Alister McGrath on Richard Dawkins

Prof. Alister McGrath talks to Denis Alexander about Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion and Creationism. See more at http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Multimedia.php

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• God
• Christianity
• science
• religion
• theology
• creation
• Bible
• Richard
• Dawkins
• Alister
• McGrath
• The
• Delusion
• creationism
• atheism
• biology
• faraday
• institute

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

@jerrydecaire1 Well no, but then, not as many people believe in tooth fairies I think. I should hope so, anyway :)

[anthropic1]

@jerrydecaire1 scientists like learning new things and correcting their perspective when wrong, as even Stephen Hawking did when he found a flaw in his black hole theories. If there was anything at all that even remotely proved god existed then scientific opinion would take it seriously and examine it. That is the issue, that even when Christianity is proven wrong, theists just back pedal further.

Don't let your ignorance guide you. There is evidence that man made god, not the other way around.

[jerrydecaire1]

@StateOfHead As for Deepak, I go more for Robert Lanza. Chopra is far too "guru" from the sixties for me-and though I don't agree with Shermer's materialism, I agree with his assessment of Deepak with his cosmic "flapdoodle." All the people I have mentioned are mainstream scientists except outer-fringe Dean radin who I think has been dealt a bad rap unfairly. He's been characterized as some "voodo guy" by mainstream science but science shouldn't be about popularity.

[jerrydecaire1]

@StateOfHead Okay, at least we are in agreement as to what the results show. All I am saying is that it STRONGLY suggests that somehow mind is intrinsically a player in the grand scheme of things-that mind may be tied up with matter in a way we can't comprehend at this time. I thought it would be obvious that this may be a pointer that consciousness is foundational and not just an epiphenomenon of matter-counter to bottom-up theories. Primal mind, or "GOD" is not so impossible anymore.

[anthropic1]

@jerrydecaire1 congratulations on knowing what adhominem means, you must have been dying for a chance to use it. Being a condescending ass as you are (and I just was), you really don't make people want to discuss a topic with you.

Your comment is a lazy non sequitur and quite insepid, if you can't see that then you betray yourself to the truth in my perceptions of you. I challenge you to find your own flaws before asking others to find them for you. It will improve your conversations if you do.

[StateOfHead]

@jerrydecaire1 Nothing to discredit. I agree the "findings show a conscious observer seems to cause a wave of potentials to collapse into a particle reality". Thats not new dude. But that is not what you seem to be saying (although you are not clear). It ceratinly doesn't show "consciousness being primal" or the cosmic implications of that. A massive leap with no evidence just like religions. This kind of thing has the pungent smell of Deepak Chopra nonsense.

[jerrydecaire1]

@anthropic1 I never copied and pasted anything. I can think well enough on my own but i do research these topics as do you. Unless you'd have me believe you are responsible for civilization.

As for my arguments being weak, pick one and tell me why. My arguments may indeed be weak, but this last post from you is not even an argument, just an insult-that's an adhominem attack.

[jerrydecaire1]

@anthropic1 My apologies. It's just that Dawkins uses that dodge as well-the anti-theist schtick

[jerrydecaire1]

@jerrydecaire1 I find it fascinating how the atheist boasts they go with the experiemntal evidence but when it counters their worldview, all of a sudden the science is nonsense.

[jerrydecaire1]

@StateOfHead Well, you're always welcome to try and discredit those findings that have been redone in 2002 and will be published again in 2012 with the same results-a conscious observer seems to cause a wave of potentials to collapse into a particle reality. They have tried it every way to ensure the camera or whatever was done to observe wasn't causing the collapse-everything was considered and it came up the same.