you can prove that God's existence is impossible. Why would you be so foolish as to try to take THAT on?

The reason evolution seems to "make sense" to you is that it fits a set of presuppositions you have. You are entitled to that, but it isn't "scientific."

[qigong1001]

Listen kid, maybe when you grow up, the world will be more clear to you. You say nonsensical things like "prove gods existence is impossible." Well, since YOU are making a claim, YOU have to prove it. You see, there a millions of crazy claims that can be made, such as tooth fairies, invisible men, etc... It is no ones job to waste time disproving these things. It is the job of the person making the claim to PROVE it.

[qigong1001]

As for straw man arguments, I don't think you know what that really means, you are just repeating what you learned in bible class.

[LGwalt]

You haven't made any arguments here, just an accusation that I "repeat what I learned in Bible class."

You fail to understand that the issues raised here are matters of epistemology, not "science."

You also insist I have some kind of moral obligation to a concept you have of "truth," which cannot be proven, seen or touched.

Of course, if God exists, then moral obligations to "truth" can be maintained, but since you claim God does not exist, you have no right to make those demands.

[LGwalt]

"Kid?" Now you claim to know how old I am, without any evidence for that claim?

YOU have to prove God doesn't exist, because you made the fatal mistake of claiming it was a FACT that God doesn't exist. Once you claimed it for a FACT, you obligated yourself to prove God's non-existence.

Someone who really understood argumentation wouldn't have made that mistake. It was a lulu.

[qigong1001]

Son, there are other websites for you to play on. Now go away and pretend like your playing with angels.

[LGwalt]

I guess since you have to resort to that kind of commentary, you're admitting you don't have an argument.

I don't know where you got the idea that I am younger than you are - statistically speaking, that's not a safe bet. But then, making judicious decisions is not your forte.

"Scientific atheisim" is a philosophical dead end. There's a reason that Logical Positivism died out as an epistemology, This discussion was a perfect illustration of why.

[jocular1987]

Obviously you're educated in Philosophy, which is great. But you made a mistake when saying that he who claims god does not exist should be called upon to prove it. No one can be called upon to prove a nergative. It is impossible. This does not meanthat the concept of god hs any credibilty. No one can disprove the existence of god anymore than he or she can disprove the existence of fairies. To say "you can't prove they don't exist, therefore they do" is a non-sequitur. Sorry, you lost that one

[LGwalt]

Read what I said again. My opponent claimed God's nonexistence was a FACT.

Once you claim something is a FACT, you obligate yourself to prove it. Of course he can't prove a negative, but he obligated HIMSELF to do so.

[jocular1987]

I concede that point. Still, I got the impression that you used that as a way of giving credibility to the concept of god. However, as you would probably agree, the absense of proof for the non-existence of god induces no such credibility. If I read between the lines, then you have my apology

[LGwalt]

Actually, my intent was to show that the strongest form of atheism ("there is no God") is foolish, because by making such a statement, the one making the declaration is actually making a POSITIVE claim.

He is claiming a fact EXISTS, that fact being expressed as "there is no God," and has now obligated himself to prove his claim.

Most militant evolutionists make this mistake when they attack creationists. "Evolution is true because the alternative is impossible, because God does not exist."

[jocular1987]

Again, no one can be called upon to prove a negative. You may correctly point out that to say "God doesn't exist" is scientifically and logically unfounded. That does not mean it is foolish to believe that god doesn't exist. I presume you don't believe in faries. I also presume that you are implicitly certain they don't exist. While you would fall scientifically and logically short by claiming "I positively KNOW they don't exist", you would not be considered a fool if you werecertain they don't

[LGwalt]

It IS foolish to claim God does not exist, even to BELIEVE he does not exist, because you have presupposed the existence of God in what you wrote. You apparently believe I have some kind of obligation to "truth," even though "truth" cannot be seen or touched. And if we are nothing more than highly organized matter, I have no "moral" obligation to an invisible concept, or to you, any more than I owe something to a rock.

None of that is true about fairies, and we don't presuppose their being.

[LGwalt]

Clearly YOU don't understand "science" because you repeatedly make argumentative errors, in this case a "straw man" of beak formations and color changes. Nobody is denying these things take place.

And by your definition of "legit study," how does one "repeatedly" test something that took billions of years to take place?

[psychosavant]

I'm a very devout atheist. I claim to be open to argument and willing to listen to reason, and would change my mind if theists gave me reasonable evidence to believe in a god. Most of the time, theists fail miserably at this and their reasoning is incredibly illogical and fallacious.

This man however, is obviously respectful and gives good sound arguments in defence of theism. If only all theists could be as smart and respectful.

[deelerofdeath]

Theist make a poor approach. They use literal Bible interpretations (which is bad theology). I try to study open-minded theology, philosophy, and science and find by logic and reason I can place the pieces of the puzzle of who we are and where we come from.

[laxplayer2or22]

Wow great video! Well I am completely an atheist and huge fan of Richard Dawkins, I am rather impressed with McGrath and his some-what rational arguments with an unusual lack of circular logic.

[ndlovu77]

I have to say a very big thank you to both Mr McGrath and Mr Dawkins. I have seen many discussions on the debate on God and they are usually not much more than people trying to win arguments. Here, between these two, we can see what a discussion between an Atheist and Christian should be like: respectful and thoughtful. Thank you for posting!

[sebreathnach]

The Irish, North and South, are about as superstitious as one can get... and Christians like nothing more than a convert. Moreover, it helps get and keep down a job, doesn't it? You don't get too many free-thinkers in either part of Ireland; they have been fighting about two brands of Christianity for 2 thousand years without ever asking of its validity....!

[yekahs]

2000 years? wtf are you talking about!

Ireland is traditionally Christian country, however, it is in serious decline.

Don't misrepresent a country you know nothing about

[54redstreetman]

I wouldnt say its in serious decline

[thelittlebastardface]

Dawkins is the main man,he knows what he's talikng about.

[Bigjacktrinity]

Having heard McGrath speak before he does seem very well rehearsed for every single point, including every question...and if someone asked a question that he could not answer as eloquently as we can see above then he changes the question. That aside he is an excellent scholar and lecturer

[djarm67]

I would suggest that they were both prepared. Dawkins was in the process of making a doco and McGrath had just written a book in refutation of "The God Delusion".

[chazza40]

Has Mcgrath prepared before hand? Maybe he's just very eloquent, but he sounds a little prpared in his first speech... correct me if i'm wrong...

[wycliffe35]

Excellent debate. Thank you for the posting. I feel this debate does see both professors in their best possible light, polemical but very respectful.

Mcgrath interviewed me as a student and I found him very charming, highly intelligent and engaging -of which this interview reflects. Dawkins also comes across in a similar vain.

Difficult subject matter discussed with depth.

Thank you.