Now now hughie steady on,lol.How are you by the way?Anyway moving on.I know some of what you say can make sense,but believing in god isnt about the hows and whys,who am i to question my god?I dont know or pretend to know reasons for such things.It is an interesting subject hughie,one wich id love to have with you without ever getting personal.I have questions to ask of you if youll let me?
Well Anthony, like both of us have said, in these debates where our views are so totally opposite to one another and our idea of what constitutes evidence are so different, no one ever convinces the other party that they are wrong. So it always ends up as a slanging match.
As we do have a common interest, namely boxing, why not stick to an area where we can possibly agree, or if we don't agree at least we have a common basis for judging who is right and who is wrong
God creates a balance.If it aws a perfect world then we would be overrun and overpopulated.Even god knew the dangers of that surely.Its so man can survive.As for evil,it only exists in the man himself.God didnt create evil,man did.Answer that one
Come off it Anthony! Do you think that the volcanic eruption at Krakatoa that killed 150,000 children or the more recent Tsunami that killed another 100,000 innocent children was the fault of MAN? Or that in nature, certain wasps lay their eggs inside the body of a still alive beetle leading to a slow horribly agonising death? There are millions of such examples. Perhaps an EVIL God could have made things this way but an all powerful, all loving, all knowing good God - NO WAY.
Materialist Scientism, of which, "Communism is the culminating hubris of the Promethean man who reaches out for the world and means to remake creation. It is scientism gone political." (The Conservative Intellectual Movement, pp. 251-252)
Do you expect anyone to take this source of your quotation at all seriously moob? Communism is a perversion and pretence at scientific thinking, it is bad politics/economics/philosophy dressed up as logic. In this it is not at all unlike Religion.
O.K, you got me there! I CONFESS! like anyone else I compile data/quotes to augment my own argument/position, it was fun while it lasted, and now-nothing left for me to do but gracefully accept defeat from a superior intellect.(bows LOW)
Your willingness to look at someone else's arguments and see the possibility that you just might be on the wrong track is the mark of having a real scientific outlook.
Although modern science is one of the great legacies of the Enlightenment, it is a mistake to reduce the Enlightenment to science. This is especially true at a time when science itself is often invoked as a source of authority that is beyond question, rather than an open-ended endeavour based on radical scepticism. (Dolan Cummings)
Science was NOT a legacy of the Enlightenment, it was the INSTIGATOR and SOURCE of the Enlightenment. The "enlightened" concept of critical thinking was first the product of the Scientific Method, the concept of an ordered universe which is explianable by reason was the product of early scientists such as Newton, Galilio, Bacon, Gilbert etc. The possibilities that our human world could also be rationally explained, was later expanded in the Enlightenment to include politics, ethics, etc
SCIENCE "instigated" nothing! Individuals,Human Beings,some of Faith,others not used Scientific Methods. Critical thinking has always existed,even amongst the Religious.IF we owe a debt to the Enlightenment it is one which the Founders in the U.S.A.formulated into their Constitution,thereby protecting the right and FREEDOM for INDIVIDUALS to choose and decide their beliefs.
What you call critical thinking is only Logic. Logic can work from ANY premise, no matter how absurd or unreal. The Scientific Method was the first systematic approach to make logic work from observable reality, the first systematic way to test premise for reality. Science indeed led to the Enlightenment.
And the Founders of the USA were indeed men of the Enlightenment, as you say. They were secularists, mostly Agnostic or Atheistic, a few Deist.
McGrath just wants to sell books. Its all about marketing and knowingly that his position would sell many more books and dvds than staying atheists. Believers want to see a former atheist see the light and will pay for this. In there eyes, this is a miracle made by God. God has shown him the light. But we know that marketing 101, find a group of buyers and sell them what they want to hear!
The universe started with a intensely dense/hot singularity in a big bang. Sure it's weird, but there is a ton of scientific evidence to show that's exactly how it happened. Just because something is hard to understand or weird doesn't mean it's not rational if measurable evidence supports it. There is no evidence whatsoever that any creation myth can provide an alternative explanation with measurable evidence and show that instead it all started with Marduk, Thor, Coeus, JoMulJu etc etc
It came from nothing, an initial zero that split into balanced matter and antimatter particle components whose perfect balance was not maintained too long after the big bang.
Of course you may wish to ignore the scientific data that exists for this and choose to put your FAITH in any creation myth.
How about the one: Everything started when Uranus insisted that Gaia (Mother Earth) keep any children locked up within the bowels of Mother Earth which made Gaia unhappy so she made a new metal into a sickle, which she gave to Cronus (her son) who sprang up and attacked and castrated father Uranus. And so that's how we got here.
Six thousand years ago Yahweh decided to create the human race, which was made to look like him. It all went a bit wrong so he decided to come down to earth and impregnated a virgin so that he, himself could be born as a human. He was then killed, turned into a ghost who is still one and the same as Yahweh and Yahweh's son. All three gods are eaten by many of Yahweh's worshipers in the form of a biscuit.
creation myth? evolution also happens to be a myth. the only difference is that its followers claim its actually science. Not only we live in an impossible universe but also we live in a world where everything just makes itself on its own. Its so cute how things just fall into the right place on their own.
"Its so cute how things just fall into the right place on their own."
Not so suprising.... if it hadn't "fallen into place" we wouldn't be here to comment on the matter, and as it really HAS "fallen into place" what's the big deal?
"we wouldn't be here" that's a poor argument. I can say the same thing, we wouldn't be here without God making us. A big difference is that since life and the universe exhibit a great deal of purpose and intelligence creation is the rational answer not dumb luck.
There is no purpose whatsoever, there are just things... matter , most non-living with a tiny bit of it living. Anything living has two objectives- to survive and to reproduce... otherwise it would not be life. But bjective and "purpose are different things entirely. And it is absurd to suggest this system to the product of intelligence, , for nothing prior could have created the intellegence. Things must arise out of simplicity....
"Things must arise out of simplicity" that's an old outdated argument. there was never any simplicity. what we see is incredibly complex machinery in the supposed simple life forms. You can't get simpler than a cell and yet their complexity and purpose are astonishing.
There was indeed ONLY simplicity at the moment of the big bang.. elementary atomic particles, that's it ...then, just the simplest atom - hydrogen. Everything now in the universe started from that point..elements, stars, planets etc... then replicating chemicals. Darwinian evolution explains the complexity, history, and variation of all life. All this has been comprehensively proven by Science. NOTHING that you have said has any basis in observable reality. YOUR world is pure myth.
really? from where did hydrogen came from? its so easy to make claims without proving them. "All this has been comprehensively proven by Science" how did the first cell formed? theory is not fact btw. A sparkle in water is not going to create the machinery found in cells, they have specific purpose for specific task's. how in the world is a sparkle going to do that?
Cooperative association of bacterial sub-elements evolving into unitary element over time
Keep asking... even if there isn't an answer at this MOMENT of time from Science, it doesn't mean that you can claim that MAGIC must then be the answer
If something isn't known today it can become known tomorrow, or the day after. The alternative to any unknown today is never a certainty about magical causes. Or perhaps you still believe that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth
I disagree, but thank you for your opinion on the subject. You are right about one thing though, Atheist feel they have to rationalize and be logical about everything, but what theist understand is that theres no possible way to get inside the head of God. I don't care if your the smartest man on earth.
If youre saying that faith is the only basis to hold on to religion - and that reason and religion are incompatible, I couldnt agree more. Id go further by saying that your claim that theres no possible way to get inside the head of God is just a lame excuse to cover up the total preposterousness in the conflicting ideas about the nature and the behaviour of god. Its a cop-out to try to escape from the irrationality of god, and the rationality of the conclusion that god doesnt exist.
Inexplicably, you left out what was far and away the best part.
Before giving his... response, Mcgrath palpably squirms, and in a tone of transparently feigned innocence, asks the camera crew if perhaps they'd like to move on (as though it were they who might be impatient to do so) since, as he claims, he's really already answered the question.
On an aside, I must mildly dissent with your observation that Mc Grath is arrogant. Perhaps I've simply misread your use of this word, but it seems patently obvious to me that MacGrath is quite visibly diffident and and intimidated by Dawkins throughout this discussion.
I heartily agree with all else you say in this video. Were I to offer a two-word assessment of McGrath (and for that matter absolutely every other religious apologist known to me), it would be "inversely persuasive".
Hmmm.. to me McGrath is a really strange mix. On the one hand he's absolutely certain that he's utterly right in everything he says (hence the arrogance) and on the other hand he seems to feel that the way for a proper Christian to behave is to be cloyingly humble and meek. The combined effect is quite nauseating. I couldnt however bring myself to include his attempts to squirm away from Dawkins logic at the very end, perhaps out of some sort of latent sympathy I have for dumb creatures.
I must thank you polymath for the Stanford University lectures you post on your channel, which themselves link on to a wider range of such excellent courses/lectures. I had no idea that such material was around for public consumption... one of the wonders and benefits of the internet age I guess.....
I can only speak for myself but my own atheism came simply from the fact that I could not for one second believe any of the religious ideas and every bit of research I have done into theology just reinforces this opinion.
Science just seems to embrace truth and honest inquiry were as religion does not.
Nice bro, when you don't undersatnd something just mock it, good tactic! The dawkin dupes love to take a page out of his book on this one. The fact is that atheism demands more faith in its mythology than what even the weirdest religions would demand even the one that believes in a flying speghetti monster or invisible pink unicorns.
You would love to classify atheism as "faith" because you know just how very weak any faith based belief system really is, including your own. But atheism is NOT faith, it is a logical conclusion that religion is fabricated nonsense; atheism is based on the same sort of evidence based rationality that constitutes science.
How come it is bro that everyone from the UK is super smart. I am an american and it seems that anyone who comes from the UK whether they be christian or atheist or whatever they have incredible knowledge and combined with their accents they sound like super smart aliens or something. Is everyone like that where you come from or what?
Well, they're just like us.. some smart, some average, some pretty thick. But yes, there is something special about what they seem to be able to achieve. They've invented so much, discovered so much, done so much in music and art.. it's really amazing for such a tiny country. I think it's their education system, and also they seem to have a special love of books/reading. I really admire them, same as you do. But the British, they seem to admire us Americans, the same way we admire them
Oh, I thought you were British bro. Tell them that this american thinks that Brits are awesome. They are the perfect balance in my view. They are not assholes like so many warmongering americans over here but they are not pussies like so many on the rest of their continent. Their empire, while not perfect helped most of their colonies. Only the US and Canada did better after they left.They were also in both world wars while we just came in on their coutails and they help us in terror with reason
Well we may not agree about the place of religion in the world, but we surely do agree on the place of the British. I do hope you have a chance to have a holiday over here sometime soon, there's so much to see and do. Be assured that stories about Americans being disliked in Britain these days are totally untrue. And with global warming, even the weather over here isn't all that bad!
My descendants are originally from scotland so I plan to visit hopefully in the next two years. I have never been before so I am looking forward to it. Cheers back at ya HowieintheUK!
The British really do like the Americans(apart from a small minded minority)and this tends to be self evident from the way we embrace your culture etc.
The bottom line is we are allies and apart from some well natured piss taking(mockery)I think we in general have a mutual respect!
I disagree bro, I think it is we in the US who embrace your culture. If you look even at the US origin, what are we? the rebellious offspring of GB. Although I disagree with Dawkins, Hitchens (I am a xian) they are smart SOB's and the pimp sounding accent makes them sound awesome. I also find the Brits to be way more moderate minded than americans, we are so extreme here in everything we do. It just seems that that little Island is like the land of the gods or something!
Maybe I do have a bit of a romanticize view since I have never been there but it just seems like everyone from there is frikin incredible with a quik wit and an intelligence to match. I was on a cruise a couple of years ago and a British guy was our host. He was goofing off with the audience and said "farted" in some statement with his accent. The american audience told him the "real" way to pronounce the word, he responded, "Thanks for correcting me on a language THAT WE CREATED!!"it was great
I agree,but believe me there are many stupid and ignorant people in the UK!I think our sense of irony often sets us apart and as for education well the quality of any given persons education is usually to do with their financial/class position.
I myself was not formerly educated but I was lucky to be raised in a family environment that nurtured self teaching and critical thinking.I admire the Americans and sympathize with the fact that many have been dumbed down by religion and mainstream media.
The pope of atheism, Richard Dawkins. Multi author of writing books on how not to believe in something that doesn't exist. Also the gayest man ever to be alive.
You think Mcgrath is insane? How about Dick Dawkins who believes life brought itself into existence out of non-living pond scum? Then he preaches that we as humans should be moral and do good...but why? If life evolved and we are guided by evolution and survival of the fittest why even consider abstractions such as justice, morality or even liberty? After all these where not ethics invented or even discovered by science. Based on your tactics your athiest fundementalism has been punctured.POOF!
Well elar, I invite you to view my Evolutionary Mathematics videos to see EXACTLY how human morality came into being. In social animals the benefits of cooperation (reciprocation) have such a positive fitness benefit, so these behaviours end up as part of our genetic makeup. Evolution by natural selection, pure and simple. It is really so much more believable to find that these moral instincts are evolutionarily innate, rather than believe an improbable myth that some sky god put them in us.
True, but then car driving manuals and traffic codes don't tell you that it's ok to murder other drivers if you believe that a particular brand of car is the better drive....
True... anyone that tells you to murder other peolpe because they don't believe in the same thing as you is a nutter. Thats different to saying that belief in God in and of itself is dangerous. Thats an individuals choice to murder. And by the way, we had a guy murdered in sydney in a road rage incident a few weeks ago. So was the car the problem? Or the driver? Try and answer that for me honestly.
Well it's not people, it's the BIBLE that tells you to murder:
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
I could go on all day if YouTube didn't limit text to 500 chars
Now heres a great favourite of mine ..where God inflicts death by cannibalism..
Ezekiel 5:8-10 (KJV)Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations.And I will do in thee that which I have not done, and whereunto I will not do any more the like, because of all thine abominations.Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers..etc
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.
you're stuck in the OT mate. check out hebrews 8:13 ; ) I don't understand 3000 yr old jewish traditions. it was a wild tribal, neolithic world. but then... I dont' have to understand it. Jesus said "a new command I give to you. Love one another as i have loved you". (hint: no bombs involved there ; ) John 13:34 All that stuff is finished. Do you think Jesus and the disciples killed people? and btw. have you read about the assyrian war machine in thos days?? LOL. made hitler look like a kitty
"and btw. have you read about the assyrian war machine in thos days??"
Well..why did God have to kill the Assyrians? Wouldn't it have been a lot nicer to just turn them into nice peaceful people instead? And what a terrible example God sets for we humans.. no wonder religious people are so bloodthursty. And if Jesus had to correct his Fathers bad behaviour, what does this say of god? And isn't Jesus and the Father one and the same, so it was Jesus that did all this killing?
...or maybe you're saying that God got it all wrong for 2000 years of old testement time, killed all those people by mistake and then said "whoops" and came down as Jesus to say he got it all wrong? But didn't Jesus say that every word of the old testement had to be exactly followed? I can quote chapter and verse if necessary..
"Wouldn't it have been a lot nicer to just turn them into nice peaceful people instead? "
and all live happily ever after. and have a cup of tea! oh oh and crumpets (with syrup mmmmmm) I'm sorry the bible isn't what you want it to be. "But didn't Jesus say that every word of the old testement had to be exactly followed" No.. he said the law must be fullfilled. ie sacrafice for sins which he himself became. No killing from Jesus. I think you've had a bad experience with Christians. Sorry.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law" (Matthew 5:17 NAB) "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
I think you've had a bad experience with Christians. Sorry."
It is me who really feels sorry for YOU. You live in a world of primitive myth, a life manipulated by religious institutions and dogma, which leads you to endless conflict, unreason and stupidity.
If you are brave enough read "Godless" by Dan Barker, a Christian preacher who was once exactly like you are. Maybe it can help you see yourself.
Yes, I'm sure I saw that phrase on a T-shirt somewhere. The person wearing it a had large beard and certainly looked the "programmer" type. Probably a UNIX nerd.
McGrath a pompous fool? He patiently and politely replied to Dawkins, as did Dawkins to McGrath. Surely people think what they think is correct, and so in a sense "they are right", but don't mistake this with pomposity. Alot of hings McGrath is, and perhaps as an apologist he is not the best, but pomposity is the last thing I would ever expect someone to accuse him off...
BTW - The Problem of Evil has a rich literature about it that is much more interesting than this discussion.
Hmmm, he appears pretty damn pompous to me, but perhaps as you say, pomposity is in the eye of the beholder. But McGrath is certainly a fool, exactly which sort of fool, pompous or not, I leave to the viewer. As for his being an apologist, I would say he is about as competent as anyone else who attempts to marry rationality with religion, that is - he utterly fails in the task. Perhaps the pomposity we see is in the fact that he can talk such nonsense and still keep a straight face...
Indeed it has, and all of it sounds just as lame as McGrath does in explaining evil. Fallen worlds, best of all possible worlds, heavenly paybacks, beauty in suffering.. all so farfetched, convoluted, and illogical. Dawkins is exactly right when he states in this clip that "the world behaves EXACTLY as one would expect it to if there were NO god, NO guiding spirit"
Howie. I will give you an example. When Francis Crick was asked about the beginning of DNA, he had no answer...maybe a spaceship had to enter our universe and drop this "seed" from which we evolved. Howie, science is extremely useful to understand the laws of the universe, the laws of the body, and the principles of interactions between us. You might not agree(sure!)but science was not intended to define the origin of the Universe, but intelligent design is not inconsitent with science.
"but science was not intended to define the origin of the Universe"
Of course it is, this is a PURELY scientific question. The universe developed as a material entity through the laws of chemistry and physics, and life evolved through the processes of evolution through natural selection acting upon matter. There is no need for a "designer", a concept that is in fact both self-contradictory and vastly more improbable than any other possible explanation
"What science finds is energy in various states of excitation in complex interactions."
Well taters, I suppose that since you've already proven that you don't know anything about philosophy, you just might as well go on to prove that you don't know anything about physics..
LOL, What is to know about philosophy. It is all subjective. Everyone has one.
Physics on the other hand is not. Everything is energy in various states of excitation in complex interactions. That is an established fact. Everything we know is made of energy, in the form of matter or radiation (states of excitation)
The two views are simply subjective and relative to an accepted premise.
Neither can be denounced as wrong. It's like arguing over how one views a painting.
One person says they are moved by paint on canvas. That it speaks to them. The other looks at it and says: what are you talking about? It's just paint on canvas? Show me proof there is something more and I will believe you.
The only difference is we are living in the painting.
"The only difference is we are living in the painting"
And exactly what makes you feel that YOU are the arbiter of what is subjective and what is non-subjective phenomenon? Particularly when you avoid dealing with evidence. You seem to think that repeating an unfounded assertion over and over is what does the trick. Sorry mate, you'll never convince any rational person of what you say if you go on in this way.
To HowieintheUK. Pretty amazing! Pompous statements!You have not answered the most fundamental question on the initial personal element of life which has to be self existant. (You don't want the God who revealed Himself for something else): Totally illogical! McGrath has studied both science and theology. Dawkins is a scientist with no theological basis. A study of science is a humiliating experience for anybody with sanity. With the scientific breakthrough, we understand how we do not know!
wow - I'm shocked at this guy's read of McGrath. Just doesn't get it -- obviously won't see any truth to what McGrath sees because he's a Dawkinsite to the core.
And, the sarcasm is just something that is common with atheists.
Dawkins also doesn't show an understanding of God's purpose (biblically speaking)
Nothing special here. Has absolutely no reflection on either party. They both have their own biased views.
Dawkins has no leg to stand on. Reason is not science. That is why there are several schools of thought in philosophy. Reason does not give a clear answer. Reason is relative to a given perspective that must be believed. that makes it subjective.
Dawkins God argument actually renders all subjective ideas delusion and is therefore in a practical sense meaningless.
What you are attempting to express here is that LOGIC can be employed upon any base premises (no matter how preposterous these premises are) to produce some form of "logical conclusions". Then you attempt to say that such conclusions are as valid as scientific conclusions. But this is NOT rationality. Rationality requires that the process is not only logical, but that all premises are consistent with one another and the conclusions consistent with observation. McGrath fails on these counts.
McGrath is irrelevant to the point. Rationality is not science. Rationality is relative to the tenet/belief. There is nothing factual about the process other that that it is relative to the perspective. Logic is irrelevant. We are talking subjective relativity here. it's what human social activity operates on.
"Rationality is relative to the tenet/belief...Logic is irrelevant "
Relativistic mumbo jumbo. The last refuge of someone who desperately tries to show that their opponents' position might possibly be just as poor as the one supporting their own argument. Unfortunately for them reality is an absolute, which is both observable and testable.
"Unfortunately for them reality is an absolute, which is both observable and testable."
Really. Prove that you love someone. Prove that something is beautiful. Prove that anything social is right or wrong. Prove that any law in place anywhere is "justified"
Prove the existence of the quality "justified"
I could go on for hours.
Social reality is absolute alright. Absolutely relative and subjective. Now get to work and prove those things exist.
No, no,no. You are mixing up certain conceptual cultural constructs (e.g. beauty) with real material phenomenon and trying to make them equivalent to one another. They are not. That is also McGrath's problem; he makes the assumption that God is a real and active agent in natural phenomenon and then gets decimated by the rational consequences that follow.
And.. even if something is a cultural construct doesn't mean its existence and measure is TOTALLY subjective. If I am in love, such a state is observable and testable. We can test whether a social rule is optimal against social criteria by using Game Theory. I can't understand why you Relativists are so bloody anxious to prove that your own view is just as shitty as everybody else's.
"he makes the assumption that God is a real and active agent in natural phenomenon"
You mean like love, beauty,laws,morals,Or any idea that is subjective where the only evidence is becaus we believe. McGrath is irrelevant. Your suggesting that conceptual constructs are not real. Your argument does not follow. If ideas and concepts were not real they could have no affect in the real world. Recorded history is evidence to the contrary. Ideas change the world on a daily basis.
If I build a temple to Zeus, it doesn't mean that Zeus exists. And claiming Zeus exists as a spirit (a social belief) is quite different than claiming that Zeus created the world and is an active agent in it (a social belief and a scientific claim).The first statement is difficult to falsify but uninteresting from a scientific point of view; the second impinges on the nature of the physical world and must be tested against alternative hypothesis
If I build a temple to Zeus, it doesn't mean that Zeus exists.
If you do something because of love it does not mean love exists. If you subscribe to a law or a sense of morality and act accordingly it speaks nothing of their existence but rather your subjective belief in the idea.
It is the subjective turtle upon who's back all societies ride. You are nothing without it.
"If you subscribe to a law or a sense of morality and act accordingly it speaks nothing of their existence but rather your subjective belief in the idea."
No, we have a genetically evolved value system that ACTUALLY exists and influences us. See my Math series part 5
"No, we have a genetically evolved value system that ACTUALLY exists and influences us. See my Math series part 5" Provide links to evidence of such a thing as "value" Science recognizes casual effect. "value" is subjective. You are talking superstitious nonsense.
"Provide links to evidence of such a thing as "value".... "value" is subjective. You are talking superstitious nonsense."
Superstitious?.. moi?
The basis of human morality is in evolved behaviours which are suitable adaptations necessary for our functioning within social groups. All social animals have such adaptations, our own species being of course most sophisticated. The "Golden Rule" is an evolutionary strategy. Reading..I suggest "The Evolution of Co-operation" by Axelrod as a primer.
"Let me correct you with a little reason. Human causal behavior evolved. Morality is a subjective/relative quality imposed on simple casual behavior that in fact does not exist."
Causal behaviour evolved, but it does not exist? You are very bad at syllogisms my friend. No wonder you hide in the obscurantism of relativistic gobbledygook.
It is Evolution that has established the basis of morality. These behaviours (strategies) are the ones adopted through natural selection in social animals because they are the ones that maximise the fitness within a social unit. This (genetically) creates an innate sense of what is "the right thing to do", say - in the feeling of the "rightness" of the Golden Rule. Of course these behaviours become very complex, but the basis of moral behaviour is far from subjective.
Evolution has nothing to do with imaginary notions of morality. Evolution is evident in fossil record. Morality is not.
"fitness" of a social unit is subjective. "right and wrong" do not exist.
"but the basis of moral behaviour is far from subjective."
Causal effect is factual. Morality is not. We do not discuss the action of a river or any other casual effect in nature, scientifically in terms of morality. That is nonsense.
Everything we are is the forces of nature at work. Nothing more.
"I can understand It's hard when you first face how little of what we are is factual."
You say this because it is YOU who can't face the facts - the implications of scientific rationality. All your relativism and all your subjectivity is nothing but a smokescreen to shield you from, what is to you, an uncomfortable reality.
Honestly, there's nothing unpleasant about the realisation that an innate basis of morality arises out of evolved social strategies. Indeed, it is most reassuring that morality does arise from our very nature as social animals, rather than some absurd and unbelievable story that some sky god wants us to behave that way.
"Honestly, there's nothing unpleasant about the realisation that an innate basis of morality arises out of evolved social strategies. Indeed, it is most reassuring that morality does arise from our very nature as social animals, rather than some absurd and unbelievable story that some sky god wants us to behave that way."
As I said, Identify morality. Demonstrate it.
Prove it. It will be like proving beauty.
A causal effect is a casual effect. It has no "moralness".
"As I said, identify morality..." sheesh, No one is claiming that morality or beauty actually exists--like some substance that can be contained. What has evolved, as Howie has said, is our system or social strategy for interacting with each other in a way that we can describe as 'moral'. Its testable, its observable, there actually IS possible evidence for it in the fossil record (Neanderthal that lived to 40 despite debilitating injuries who, without the help of kin, quite likely wouldn't have)
The system of interacting changed relative to stimuli. There is nothing moral about it.
There is no difference between morality and beauty. We can describe an endless stream of things with these two subjective, relative terms. these imaginary terms can not be measured. human degree of belief in them can by % of population just as deities, religions, or any other subjecitve notion.
You can go on ad nauseum (and I suspect you will)describing how mercilessly subjective our individual, insular little worlds all are but ultimately it is only testament to your own lazy thinking; the philosopher Robert Solomon said: "We might have a powerful insight or mystical vision; we might be suddenly inspired or emotionally moved. But what we say and believe nevertheless requires something more: It requires REASONS". You glibly play with words but there are reasons we behave 'morally'
We might have a powerful insight or mystical vision; we might be suddenly inspired or emotionally moved. But what we say and believe nevertheless requires something more: It requires REASONS".
Yes, Natural physical forces. The reason for causal effect. Physics has explained this.
Morality has nothing to do with it. That is our imagination.
"I simply state the facts of science" So sayest the esteemed Dr. T.B. Taters who further concludes that the word 'morality' should forthwith be stricken from the lexicon since it is applicable to absolutely nothing and should, in fact, never have been invented.
"People are welcome to have whatever fantasies..." Well I can whole-heartedly agree with that. By all means, make more such posts with clearly worded points. The obfuscation you indulged in earlier seems silly.
Science and rationality are two very different things.
One can rationalize anything. Science demands facts, evidence, Proof.
We are merely natural forces at work. Energy in various states of excitation in complex causal interactions. We can be no more moral than any other chemical process. The notion is just as solid as any deity. Subjective and relative.
Appalled! How can someone who study science (Dawk), and participates in scientific breakthrough cannot bow down in the face of progressive discovery of our own ignorance in the face of the amazing complexity and order of the Universe and the human body(Just examples).Science becomes unscientific when it starts speaking of God and faith. Even the laws of science defy the conclusions of evolutionists!Who is illogical? Logic to pride myself of my genius and not believe in an essential originator?
..as for your claims that ideas affect the real world...no, ideas influence humans and then in turn humans affect the physical world. It's not the same thing. I suggest you read a bit more Dawkins, this time on the subject of memes.
"as for your claims that ideas affect the real world...no, ideas influence humans and then in turn humans affect the physical world. It's not the same thing."
Ideas influence humans. So ideas come from somewhere else? So everything ever invented is magical ideas that influence humans. I think we should discuss your God delusion.
You should have just called this "I don't like Allister McGrath." You're current title gave me the misconception that you actually had something to say about his argument and not just that you think he's crazy.
No, McGrath is not crazy -I never said that. It seems that if one person singularly holds a set of totally irrational and preposterous ideas that there are spirits that control his everyday life and his existence he is crazy, but if a very large number of individuals collectivly hold such ideas, they are merely just members of a religion. I only accuse McGrath of being irrational... and boring...
It is a scary thing to me individually the way Athiests are now rising up in a fundemental way. Yes I have had a few challenges of my faith yet from those emerged alive, thank goodness.
"Yes I have had a few challenges of my faith yet from those emerged alive, thank goodness."
Congratulations Brightstar..
Resisting the "challenges" of reason, science, history, ethics, philosophy, and even just ordinary common sense to support your personal superstitions must have taken a considerable effort of will....
I believe very strongly that real Science, recorded History properly looked at and good Philosophy are the most considerable help and benefit to someone of faith. Mr Alister McGrath is a shining example in the highest degreee and I can already see the pourpose God has for him.
A considerable effort of will to believe such things you say? I have heard that line before. No, not really. You see, I first believed at the age of 12, and yet, my family ius not a religious one. Yet again, I do not go to a catholic etc religious school nor was I a Church goer at the time. Fantastic decision.
"You see, I first believed at the age of 12, and yet, my family is not a religious one."
What you're saying then is that if your family didn't believe in leprechauns, but then you started to believe in them when you were 12 this is supposedly some sort of positive achievement?
Ooops! You've been editing down this interview to serve your own line of argument, haven't you? Things look a bit cut out. You're also making bizarre claims about McGrath 'failing to respond' to Dawkin's logic. Where'd you get that from? You've just posted this video to insult Christians and try to make yourself look clever, while not contributing to the debate. Would like to see you last for one second against McGrath.
I know you've posted that address. And not only are you making bizarre claims about McGrath's performance in this interview, you're completely failing to justify them. It's clear to anyone watching the WHOLE interview that even Dawkins respects McGrath as an intellectual heavyweight, even though they disagree on certain points. The whole interview is respectful, constructive, acute and fascinating. Virtues your response severely lacks. As for 'pompous' (!)...listen to your own video again!
Dawkins always showns courtesy, even to nutters such as Keenan Roberts. Dawkins OPINION of McGrath was famously expressed when he likened McGrath to an intellectual "flea". Dawkins has commented on McGrath's arrogance. In The Times(UK) Dawkins states "whereas I and other scientists are humble enough to say we don't know, what of theologians like McGrath? He knows." Dawkins goes on to state that McGrath "lacks humility", an opinion that most YouTubers viewing this video would heartily concur.
As for my own strong comments on McGrath, all I can say is that being American, and not having Dawkins British reserve, I tend to call a spade a spade.
You could say exactly the same thing of Dawkins, probably even more so. And don't forget, Dawkins is very threatened by McGrath - a scientist just as qualified as himself, who's written virtually watertight and internationally acclaimed (by the Director of the Human Genome Project for example) critiques of his works. No wonder he resorts to simple, unjustified insults of his intellect - exactly like you have with this video.
McGrath has academic qualifications in science, but he is not a scientist. His achievements in science compared to Dawkins are quite miniscule. However, this is not what matters. To BE a scientist you must have a total commitment to intellectual honesty ... and rationality and evidence must be the measure of what you accept as true, even if you don't "like" the conclusions that the evidence and logic points to. Dawkins is a shining example of the scientific mind and McGrath a total charlatan.
Alistair McGrath has a PhD in molecular biophysics, putting him easily on the same level as Dawkins - a fact you would well know if you'd studied any of his works. Just because he hasn't spewed out as many controversial (therefore best selling) books as Dawkins doesn't mean he's acheived anything less - McGrath's contribution to scientific debate on this subject is phenomenal. To say someone isn't a scientist because he believes science came from God is not a logically tenable position.
I will not be drawn in debate on the academic or research qualifications of McGrath vs. Dawkins (although I could win hands-down on both these points). The real issue is McGrath's so-called "contribution to scientific debate" as you put it. In this he has proven himself an utter fool. He lacks the intellectual honesty that is the prerequisite of a scientific mind and his view of nature conflicts with most laws of science, while his "logic" is a hodgepodge of mutually contradictory premise
I particularly chose this video confrontation between McGrath and Dawkins to illustrate just how flawed and foolish McGrath's "method" and "logic" are when faced down by a real scientist. With that I leave it to the viewers here on YouTube to pass their own judgement of McGrath's right and qualification to speak for Science.
Okay, 'win hands down' for me then! I'd be disappointed by atheist discourses, represented by yourself, if you're running away from a debate! In the interests of debate, just JUSTIFY what you're saying! This really illustrates what I'm getting at. You bizarrely accuse McGrath of going on everything by faith during the interview, and not arguing rationally. But you're unable to justify this claim properly yourself! You just go on about how pompous he is.You're simply 'arguing by faith' yourself.
I'm not the only one here who thinks that you are, ironically, failing to back up your claims that McGrath scientifically fails to back up his claims...despite your 9 minute video mostly just slagging him off. I have not seen a SINGLE atheist bit of feedback or response which strongly attacks McGrath in this interview, which actually justifies its claims without slipping into insults instead of opening up REAL discourses and debate. I'm gutted you're just another example.Sad, arrogant, pompous.
My, how you bemoan the insults to McGrath, cavalierly fling insults yourself, and still somehow expect 'real discourse'. Your own strident tone (especially when accusing people of arrogance)is comical. While everyone involved may very well be 'arrogant', McGrath seems to rely on his pomposity exclusively. Dawkins's trail of logic is clear, McGrath is cornered, Howie points it out. I've seen the entire video; the edit is solely for brevity's sake, not a crime of contextual misappropriation.
McGrath's degree does not put him 'easily on the same level as Dawkins' if we're talking science. Scientists are not defined by the degrees they hold but rather the actual scientific work they do. McGrath earned a degree but has devoted himself to a primarily theological output since. Though he is perhaps more qualified than some to discuss/debate scientific conundrums his true ranking cannot be said to match Dawkins by any measure.
What insults do I fling about? I've pointed out simple facts. Sorry if I seemed heated,but asking for a basic justification of someone's position is all I'm doing. This is debate. And as to your second post,it works both ways: at least McGrath actually knows complex theology and brings it to the debate,unlike Dawkins who works purely on science. Yes,scientific fact and evidence are essential to any faith, but you MUST know theology before you wade into religious debate as much as Dawkins does.
Re-read your posts--you fling the very same insults that you admonish Howie for flinging as though that constitutes a valid rebuke. You also miss the point I think: no matter how much arrogance seems to be behind this video it still seems to capture a moment in which McGrath is caught in an apparent contradiction by way of Dawkins's logic. Dawkin's own quote can answer your final point: "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?"
Dawkin's leprechaun quote doesn't mean anything, is just another simplistic insult to Christians to suggest the existence of God is as likely as the existence of leprechauns (!) and therefore even basic theology isn't worth reading up on (!!). Which is seriously foolish - admitting reading nothing of theology or philosophy makes an ignorant atheist. And the names I called Howie (who needs to calm down -- McGrath and Behe 'at war with science'?! -- get serious!) meant to illustrate his hypocrisy.
I used the quote just to lay any doubt to rest (assuming there was some) that we non-supernaturalists actually do equate the belief in fancy 'established' god(s) to beliefs in all manner of mysterious beings (even wee leprechauns)for which there is roughly equal (zero) evidence. Dawkins was being a bit cheeky with that one I'll grant you but it fit within the oppressive YouTube 500 character limit (of course now I have spent an entire post explaining it...sigh). Ah well...to be continued.
I honestly don't recognize the crime of hypocrisy in the presentation of this video. It would only be hypocrisy if, like McGrath, Howie was both pompous AND bereft of a defensible position. That's what I meant when I said McGrath seems to rely on his pomposity *exclusively*, which is to say--he talks like he has a solid point but ultimately I think Dawkins successfully pins him to the mat here and exposes his highly suspect, highly conditional logic. He appears to be making it up as he goes.
Yeah,the 500 rule is pretty tyrannical.I have to draft responses out in Word.Sad,I know.Anyway,I definitely understand your non-supernaturalist view as it's something I shared a few years ago.But what is the 'supernatural'?I think it's something beyond our /understanding/ of the natural.Therefore,I believe,the supernatural exists because our knowledge of science and the universe is not,& will never be,complete.Yeah,it's black and white with leprechauns...but there's v serious evidence for Jesus.
"at war with science" -emotive, yet true. There's been an endless effort to limit the tendency of scientific explanation to replace religious explanation of our world. From Copernicus to Darwin and on to the present day, scientific explanation has diminished need for God to be part of that explanation of Creation. Each step has been furiously resisted by the religious establishment of it's time, including a few overtly religious academics. Behe and McGrath just continue this rearguard action
Behe defends a more theist god, McGrath defends a more deist god, but what of that? Their explanations of nature BOTH conflict with science. McGrath's god violates the principals of physics, geology, chemistry and biology in "saving that one child". McGrath tries to insert the supernatural into science itself. As for the explanation of WHY an all-powerful and all-good god would save just one child while letting another 75,000 children die I will leave to the realm of philosophy..
Oh, and McGrath has a PhD awarded to him from Oxford for his research into molecular biophysics. That's slightly more than a degree. And not all that many people are on the record as properly disputing his book 'Dawkins' God'. And I wonder why this interview was left out of Dawkins' series? I would still say that, while a fantastic scientist, Dawkins is certainly overpopularised in his field by his controversial books, and himself and McGrath are easily comparable scientists.
He could have twelve different doctorates in upper-echelon academics--it still wouldn't matter a whit if he proceeded to not engage in real peer-reviewed science. The PhD isn't as much 'cred' as you think it is. In favoring theological pursuits McGrath has not kept pace with Dawkins in the realm of science (I'm not sure he pretends to)--a casual perusal of their individual bodies of work easily bears this out.
banjofiddlee, I see what you're getting at and definitely respect your point - Dawkins has worked a lot more recently in his field than McGrath, who has heavily branched into theology. But McGrath has retained the empirical scientific sense and expert knowledge in his field to easily dispute Dawkins' science in 'Dawkins' God' and other books. These are not easily, scientifically contested - interestingly, Dawkins doesn't even try in this interview and instead talks theology and doctrine.
I'm not familiar with McGrath's book so I can't really comment about it except to say that I remain doubtful that Dawkins would mindfully avoid engaging his critic on the issue of whatever serious, testable challenges to his science have been published. I take Dawkins for his word when he relays, for example, the story of how his own teacher delighted in being corrected by a visiting American scholar--to illustrate how good scientists welcome better science even if it eclipses their own work.
Exactly! McGrath, like Behe or Dembski, is one of a small group of blindly passionate activists whose religious fervour makes them turn their backs on the basic requirements of intellectual honesty that science demands. They are actually at war with science. They wave their academic qualifications about as part of an attempt to validate and prop up their own irrational views and to dupe the credulous. Tertullian, whose intellectual honesty I can respect, would find them quite reprehensible
So the god who saved the one child COULD have saved 10 000 but did not. What?
derek24hudson 1 month ago
Now now hughie steady on,lol.How are you by the way?Anyway moving on.I know some of what you say can make sense,but believing in god isnt about the hows and whys,who am i to question my god?I dont know or pretend to know reasons for such things.It is an interesting subject hughie,one wich id love to have with you without ever getting personal.I have questions to ask of you if youll let me?
anthonyp43 1 year ago
@anthonyp43
Well Anthony, like both of us have said, in these debates where our views are so totally opposite to one another and our idea of what constitutes evidence are so different, no one ever convinces the other party that they are wrong. So it always ends up as a slanging match.
As we do have a common interest, namely boxing, why not stick to an area where we can possibly agree, or if we don't agree at least we have a common basis for judging who is right and who is wrong
Cheers
Howie
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
God creates a balance.If it aws a perfect world then we would be overrun and overpopulated.Even god knew the dangers of that surely.Its so man can survive.As for evil,it only exists in the man himself.God didnt create evil,man did.Answer that one
anthonyp43 1 year ago
@anthonyp43
Come off it Anthony! Do you think that the volcanic eruption at Krakatoa that killed 150,000 children or the more recent Tsunami that killed another 100,000 innocent children was the fault of MAN? Or that in nature, certain wasps lay their eggs inside the body of a still alive beetle leading to a slow horribly agonising death? There are millions of such examples. Perhaps an EVIL God could have made things this way but an all powerful, all loving, all knowing good God - NO WAY.
HowieInTheUK 1 year ago
lol Dawkins clearly has McGrath beat and McGrath is just going in circles making no sence lol.
McGrath looks like Bruce Willis lol.
glassfish88 1 year ago
One day God will transform you into a Fog for being silly and naive.
FiveSences 1 year ago
Materialist Scientism, of which, "Communism is the culminating hubris of the Promethean man who reaches out for the world and means to remake creation. It is scientism gone political." (The Conservative Intellectual Movement, pp. 251-252)
moob744 2 years ago
Do you expect anyone to take this source of your quotation at all seriously moob? Communism is a perversion and pretence at scientific thinking, it is bad politics/economics/philosophy dressed up as logic. In this it is not at all unlike Religion.
HowieInTheUK 2 years ago
O.K, you got me there! I CONFESS! like anyone else I compile data/quotes to augment my own argument/position, it was fun while it lasted, and now-nothing left for me to do but gracefully accept defeat from a superior intellect.(bows LOW)
moob744 2 years ago
Cheers moob..
Your willingness to look at someone else's arguments and see the possibility that you just might be on the wrong track is the mark of having a real scientific outlook.
My congratulations to you.
HowieInTheUK 2 years ago
Although modern science is one of the great legacies of the Enlightenment, it is a mistake to reduce the Enlightenment to science. This is especially true at a time when science itself is often invoked as a source of authority that is beyond question, rather than an open-ended endeavour based on radical scepticism. (Dolan Cummings)
moob744 2 years ago
Science was NOT a legacy of the Enlightenment, it was the INSTIGATOR and SOURCE of the Enlightenment. The "enlightened" concept of critical thinking was first the product of the Scientific Method, the concept of an ordered universe which is explianable by reason was the product of early scientists such as Newton, Galilio, Bacon, Gilbert etc. The possibilities that our human world could also be rationally explained, was later expanded in the Enlightenment to include politics, ethics, etc
HowieInTheUK 2 years ago
SCIENCE "instigated" nothing! Individuals,Human Beings,some of Faith,others not used Scientific Methods. Critical thinking has always existed,even amongst the Religious.IF we owe a debt to the Enlightenment it is one which the Founders in the U.S.A.formulated into their Constitution,thereby protecting the right and FREEDOM for INDIVIDUALS to choose and decide their beliefs.
moob744 2 years ago
"Critical thinking has always existed"
What you call critical thinking is only Logic. Logic can work from ANY premise, no matter how absurd or unreal. The Scientific Method was the first systematic approach to make logic work from observable reality, the first systematic way to test premise for reality. Science indeed led to the Enlightenment.
And the Founders of the USA were indeed men of the Enlightenment, as you say. They were secularists, mostly Agnostic or Atheistic, a few Deist.
HowieInTheUK 2 years ago
Very good video, well put.
consciousmess 2 years ago
could of picked better pictures of them
shilelea 2 years ago
Yes, perhaps chosen a still of McGrath where he isn't looks equally as serious as Dawkins picture!
moob744 2 years ago
McGrath just wants to sell books. Its all about marketing and knowingly that his position would sell many more books and dvds than staying atheists. Believers want to see a former atheist see the light and will pay for this. In there eyes, this is a miracle made by God. God has shown him the light. But we know that marketing 101, find a group of buyers and sell them what they want to hear!
robertgmg 2 years ago
The world and the universe made themselves on their own, and out of nowhere yea that's very rational.
jouc12 3 years ago
The universe started with a intensely dense/hot singularity in a big bang. Sure it's weird, but there is a ton of scientific evidence to show that's exactly how it happened. Just because something is hard to understand or weird doesn't mean it's not rational if measurable evidence supports it. There is no evidence whatsoever that any creation myth can provide an alternative explanation with measurable evidence and show that instead it all started with Marduk, Thor, Coeus, JoMulJu etc etc
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
And what exactly was hot? and from where did this hot singularity came from?
jouc12 3 years ago
It came from nothing, an initial zero that split into balanced matter and antimatter particle components whose perfect balance was not maintained too long after the big bang.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
0+0=0 just testing my kindergarten math.
jouc12 3 years ago
0+0=0
Almost.. Its 0=M+A where A=-M
Of course you may wish to ignore the scientific data that exists for this and choose to put your FAITH in any creation myth.
How about the one: Everything started when Uranus insisted that Gaia (Mother Earth) keep any children locked up within the bowels of Mother Earth which made Gaia unhappy so she made a new metal into a sickle, which she gave to Cronus (her son) who sprang up and attacked and castrated father Uranus. And so that's how we got here.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
Or how about this one...
Six thousand years ago Yahweh decided to create the human race, which was made to look like him. It all went a bit wrong so he decided to come down to earth and impregnated a virgin so that he, himself could be born as a human. He was then killed, turned into a ghost who is still one and the same as Yahweh and Yahweh's son. All three gods are eaten by many of Yahweh's worshipers in the form of a biscuit.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
creation myth? evolution also happens to be a myth. the only difference is that its followers claim its actually science. Not only we live in an impossible universe but also we live in a world where everything just makes itself on its own. Its so cute how things just fall into the right place on their own.
jouc12 3 years ago
"Its so cute how things just fall into the right place on their own."
Not so suprising.... if it hadn't "fallen into place" we wouldn't be here to comment on the matter, and as it really HAS "fallen into place" what's the big deal?
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
ps.... anything that is supported by observable reality is NOT a myth.. that's the difference between science and faith
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
"we wouldn't be here" that's a poor argument. I can say the same thing, we wouldn't be here without God making us. A big difference is that since life and the universe exhibit a great deal of purpose and intelligence creation is the rational answer not dumb luck.
jouc12 3 years ago
There is no purpose whatsoever, there are just things... matter , most non-living with a tiny bit of it living. Anything living has two objectives- to survive and to reproduce... otherwise it would not be life. But bjective and "purpose are different things entirely. And it is absurd to suggest this system to the product of intelligence, , for nothing prior could have created the intellegence. Things must arise out of simplicity....
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
"Things must arise out of simplicity" that's an old outdated argument. there was never any simplicity. what we see is incredibly complex machinery in the supposed simple life forms. You can't get simpler than a cell and yet their complexity and purpose are astonishing.
jouc12 3 years ago
There was indeed ONLY simplicity at the moment of the big bang.. elementary atomic particles, that's it ...then, just the simplest atom - hydrogen. Everything now in the universe started from that point..elements, stars, planets etc... then replicating chemicals. Darwinian evolution explains the complexity, history, and variation of all life. All this has been comprehensively proven by Science. NOTHING that you have said has any basis in observable reality. YOUR world is pure myth.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
really? from where did hydrogen came from? its so easy to make claims without proving them. "All this has been comprehensively proven by Science" how did the first cell formed? theory is not fact btw. A sparkle in water is not going to create the machinery found in cells, they have specific purpose for specific task's. how in the world is a sparkle going to do that?
jouc12 3 years ago
"where did hydrogen came from?"
From a singularity, remember...
"How did first cell from?"
Cooperative association of bacterial sub-elements evolving into unitary element over time
Keep asking... even if there isn't an answer at this MOMENT of time from Science, it doesn't mean that you can claim that MAGIC must then be the answer
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
whether you like it or not is either one or the other.
If one is not possible then the other becomes a fact.
jouc12 3 years ago
What an incredibly silly thing to say.
If something isn't known today it can become known tomorrow, or the day after. The alternative to any unknown today is never a certainty about magical causes. Or perhaps you still believe that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
Silly? saying the impossible is impossible is silly? OK know it all, you're a great teacher.
jouc12 3 years ago
I disagree, but thank you for your opinion on the subject. You are right about one thing though, Atheist feel they have to rationalize and be logical about everything, but what theist understand is that theres no possible way to get inside the head of God. I don't care if your the smartest man on earth.
GoogleVideoMan 3 years ago
If youre saying that faith is the only basis to hold on to religion - and that reason and religion are incompatible, I couldnt agree more. Id go further by saying that your claim that theres no possible way to get inside the head of God is just a lame excuse to cover up the total preposterousness in the conflicting ideas about the nature and the behaviour of god. Its a cop-out to try to escape from the irrationality of god, and the rationality of the conclusion that god doesnt exist.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
Inexplicably, you left out what was far and away the best part.
Before giving his... response, Mcgrath palpably squirms, and in a tone of transparently feigned innocence, asks the camera crew if perhaps they'd like to move on (as though it were they who might be impatient to do so) since, as he claims, he's really already answered the question.
Dawkins *very* politely replies, "Well, *have* you?"
It's really quite delicious, and it's in my favorites if anyone should wish to see it.
polymath7 3 years ago
On an aside, I must mildly dissent with your observation that Mc Grath is arrogant. Perhaps I've simply misread your use of this word, but it seems patently obvious to me that MacGrath is quite visibly diffident and and intimidated by Dawkins throughout this discussion.
I heartily agree with all else you say in this video. Were I to offer a two-word assessment of McGrath (and for that matter absolutely every other religious apologist known to me), it would be "inversely persuasive".
polymath7 3 years ago
Hmmm.. to me McGrath is a really strange mix. On the one hand he's absolutely certain that he's utterly right in everything he says (hence the arrogance) and on the other hand he seems to feel that the way for a proper Christian to behave is to be cloyingly humble and meek. The combined effect is quite nauseating. I couldnt however bring myself to include his attempts to squirm away from Dawkins logic at the very end, perhaps out of some sort of latent sympathy I have for dumb creatures.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
I must thank you polymath for the Stanford University lectures you post on your channel, which themselves link on to a wider range of such excellent courses/lectures. I had no idea that such material was around for public consumption... one of the wonders and benefits of the internet age I guess.....
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
I can only speak for myself but my own atheism came simply from the fact that I could not for one second believe any of the religious ideas and every bit of research I have done into theology just reinforces this opinion.
Science just seems to embrace truth and honest inquiry were as religion does not.
DaveODrisc 3 years ago
Nice bro, when you don't undersatnd something just mock it, good tactic! The dawkin dupes love to take a page out of his book on this one. The fact is that atheism demands more faith in its mythology than what even the weirdest religions would demand even the one that believes in a flying speghetti monster or invisible pink unicorns.
emopeacekid 3 years ago
You would love to classify atheism as "faith" because you know just how very weak any faith based belief system really is, including your own. But atheism is NOT faith, it is a logical conclusion that religion is fabricated nonsense; atheism is based on the same sort of evidence based rationality that constitutes science.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
OK bro, peace!
emopeacekid 3 years ago
Cheers...
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
How come it is bro that everyone from the UK is super smart. I am an american and it seems that anyone who comes from the UK whether they be christian or atheist or whatever they have incredible knowledge and combined with their accents they sound like super smart aliens or something. Is everyone like that where you come from or what?
emopeacekid 3 years ago
Well, they're just like us.. some smart, some average, some pretty thick. But yes, there is something special about what they seem to be able to achieve. They've invented so much, discovered so much, done so much in music and art.. it's really amazing for such a tiny country. I think it's their education system, and also they seem to have a special love of books/reading. I really admire them, same as you do. But the British, they seem to admire us Americans, the same way we admire them
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
Oh, I thought you were British bro. Tell them that this american thinks that Brits are awesome. They are the perfect balance in my view. They are not assholes like so many warmongering americans over here but they are not pussies like so many on the rest of their continent. Their empire, while not perfect helped most of their colonies. Only the US and Canada did better after they left.They were also in both world wars while we just came in on their coutails and they help us in terror with reason
emopeacekid 3 years ago
Well we may not agree about the place of religion in the world, but we surely do agree on the place of the British. I do hope you have a chance to have a holiday over here sometime soon, there's so much to see and do. Be assured that stories about Americans being disliked in Britain these days are totally untrue. And with global warming, even the weather over here isn't all that bad!
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
My descendants are originally from scotland so I plan to visit hopefully in the next two years. I have never been before so I am looking forward to it. Cheers back at ya HowieintheUK!
emopeacekid 3 years ago
The British really do like the Americans(apart from a small minded minority)and this tends to be self evident from the way we embrace your culture etc.
The bottom line is we are allies and apart from some well natured piss taking(mockery)I think we in general have a mutual respect!
DaveODrisc 3 years ago
I disagree bro, I think it is we in the US who embrace your culture. If you look even at the US origin, what are we? the rebellious offspring of GB. Although I disagree with Dawkins, Hitchens (I am a xian) they are smart SOB's and the pimp sounding accent makes them sound awesome. I also find the Brits to be way more moderate minded than americans, we are so extreme here in everything we do. It just seems that that little Island is like the land of the gods or something!
emopeacekid 3 years ago
Interesting point!I agree with the moderate thing but"Land of of Gods" is way too much of an ill deserved accolade!
Look I don't hate Christians I just don't agree with them.
I was raised catholic and many people that I love and respect are religious but I am not.
Viva la difference I suppose!
DaveODrisc 3 years ago
Maybe I do have a bit of a romanticize view since I have never been there but it just seems like everyone from there is frikin incredible with a quik wit and an intelligence to match. I was on a cruise a couple of years ago and a British guy was our host. He was goofing off with the audience and said "farted" in some statement with his accent. The american audience told him the "real" way to pronounce the word, he responded, "Thanks for correcting me on a language THAT WE CREATED!!"it was great
emopeacekid 3 years ago
Merry Christmas by the way!
DaveODrisc 3 years ago
Peace bra! :)
emopeacekid 3 years ago
I agree,but believe me there are many stupid and ignorant people in the UK!I think our sense of irony often sets us apart and as for education well the quality of any given persons education is usually to do with their financial/class position.
I myself was not formerly educated but I was lucky to be raised in a family environment that nurtured self teaching and critical thinking.I admire the Americans and sympathize with the fact that many have been dumbed down by religion and mainstream media.
DaveODrisc 3 years ago
The pope of atheism, Richard Dawkins. Multi author of writing books on how not to believe in something that doesn't exist. Also the gayest man ever to be alive.
djbro16 3 years ago
Thank you for this video, Howie.
I feel the same way as you.
pete6907 3 years ago
You think Mcgrath is insane? How about Dick Dawkins who believes life brought itself into existence out of non-living pond scum? Then he preaches that we as humans should be moral and do good...but why? If life evolved and we are guided by evolution and survival of the fittest why even consider abstractions such as justice, morality or even liberty? After all these where not ethics invented or even discovered by science. Based on your tactics your athiest fundementalism has been punctured.POOF!
elar4563 3 years ago
Well elar, I invite you to view my Evolutionary Mathematics videos to see EXACTLY how human morality came into being. In social animals the benefits of cooperation (reciprocation) have such a positive fitness benefit, so these behaviours end up as part of our genetic makeup. Evolution by natural selection, pure and simple. It is really so much more believable to find that these moral instincts are evolutionarily innate, rather than believe an improbable myth that some sky god put them in us.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
"..egotistical arrogance" LOL. you're talking about McGrath and NOT dawkins??
Prof dawkins: "Just because something appears designed does not necessarily MEAN that it is designed".
"Belief in God is potentially dangerous"
.. but then so are cars. So chill out prof D and stick with evo-biology.
grahburns777 3 years ago
"'Belief in God is potentially dangerous'
.. but then so are cars."
True, but then car driving manuals and traffic codes don't tell you that it's ok to murder other drivers if you believe that a particular brand of car is the better drive....
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
True... anyone that tells you to murder other peolpe because they don't believe in the same thing as you is a nutter. Thats different to saying that belief in God in and of itself is dangerous. Thats an individuals choice to murder. And by the way, we had a guy murdered in sydney in a road rage incident a few weeks ago. So was the car the problem? Or the driver? Try and answer that for me honestly.
grahburns777 3 years ago
Well it's not people, it's the BIBLE that tells you to murder:
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
I could go on all day if YouTube didn't limit text to 500 chars
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
Now heres a great favourite of mine ..where God inflicts death by cannibalism..
Ezekiel 5:8-10 (KJV)Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations.And I will do in thee that which I have not done, and whereunto I will not do any more the like, because of all thine abominations.Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers..etc
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
or.. if it's just numbers of the slain per hour that impresses you .. how about 185,000 in one night:
Kings 19:35
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
you're stuck in the OT mate. check out hebrews 8:13 ; ) I don't understand 3000 yr old jewish traditions. it was a wild tribal, neolithic world. but then... I dont' have to understand it. Jesus said "a new command I give to you. Love one another as i have loved you". (hint: no bombs involved there ; ) John 13:34 All that stuff is finished. Do you think Jesus and the disciples killed people? and btw. have you read about the assyrian war machine in thos days?? LOL. made hitler look like a kitty
grahburns777 3 years ago
"and btw. have you read about the assyrian war machine in thos days??"
Well..why did God have to kill the Assyrians? Wouldn't it have been a lot nicer to just turn them into nice peaceful people instead? And what a terrible example God sets for we humans.. no wonder religious people are so bloodthursty. And if Jesus had to correct his Fathers bad behaviour, what does this say of god? And isn't Jesus and the Father one and the same, so it was Jesus that did all this killing?
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
...or maybe you're saying that God got it all wrong for 2000 years of old testement time, killed all those people by mistake and then said "whoops" and came down as Jesus to say he got it all wrong? But didn't Jesus say that every word of the old testement had to be exactly followed? I can quote chapter and verse if necessary..
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
"Wouldn't it have been a lot nicer to just turn them into nice peaceful people instead? "
and all live happily ever after. and have a cup of tea! oh oh and crumpets (with syrup mmmmmm) I'm sorry the bible isn't what you want it to be. "But didn't Jesus say that every word of the old testement had to be exactly followed" No.. he said the law must be fullfilled. ie sacrafice for sins which he himself became. No killing from Jesus. I think you've had a bad experience with Christians. Sorry.
grahburns777 3 years ago
WRONG
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law" (Matthew 5:17 NAB) "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
I think you've had a bad experience with Christians. Sorry."
It is me who really feels sorry for YOU. You live in a world of primitive myth, a life manipulated by religious institutions and dogma, which leads you to endless conflict, unreason and stupidity.
If you are brave enough read "Godless" by Dan Barker, a Christian preacher who was once exactly like you are. Maybe it can help you see yourself.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
Programming assumes a programmer.
There is no such thing. Natural causal effect shapes everything. One cannot take credit for what natural forces do.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
I was joking lol.
itsabomberscope 3 years ago
"I was joking lol."
Yes.
In this I was not:
One cannot take credit for what natural forces do.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
Yes, I'm sure I saw that phrase on a T-shirt somewhere. The person wearing it a had large beard and certainly looked the "programmer" type. Probably a UNIX nerd.
itsabomberscope 3 years ago
McGrath a pompous fool? He patiently and politely replied to Dawkins, as did Dawkins to McGrath. Surely people think what they think is correct, and so in a sense "they are right", but don't mistake this with pomposity. Alot of hings McGrath is, and perhaps as an apologist he is not the best, but pomposity is the last thing I would ever expect someone to accuse him off...
BTW - The Problem of Evil has a rich literature about it that is much more interesting than this discussion.
alkasalzer 3 years ago
Hmmm, he appears pretty damn pompous to me, but perhaps as you say, pomposity is in the eye of the beholder. But McGrath is certainly a fool, exactly which sort of fool, pompous or not, I leave to the viewer. As for his being an apologist, I would say he is about as competent as anyone else who attempts to marry rationality with religion, that is - he utterly fails in the task. Perhaps the pomposity we see is in the fact that he can talk such nonsense and still keep a straight face...
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
"The Problem of Evil has a rich literature"...
Indeed it has, and all of it sounds just as lame as McGrath does in explaining evil. Fallen worlds, best of all possible worlds, heavenly paybacks, beauty in suffering.. all so farfetched, convoluted, and illogical. Dawkins is exactly right when he states in this clip that "the world behaves EXACTLY as one would expect it to if there were NO god, NO guiding spirit"
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
sorry this video sucks. The McGrath claims are rational.
redheadfo847 3 years ago
Howie. I will give you an example. When Francis Crick was asked about the beginning of DNA, he had no answer...maybe a spaceship had to enter our universe and drop this "seed" from which we evolved. Howie, science is extremely useful to understand the laws of the universe, the laws of the body, and the principles of interactions between us. You might not agree(sure!)but science was not intended to define the origin of the Universe, but intelligent design is not inconsitent with science.
robvello 3 years ago
"but science was not intended to define the origin of the Universe"
Of course it is, this is a PURELY scientific question. The universe developed as a material entity through the laws of chemistry and physics, and life evolved through the processes of evolution through natural selection acting upon matter. There is no need for a "designer", a concept that is in fact both self-contradictory and vastly more improbable than any other possible explanation
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
"There is no need for a "designer", a concept that is in fact both self-contradictory and vastly more improbable than any other possible explanation"
:)
The same can be said for any action we take.
There is no actual proof of a ghost in the machine.
What science finds is energy in various states of excitation in complex interactions.
Nothing more. "behavior" is simply causal effect. Simply natural forces at work from start to finish. Nothing else.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"What science finds is energy in various states of excitation in complex interactions."
Well taters, I suppose that since you've already proven that you don't know anything about philosophy, you just might as well go on to prove that you don't know anything about physics..
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
LOL, What is to know about philosophy. It is all subjective. Everyone has one.
Physics on the other hand is not. Everything is energy in various states of excitation in complex interactions. That is an established fact. Everything we know is made of energy, in the form of matter or radiation (states of excitation)
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
The two views are simply subjective and relative to an accepted premise.
Neither can be denounced as wrong. It's like arguing over how one views a painting.
One person says they are moved by paint on canvas. That it speaks to them. The other looks at it and says: what are you talking about? It's just paint on canvas? Show me proof there is something more and I will believe you.
The only difference is we are living in the painting.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"The only difference is we are living in the painting"
And exactly what makes you feel that YOU are the arbiter of what is subjective and what is non-subjective phenomenon? Particularly when you avoid dealing with evidence. You seem to think that repeating an unfounded assertion over and over is what does the trick. Sorry mate, you'll never convince any rational person of what you say if you go on in this way.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
To HowieintheUK. Pretty amazing! Pompous statements!You have not answered the most fundamental question on the initial personal element of life which has to be self existant. (You don't want the God who revealed Himself for something else): Totally illogical! McGrath has studied both science and theology. Dawkins is a scientist with no theological basis. A study of science is a humiliating experience for anybody with sanity. With the scientific breakthrough, we understand how we do not know!
robvello 3 years ago
wow - I'm shocked at this guy's read of McGrath. Just doesn't get it -- obviously won't see any truth to what McGrath sees because he's a Dawkinsite to the core.
And, the sarcasm is just something that is common with atheists.
Dawkins also doesn't show an understanding of God's purpose (biblically speaking)
sonomaaaa 3 years ago
oh f--- i feel so shy for McGrath
daughtry4eva 3 years ago
Yep .. you could almost feel sorry for the poor sod if it wern't for that nauseating pomposity of his....
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
Nothing special here. Has absolutely no reflection on either party. They both have their own biased views.
Dawkins has no leg to stand on. Reason is not science. That is why there are several schools of thought in philosophy. Reason does not give a clear answer. Reason is relative to a given perspective that must be believed. that makes it subjective.
Dawkins God argument actually renders all subjective ideas delusion and is therefore in a practical sense meaningless.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
What you are attempting to express here is that LOGIC can be employed upon any base premises (no matter how preposterous these premises are) to produce some form of "logical conclusions". Then you attempt to say that such conclusions are as valid as scientific conclusions. But this is NOT rationality. Rationality requires that the process is not only logical, but that all premises are consistent with one another and the conclusions consistent with observation. McGrath fails on these counts.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
McGrath is irrelevant to the point. Rationality is not science. Rationality is relative to the tenet/belief. There is nothing factual about the process other that that it is relative to the perspective. Logic is irrelevant. We are talking subjective relativity here. it's what human social activity operates on.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"Rationality is relative to the tenet/belief...Logic is irrelevant "
Relativistic mumbo jumbo. The last refuge of someone who desperately tries to show that their opponents' position might possibly be just as poor as the one supporting their own argument. Unfortunately for them reality is an absolute, which is both observable and testable.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
"Unfortunately for them reality is an absolute, which is both observable and testable."
Really. Prove that you love someone. Prove that something is beautiful. Prove that anything social is right or wrong. Prove that any law in place anywhere is "justified"
Prove the existence of the quality "justified"
I could go on for hours.
Social reality is absolute alright. Absolutely relative and subjective. Now get to work and prove those things exist.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
No, no,no. You are mixing up certain conceptual cultural constructs (e.g. beauty) with real material phenomenon and trying to make them equivalent to one another. They are not. That is also McGrath's problem; he makes the assumption that God is a real and active agent in natural phenomenon and then gets decimated by the rational consequences that follow.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
And.. even if something is a cultural construct doesn't mean its existence and measure is TOTALLY subjective. If I am in love, such a state is observable and testable. We can test whether a social rule is optimal against social criteria by using Game Theory. I can't understand why you Relativists are so bloody anxious to prove that your own view is just as shitty as everybody else's.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
"If I am in love, such a state is observable and testable."
If a person has a spiritual experience such a state is observable and testable.
"We can test whether a social rule is optimal against social criteria by using Game Theory."
Optimal only for a subjective outcome. Optimal being the subjective factor regarding another subjective phenomenon. "Optimal" requires that
an outcome be desirable. This is subjective and relative.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"he makes the assumption that God is a real and active agent in natural phenomenon"
You mean like love, beauty,laws,morals,Or any idea that is subjective where the only evidence is becaus we believe. McGrath is irrelevant. Your suggesting that conceptual constructs are not real. Your argument does not follow. If ideas and concepts were not real they could have no affect in the real world. Recorded history is evidence to the contrary. Ideas change the world on a daily basis.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
".. the only evidence is becaus we believe."
If I build a temple to Zeus, it doesn't mean that Zeus exists. And claiming Zeus exists as a spirit (a social belief) is quite different than claiming that Zeus created the world and is an active agent in it (a social belief and a scientific claim).The first statement is difficult to falsify but uninteresting from a scientific point of view; the second impinges on the nature of the physical world and must be tested against alternative hypothesis
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
If I build a temple to Zeus, it doesn't mean that Zeus exists.
If you do something because of love it does not mean love exists. If you subscribe to a law or a sense of morality and act accordingly it speaks nothing of their existence but rather your subjective belief in the idea.
It is the subjective turtle upon who's back all societies ride. You are nothing without it.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"If you subscribe to a law or a sense of morality and act accordingly it speaks nothing of their existence but rather your subjective belief in the idea."
No, we have a genetically evolved value system that ACTUALLY exists and influences us. See my Math series part 5
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
"No, we have a genetically evolved value system that ACTUALLY exists and influences us. See my Math series part 5" Provide links to evidence of such a thing as "value" Science recognizes casual effect. "value" is subjective. You are talking superstitious nonsense.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"Provide links to evidence of such a thing as "value".... "value" is subjective. You are talking superstitious nonsense."
Superstitious?.. moi?
The basis of human morality is in evolved behaviours which are suitable adaptations necessary for our functioning within social groups. All social animals have such adaptations, our own species being of course most sophisticated. The "Golden Rule" is an evolutionary strategy. Reading..I suggest "The Evolution of Co-operation" by Axelrod as a primer.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
"The basis of human morality is in evolved behaviours which are suitable adaptations necessary for our functioning within social groups"
Let me correct you with a little reason.
Human causal behavior evolved.
Morality is a subjective/relative quality imposed on simple casual behavior that in fact does not exist.
It's like looking at a painting and declaring it beautiful. NO science involve there.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"Let me correct you with a little reason. Human causal behavior evolved. Morality is a subjective/relative quality imposed on simple casual behavior that in fact does not exist."
Causal behaviour evolved, but it does not exist? You are very bad at syllogisms my friend. No wonder you hide in the obscurantism of relativistic gobbledygook.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
It is Evolution that has established the basis of morality. These behaviours (strategies) are the ones adopted through natural selection in social animals because they are the ones that maximise the fitness within a social unit. This (genetically) creates an innate sense of what is "the right thing to do", say - in the feeling of the "rightness" of the Golden Rule. Of course these behaviours become very complex, but the basis of moral behaviour is far from subjective.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
Evolution has nothing to do with imaginary notions of morality. Evolution is evident in fossil record. Morality is not.
"fitness" of a social unit is subjective. "right and wrong" do not exist.
"but the basis of moral behaviour is far from subjective."
Causal effect is factual. Morality is not. We do not discuss the action of a river or any other casual effect in nature, scientifically in terms of morality. That is nonsense.
Everything we are is the forces of nature at work. Nothing more.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
Causal effect is not morality. Morality is a subjective idea we impose on causal effects. Causal effects are physical and testable.
Their "morallness" is not.
I can understand It's hard when you first face how little of what we are is factual. It doesn't leave one much to work with.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"I can understand It's hard when you first face how little of what we are is factual."
You say this because it is YOU who can't face the facts - the implications of scientific rationality. All your relativism and all your subjectivity is nothing but a smokescreen to shield you from, what is to you, an uncomfortable reality.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
Honestly, there's nothing unpleasant about the realisation that an innate basis of morality arises out of evolved social strategies. Indeed, it is most reassuring that morality does arise from our very nature as social animals, rather than some absurd and unbelievable story that some sky god wants us to behave that way.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
"Honestly, there's nothing unpleasant about the realisation that an innate basis of morality arises out of evolved social strategies. Indeed, it is most reassuring that morality does arise from our very nature as social animals, rather than some absurd and unbelievable story that some sky god wants us to behave that way."
As I said, Identify morality. Demonstrate it.
Prove it. It will be like proving beauty.
A causal effect is a casual effect. It has no "moralness".
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"As I said, identify morality..." sheesh, No one is claiming that morality or beauty actually exists--like some substance that can be contained. What has evolved, as Howie has said, is our system or social strategy for interacting with each other in a way that we can describe as 'moral'. Its testable, its observable, there actually IS possible evidence for it in the fossil record (Neanderthal that lived to 40 despite debilitating injuries who, without the help of kin, quite likely wouldn't have)
banjofiddlee 3 years ago
The system of interacting changed relative to stimuli. There is nothing moral about it.
There is no difference between morality and beauty. We can describe an endless stream of things with these two subjective, relative terms. these imaginary terms can not be measured. human degree of belief in them can by % of population just as deities, religions, or any other subjecitve notion.
Belief can be measured.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
You can go on ad nauseum (and I suspect you will)describing how mercilessly subjective our individual, insular little worlds all are but ultimately it is only testament to your own lazy thinking; the philosopher Robert Solomon said: "We might have a powerful insight or mystical vision; we might be suddenly inspired or emotionally moved. But what we say and believe nevertheless requires something more: It requires REASONS". You glibly play with words but there are reasons we behave 'morally'
banjofiddlee 3 years ago
"You can go on ad nauseum"
I simply state the facts of science.
We might have a powerful insight or mystical vision; we might be suddenly inspired or emotionally moved. But what we say and believe nevertheless requires something more: It requires REASONS".
Yes, Natural physical forces. The reason for causal effect. Physics has explained this.
Morality has nothing to do with it. That is our imagination.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"I simply state the facts of science" So sayest the esteemed Dr. T.B. Taters who further concludes that the word 'morality' should forthwith be stricken from the lexicon since it is applicable to absolutely nothing and should, in fact, never have been invented.
banjofiddlee 3 years ago
"should forthwith be stricken from the lexicon since it is applicable to absolutely nothing and should, in fact, never have been invented."
People are welcome to have whatever fantasies they wish. I don't begrudge people their beliefs. As long as they don't force their nonsense on me.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"People are welcome to have whatever fantasies..." Well I can whole-heartedly agree with that. By all means, make more such posts with clearly worded points. The obfuscation you indulged in earlier seems silly.
banjofiddlee 3 years ago
Correct.
"No one is claiming that morality or beauty actually exists-"
Yes, of course. They do not. They are fantasies like deities and any other subjective notion.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"the implications of scientific rationality."
Science and rationality are two very different things.
One can rationalize anything. Science demands facts, evidence, Proof.
We are merely natural forces at work. Energy in various states of excitation in complex causal interactions. We can be no more moral than any other chemical process. The notion is just as solid as any deity. Subjective and relative.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
Appalled! How can someone who study science (Dawk), and participates in scientific breakthrough cannot bow down in the face of progressive discovery of our own ignorance in the face of the amazing complexity and order of the Universe and the human body(Just examples).Science becomes unscientific when it starts speaking of God and faith. Even the laws of science defy the conclusions of evolutionists!Who is illogical? Logic to pride myself of my genius and not believe in an essential originator?
robvello 3 years ago
..as for your claims that ideas affect the real world...no, ideas influence humans and then in turn humans affect the physical world. It's not the same thing. I suggest you read a bit more Dawkins, this time on the subject of memes.
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
"as for your claims that ideas affect the real world...no, ideas influence humans and then in turn humans affect the physical world. It's not the same thing."
Ideas influence humans. So ideas come from somewhere else? So everything ever invented is magical ideas that influence humans. I think we should discuss your God delusion.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
You should have just called this "I don't like Allister McGrath." You're current title gave me the misconception that you actually had something to say about his argument and not just that you think he's crazy.
JohnAndRadChris 3 years ago
No, McGrath is not crazy -I never said that. It seems that if one person singularly holds a set of totally irrational and preposterous ideas that there are spirits that control his everyday life and his existence he is crazy, but if a very large number of individuals collectivly hold such ideas, they are merely just members of a religion. I only accuse McGrath of being irrational... and boring...
HowieInTheUK 3 years ago
thanks for the video
daughtry4eva 3 years ago
I watched about a minute of this video.
It belongs on Jerry Springer.
Alister Mcgrath is a very intelligent man by anyones standard. I'm wasting a bit of my time responding to such but.
realingintheyears 4 years ago
Yeah 'heaven forbid' you should watch the whole thing...you might risk actually learning something eh? Go watch some more Springer.
banjofiddlee 4 years ago
well said
daughtry4eva 3 years ago
It is a scary thing to me individually the way Athiests are now rising up in a fundemental way. Yes I have had a few challenges of my faith yet from those emerged alive, thank goodness.
Brightstar27 4 years ago
"Yes I have had a few challenges of my faith yet from those emerged alive, thank goodness."
Congratulations Brightstar..
Resisting the "challenges" of reason, science, history, ethics, philosophy, and even just ordinary common sense to support your personal superstitions must have taken a considerable effort of will....
HowieInTheUK 4 years ago
I believe very strongly that real Science, recorded History properly looked at and good Philosophy are the most considerable help and benefit to someone of faith. Mr Alister McGrath is a shining example in the highest degreee and I can already see the pourpose God has for him.
Brightstar27 4 years ago
A considerable effort of will to believe such things you say? I have heard that line before. No, not really. You see, I first believed at the age of 12, and yet, my family ius not a religious one. Yet again, I do not go to a catholic etc religious school nor was I a Church goer at the time. Fantastic decision.
Brightstar27 4 years ago
"You see, I first believed at the age of 12, and yet, my family is not a religious one."
What you're saying then is that if your family didn't believe in leprechauns, but then you started to believe in them when you were 12 this is supposedly some sort of positive achievement?
HowieInTheUK 4 years ago
Ooops! You've been editing down this interview to serve your own line of argument, haven't you? Things look a bit cut out. You're also making bizarre claims about McGrath 'failing to respond' to Dawkin's logic. Where'd you get that from? You've just posted this video to insult Christians and try to make yourself look clever, while not contributing to the debate. Would like to see you last for one second against McGrath.
christopherfrost 4 years ago
>>"You've been editing down this interview..."
I've already posted the address of McGrath's FULL interview for those with a higher boredom tolerance >"..You're making bizarre claims"
No, I merely leave it to McGrath to damn himself with his own words
>"You've just posted this video to insult Christians.."
I would be more than happy to insult ANY other religion that pretends to be "logical" if you wish Chris...
HowieInTheUK 4 years ago
I know you've posted that address. And not only are you making bizarre claims about McGrath's performance in this interview, you're completely failing to justify them. It's clear to anyone watching the WHOLE interview that even Dawkins respects McGrath as an intellectual heavyweight, even though they disagree on certain points. The whole interview is respectful, constructive, acute and fascinating. Virtues your response severely lacks. As for 'pompous' (!)...listen to your own video again!
christopherfrost 4 years ago
Dawkins always showns courtesy, even to nutters such as Keenan Roberts. Dawkins OPINION of McGrath was famously expressed when he likened McGrath to an intellectual "flea". Dawkins has commented on McGrath's arrogance. In The Times(UK) Dawkins states "whereas I and other scientists are humble enough to say we don't know, what of theologians like McGrath? He knows." Dawkins goes on to state that McGrath "lacks humility", an opinion that most YouTubers viewing this video would heartily concur.
HowieInTheUK 4 years ago
As for my own strong comments on McGrath, all I can say is that being American, and not having Dawkins British reserve, I tend to call a spade a spade.
HowieInTheUK 4 years ago
You could say exactly the same thing of Dawkins, probably even more so. And don't forget, Dawkins is very threatened by McGrath - a scientist just as qualified as himself, who's written virtually watertight and internationally acclaimed (by the Director of the Human Genome Project for example) critiques of his works. No wonder he resorts to simple, unjustified insults of his intellect - exactly like you have with this video.
christopherfrost 4 years ago
McGrath has academic qualifications in science, but he is not a scientist. His achievements in science compared to Dawkins are quite miniscule. However, this is not what matters. To BE a scientist you must have a total commitment to intellectual honesty ... and rationality and evidence must be the measure of what you accept as true, even if you don't "like" the conclusions that the evidence and logic points to. Dawkins is a shining example of the scientific mind and McGrath a total charlatan.
HowieInTheUK 4 years ago
Alistair McGrath has a PhD in molecular biophysics, putting him easily on the same level as Dawkins - a fact you would well know if you'd studied any of his works. Just because he hasn't spewed out as many controversial (therefore best selling) books as Dawkins doesn't mean he's acheived anything less - McGrath's contribution to scientific debate on this subject is phenomenal. To say someone isn't a scientist because he believes science came from God is not a logically tenable position.
christopherfrost 4 years ago
I will not be drawn in debate on the academic or research qualifications of McGrath vs. Dawkins (although I could win hands-down on both these points). The real issue is McGrath's so-called "contribution to scientific debate" as you put it. In this he has proven himself an utter fool. He lacks the intellectual honesty that is the prerequisite of a scientific mind and his view of nature conflicts with most laws of science, while his "logic" is a hodgepodge of mutually contradictory premise
HowieInTheUK 4 years ago
I particularly chose this video confrontation between McGrath and Dawkins to illustrate just how flawed and foolish McGrath's "method" and "logic" are when faced down by a real scientist. With that I leave it to the viewers here on YouTube to pass their own judgement of McGrath's right and qualification to speak for Science.
HowieInTheUK 4 years ago
Okay, 'win hands down' for me then! I'd be disappointed by atheist discourses, represented by yourself, if you're running away from a debate! In the interests of debate, just JUSTIFY what you're saying! This really illustrates what I'm getting at. You bizarrely accuse McGrath of going on everything by faith during the interview, and not arguing rationally. But you're unable to justify this claim properly yourself! You just go on about how pompous he is.You're simply 'arguing by faith' yourself.
christopherfrost 4 years ago
I'm not the only one here who thinks that you are, ironically, failing to back up your claims that McGrath scientifically fails to back up his claims...despite your 9 minute video mostly just slagging him off. I have not seen a SINGLE atheist bit of feedback or response which strongly attacks McGrath in this interview, which actually justifies its claims without slipping into insults instead of opening up REAL discourses and debate. I'm gutted you're just another example.Sad, arrogant, pompous.
christopherfrost 4 years ago
My, how you bemoan the insults to McGrath, cavalierly fling insults yourself, and still somehow expect 'real discourse'. Your own strident tone (especially when accusing people of arrogance)is comical. While everyone involved may very well be 'arrogant', McGrath seems to rely on his pomposity exclusively. Dawkins's trail of logic is clear, McGrath is cornered, Howie points it out. I've seen the entire video; the edit is solely for brevity's sake, not a crime of contextual misappropriation.
banjofiddlee 4 years ago
McGrath's degree does not put him 'easily on the same level as Dawkins' if we're talking science. Scientists are not defined by the degrees they hold but rather the actual scientific work they do. McGrath earned a degree but has devoted himself to a primarily theological output since. Though he is perhaps more qualified than some to discuss/debate scientific conundrums his true ranking cannot be said to match Dawkins by any measure.
banjofiddlee 4 years ago
What insults do I fling about? I've pointed out simple facts. Sorry if I seemed heated,but asking for a basic justification of someone's position is all I'm doing. This is debate. And as to your second post,it works both ways: at least McGrath actually knows complex theology and brings it to the debate,unlike Dawkins who works purely on science. Yes,scientific fact and evidence are essential to any faith, but you MUST know theology before you wade into religious debate as much as Dawkins does.
christopherfrost 4 years ago
Re-read your posts--you fling the very same insults that you admonish Howie for flinging as though that constitutes a valid rebuke. You also miss the point I think: no matter how much arrogance seems to be behind this video it still seems to capture a moment in which McGrath is caught in an apparent contradiction by way of Dawkins's logic. Dawkin's own quote can answer your final point: "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?"
banjofiddlee 4 years ago
Dawkin's leprechaun quote doesn't mean anything, is just another simplistic insult to Christians to suggest the existence of God is as likely as the existence of leprechauns (!) and therefore even basic theology isn't worth reading up on (!!). Which is seriously foolish - admitting reading nothing of theology or philosophy makes an ignorant atheist. And the names I called Howie (who needs to calm down -- McGrath and Behe 'at war with science'?! -- get serious!) meant to illustrate his hypocrisy.
christopherfrost 4 years ago
I used the quote just to lay any doubt to rest (assuming there was some) that we non-supernaturalists actually do equate the belief in fancy 'established' god(s) to beliefs in all manner of mysterious beings (even wee leprechauns)for which there is roughly equal (zero) evidence. Dawkins was being a bit cheeky with that one I'll grant you but it fit within the oppressive YouTube 500 character limit (of course now I have spent an entire post explaining it...sigh). Ah well...to be continued.
banjofiddlee 4 years ago
I honestly don't recognize the crime of hypocrisy in the presentation of this video. It would only be hypocrisy if, like McGrath, Howie was both pompous AND bereft of a defensible position. That's what I meant when I said McGrath seems to rely on his pomposity *exclusively*, which is to say--he talks like he has a solid point but ultimately I think Dawkins successfully pins him to the mat here and exposes his highly suspect, highly conditional logic. He appears to be making it up as he goes.
banjofiddlee 4 years ago
Yeah,the 500 rule is pretty tyrannical.I have to draft responses out in Word.Sad,I know.Anyway,I definitely understand your non-supernaturalist view as it's something I shared a few years ago.But what is the 'supernatural'?I think it's something beyond our /understanding/ of the natural.Therefore,I believe,the supernatural exists because our knowledge of science and the universe is not,& will never be,complete.Yeah,it's black and white with leprechauns...but there's v serious evidence for Jesus.
christopherfrost 4 years ago
"at war with science" -emotive, yet true. There's been an endless effort to limit the tendency of scientific explanation to replace religious explanation of our world. From Copernicus to Darwin and on to the present day, scientific explanation has diminished need for God to be part of that explanation of Creation. Each step has been furiously resisted by the religious establishment of it's time, including a few overtly religious academics. Behe and McGrath just continue this rearguard action
HowieInTheUK 4 years ago
Behe defends a more theist god, McGrath defends a more deist god, but what of that? Their explanations of nature BOTH conflict with science. McGrath's god violates the principals of physics, geology, chemistry and biology in "saving that one child". McGrath tries to insert the supernatural into science itself. As for the explanation of WHY an all-powerful and all-good god would save just one child while letting another 75,000 children die I will leave to the realm of philosophy..
HowieInTheUK 4 years ago
Oh, and McGrath has a PhD awarded to him from Oxford for his research into molecular biophysics. That's slightly more than a degree. And not all that many people are on the record as properly disputing his book 'Dawkins' God'. And I wonder why this interview was left out of Dawkins' series? I would still say that, while a fantastic scientist, Dawkins is certainly overpopularised in his field by his controversial books, and himself and McGrath are easily comparable scientists.
christopherfrost 4 years ago
He could have twelve different doctorates in upper-echelon academics--it still wouldn't matter a whit if he proceeded to not engage in real peer-reviewed science. The PhD isn't as much 'cred' as you think it is. In favoring theological pursuits McGrath has not kept pace with Dawkins in the realm of science (I'm not sure he pretends to)--a casual perusal of their individual bodies of work easily bears this out.
banjofiddlee 4 years ago
banjofiddlee, I see what you're getting at and definitely respect your point - Dawkins has worked a lot more recently in his field than McGrath, who has heavily branched into theology. But McGrath has retained the empirical scientific sense and expert knowledge in his field to easily dispute Dawkins' science in 'Dawkins' God' and other books. These are not easily, scientifically contested - interestingly, Dawkins doesn't even try in this interview and instead talks theology and doctrine.
christopherfrost 4 years ago
I'm not familiar with McGrath's book so I can't really comment about it except to say that I remain doubtful that Dawkins would mindfully avoid engaging his critic on the issue of whatever serious, testable challenges to his science have been published. I take Dawkins for his word when he relays, for example, the story of how his own teacher delighted in being corrected by a visiting American scholar--to illustrate how good scientists welcome better science even if it eclipses their own work.
banjofiddlee 4 years ago
Exactly! McGrath, like Behe or Dembski, is one of a small group of blindly passionate activists whose religious fervour makes them turn their backs on the basic requirements of intellectual honesty that science demands. They are actually at war with science. They wave their academic qualifications about as part of an attempt to validate and prop up their own irrational views and to dupe the credulous. Tertullian, whose intellectual honesty I can respect, would find them quite reprehensible
HowieInTheUK 4 years ago