Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath Pt. 3 of 15

Conversation between Dawkins and McGrath from the Root of all Evil. This is uncut footage. Ratings and comments appreciated! Thanks!

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Richard
• Dawkins
• Alister
• McGrath
• Religion
• Atheism
• Christianity
• The
• Root
• of
• All
• Evil

[Sablicious]

As civilized a debate between a religious person and an athiest as this is, it's still goes nowhere ultimately.

All I'm hearing is: 'science doesn't prove anything 100%' Vs 'God cannot be disproved 100%'.

So unless science unlocks an empirical 'formula for everything', this kind of discourse won't solve anything.

This is the problem with 'Vs religion' debates; religion always tries to turn the impossible notion of 'absolute 100% certainty' back on science and logical thinking. Zero sum game.

[ZachRose88]

Contrast this interview to the Wendy Wright interview: it's startling.

[MCulpa]

@Sablicious

could you give me a time stamp and video, I'm having a hard time finding where mcgrath says his

[Sablicious]

@MCulpa All science versus religion debates descend into the same tit-for-tat -"science doesn't have all the answers & is being re-written all the time" ... "there is no proof of any god ever existing, ever".

All I can say is, the lack of evidence for something NOT existing is not evidence of its existence. This is erroneous logic & an idiot's mantra to live one's life by.

If all these gods wanted lemming sheep, why did they create free-thinking people?

(*keeping in mind, 'god' is infallible)

[MCulpa]

@Sablicious

Can you point out where Dr. McGrath argued as such?

[upizdown]

watching mcgrath makes my neck hurt

[IPFreely1021]

@revelation1234 And 'real' philosophers (Ayer, Moore, Russel, Hume etc) would disagree. Any argument without empirical evidence is metaphysical. (e.g.cosmlogical argument). From what you say (e.g.'its not metapysics, it's philosophy' - which is a taoutology) it seems clear that you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.

[IPFreely1021]

@revelation1234 Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy (I should say 'was') concerned with the ontology of things. Before the natural sciences developed, metaphysics concerned itself with these arguments (i.e. what is there? Why is it as it is?) Metaphysics is a form of enquiry which is simply a language game. After A.J. Ayer, Hume, Bertrand Russell etc metaphysics was ultimately reduced to nothing by their sharp analysis. The arguments that McGrath emplys are metaphysical.

[revelation1234]

@IPFreely1021 It's not "metaphysics" bro. Do your resarch , its philosophy,learn your definitions. but its w,e come back with a real argument. Your one dimensional athiest arguments are dead. Saying there's no proof will only get you so far when your dealing with a real philosopher.

[housty49]

I hope this argument continues for my lifetime because i just love it. The day we find out the real evidence will be a disapointment.

[IPFreely1021]

@hanghang71 I still don't understand your question. Are you implying god is the big bang. Because that is drastically altering the definition of god.

[hanghang71]

@dawkins says he would be happier if god somehow evolved,well that's ridiculous did the big bang evolve