tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3048827094563982947..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Alister McGrathLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48139794856031152012007-05-19T22:13:00.000-04:002007-05-19T22:13:00.000-04:00Atheism is a religion just like Christianity.I've ...<I>Atheism is a religion just like Christianity.</I><BR/><BR/>I've never been able to quite figure out just what exactly is meant to be implied by this comparison. Is it a compliment or an insult?Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11338993634025153018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29843375305077937712007-05-17T12:38:00.000-04:002007-05-17T12:38:00.000-04:00ooops wrong thread sorryooops wrong thread sorryNucleo Deceniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01966542558503652729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53211305510307231772007-05-17T12:37:00.000-04:002007-05-17T12:37:00.000-04:00You and PZ don't seem more interested in the simil...You and PZ don't seem more interested in the similarities than the differences of Miller and Behe, as if these could somehow invalidate the differences. <BR/><BR/>The difference is crucial. <BR/><BR/>There are those who argue a "scientific necessity" of concluding supernatural intervention.... and those who don't. <BR/><BR/>Miracles cannot be commonplace. People can choose to belive in a miracle or two out of faith, if they wish. This does not imply that they believe 1) that god can be scientifically proven or 2) that the supernatural can be part of scientific explanations.<BR/><BR/>These bad mixtures of science and religion is what <BR/>people like Denton, Collins and Behe differ in that from Miller. <BR/><BR/>I myself am interested in the lionk between these last three, and rationalists "a la Dawkins". They feed on each other the notion that they have a scientific disagreement. They both think that god can be scientifically tested, they "simply" disagree on the "results", drawing opposite conclusions.<BR/><BR/>I think the Dawkins view provides conceptual foothold for "scientific" supernaturalism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62930445322296462372007-05-16T22:01:00.000-04:002007-05-16T22:01:00.000-04:00I saw McGrath on The Hour the other night and wasn...I saw McGrath on <I>The Hour</I> the other night and wasn't impressed at all. He said that he "respected Dawkins' 'faith'" and several other talking points that went unquestioned by Strombo (who is usually quite on point with that sort of stuff). <BR/><BR/>All in all, he was entirely unconvincing and unimpressive.Heathen Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01725771056948808724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83177955587507876412007-05-16T19:11:00.000-04:002007-05-16T19:11:00.000-04:00What, 1900+ years of apologetics isn't enough? Inc...<I>What, 1900+ years of apologetics isn't enough? Including plenty of modern authors like C.S.Lewis, Strobel, Craig, Collins, Polkinghorne etc?</I><BR/><BR/>No, I think he meant a sophisticated and rational defense. A sophisticated and rational defense would have nothing to do with providing good evidence for the existence of god, but would have everything to do with providing good evidence for why people should at least pretend that their (benevolent) god exists. For example, if people don't at least pretend there is a benevolent moral god then everybody steals candy from babies and nobody ever helps elderly ladies to cross the street. That sort of thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27341590411159583292007-05-16T14:49:00.000-04:002007-05-16T14:49:00.000-04:00The Christians in the audience were told in no unc...<I>The Christians in the audience were told in no uncertain terms that they have to get their act together and learn how to mount a sophisticated, rational defense of their beliefs.</I><BR/><BR/>What, 1900+ years of apologetics isn't enough? Including plenty of modern authors like C.S.Lewis, Strobel, Craig, Collins, Polkinghorne etc? Or are none of them sophisticated and rational enough for him?<BR/><BR/>However, I will provisionally agree with him that some of the poll data on supposed religiosity looks soft to me -- it's not always clear that, when people abandon orthodox affiliation, they're necessarily going over to skeptical unbelief. There's a false dichotomy in play here.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>(Strange that they would need this call to arms if they're winning the war, isn't it?)</I><BR/><BR/>And by McGrath's logic, when the wave of New Christian apologetic books appear next year, that will indicate that religion is losing the battle.Eamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44883718473573260232007-05-16T13:13:00.000-04:002007-05-16T13:13:00.000-04:00The Christians in the audience were told in no unc...<I>The Christians in the audience were told in no uncertain terms that they have to get their act together and learn how to mount a sophisticated, rational defense of their beliefs.</I><BR/><BR/>How excellent! It seems more than likely that some will examine the underpinnings of their belief and find that it cannot be rationally defended.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36826138220263155532007-05-16T11:44:00.000-04:002007-05-16T11:44:00.000-04:00The Christians in the audience were told in no unc...<I>The Christians in the audience were told in no uncertain terms that they have to get their act together and learn how to mount a sophisticated, rational defense of their beliefs.</I><BR/><BR/>By that he means ignore all the supernatural stuff. (I thoght he was against rationalism.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78540974960177983402007-05-16T08:12:00.000-04:002007-05-16T08:12:00.000-04:00"The atheists can't understand why religion hasn't..."The atheists can't understand why religion hasn't disappeared yet."<BR/><BR/>As for religion, people have the capability to be stupid or get fat. The former was never good for you but happened anyway, the later was at one time beneficial but is now harmful. [Go ahead, pick your own favorite analog for religious behavior among the alternatives.] <BR/><BR/>Now, stupidity and fatness hasn't disappeared yet. [Though there are attempts of finding remedies for the later. Again, pick your preferred analog if you wish. :-) ] <BR/><BR/>Am I supposed to be unable to understand why? That, I don't understand.Torbjörn Larssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02022193326058378221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65713371150294003052007-05-16T04:34:00.000-04:002007-05-16T04:34:00.000-04:00So according to this guy, a plethora of books on a...So according to this guy, a plethora of books on atheism implies that atheism is on the wane.<BR/><BR/>Let's suppose for a moment that the opposite evidence was observed: that there was a dearth of atheism publications. Do you think he would be arguing that atheism was on the rise? Of course not: I'd put money on him arguing that there were no publications because people were uninterested in a debate that was falling towards the theists' side.<BR/><BR/>Looks like we have a case of "whether I observe E or not-E, it's evidence in favour of my hypothesis".<BR/><BR/>The way forward (as you rightly do) is to ground the debate in actual data. Then the trends become clear...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com