Dennett vs McGrath - Part 8 of 9

This is a debate at the Royal Institution in London between philosopher Daniel C Dennett and professor of theology Alister McGrath. The debate is on the ideas presented in Dennett's book Breaking the Spell, such as the concept of the meme and the evolution of religion.
The debate is moderated by Madeleine Bunting..

Daniel Clement Dennett (born March 28, 1942 in Boston, Massachusetts) is a prominent American philosopher whose research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. He is currently the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and a University Professor at Tufts University. Dennett is also a noted atheist and advocate of the Brights movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett

Alister Edgar McGrath (born 23 January 1953) is a Christian theologian, who holds both a DPhil (in molecular biophysics) and an earned Doctor of Divinity degree from Oxford. He is noted for his work in historical, systematic and scientific theology.

In his writing and public speaking, he promotes "scientific theology" and opposes antireligionism. McGrath was until recently Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, but has now taken up the chair of Theology, Religion and Culture at King's College London since September 2008. Until 2005, he was principal of Wycliffe Hall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_McGrath

Category:

Education

Tags:

• debate
• God
• religion
• atheism
• atheist
• meme
• Christian
• Breaking
• the
• Spell
• Daniel
• Dennett
• Alister
• McGrath

[huwrj]

Dennett is stuck in a room full of strutting fools and blustering morons.

[Lahi53]

@klalkity I would say that it is generally as credible as atheism's. I wouldn't imagine that either are as credible as science's.

[nontheistdavid]

@amairaja Scientific Theology? That is an oxymoron

[judomuerte]

One of my biggest problems with self-proclaimed "former athiests" is my judgement (subjective) that it is impossible to be an athiest without knowing of the God of which you claim to not exist. If it was upon studing christianity that you converted, you can't claim to be an athiest, simply uninformed. Athiesm is the rejection of the idea that there is a God, based on (lack of) evidence. Athiesm is a choice, not a position to be temporarily held until unsubstantiated beliefs overtake you.

[danxiie]

@jamesharrel msg?

[jamesharrel]

Does anyone out there know how I can intentionally get cancer? You see, I want to study it, and test it, and possibly cure it, and I can't do that without living it, apparently, so, can someone help me? Anyone?

[amairaja]

Alister's book Scientific Theology which is a series of three fat books published by Cambridge University Press is one of the important books on the subject.

You can also see Denver Seminary's journal and check out how the prof there review others' works. Even otherwise books are published back and forth to challenge other's position. There is Counterpoints series where diff scholars holding diff positions debate. In fact, age of the earth is also a hotly debated issue within Christian family.

[amairaja]

Yes. They can be sincerely wrong, but they are honest with what they do. If they know that what they are doing is all wrong they won't be Christian. In Gods That Fail Vinoth Ramachandra has written an essay on comparism between Scientific epistemology & Christian epistemology. He discussed the works of Descartes-Kuhn- Polanyi-Newbegin et al.

Christian writers like Alasdair McIntyre & Alvin Plantinga have written much on it. Alister himself has written much on Epistemology of Science/Theology.