Malcolm wrote:

"Ash" <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote in message

Dawkins believes in his scientific and moral philosophy, and so he
wants
all children indoctrinated with it. Fair enough. He happens to be right
on evolution, his speciality, hopelessly amateurish and naive when it
comes to theology.

It always amuses me when Christards make this claim, but never back it
up

Dawkins quotes Tertullian "it is certain because it is impossible" and
"it
is by all means to be believed because it is absurd". Prima facie
evidence
of the irrationality of faith?

Actually, as Mcgrath points out, the second quotation is spurious, whilst
the first is a reference to Aristotle's view that extraordinary claims
are
more credible, by virtue of being out of the ordinary.
Prima facie evidence that Dawkins should stick to evolutionary biology.
Outside his own subject he makes blunders that wouldn't be tolerated in a
first year theology undergraduate at New College.

Out of interest, where can I read what Dawkins said?
(I like to have the full context).

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 20:55:43 +0100, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <rOCdnZiTjZMhHRXZRVnyrQ@bt.com>
:

Outside his own subject he makes blunders that wouldn't be tolerated in a
first year theology undergraduate at New College.

What, like telling the truth?

--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Apprentice Thumbscrew Oiler.

Of twelve arguments, obviously most will be clearly fallacious.

Eh, why is that clear?

McGrath's biggest problem in "Dawkins's God" is that
Dawkins really hasn't written that much on religion and
essentially nothing on theology (his forthcoming book
may change that), so McGrath most of the time invents a
target rather than attacking what Dawkins has actually said.

And much of his complaint seems to be that Dawkins
attacks other varieties of Christianity than the one
McGrath favors.

To give an example from your website (since I don't
have the book to hand). You say "McGrath finds similar
weaknesses in the treatment of Paley, whose theory is
referred to in Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker".
. . . Paley's argument is of course utterly wrong, but the
mistake Dawkins makes is to suppose that it is somehow
normative of the Christian tradition. Physical theology was
a short-lived movement, confined to late eighteenth to early
nineteenth century Britain."

Well, Paley's "Argument from Design" is _exactly_
what the American Creationist movement regards
as its central criticism of Darwinian evolution.
Dawkins was quite right to see it as a central
target which he had to meet head on, which was
the point of the book.

The fact that there may be other, more "sophisticated"
Christians who don't make that argument doesn't
change that.

People like McGrath tend to criticize Dawkins for
arguing against naive and childish theology, implying
that Dawkins thinks that that is all there is to theology.

But Dawkins's choice of target is because it is
precisely those theologies (e.g. biblical literalism
or Islamic fundamentalism) that are the biggest threat
to what he holds dear.

"Twilight of atheism" is weird; McGrath gives a long
historical review of atheism, and then declares it to
be in intellectual decline, without any real argument.
His only reason seems to be along the lines of
"I, personally, found it intellectually unsatisfying,
therefore it is".

Malcolm wrote:

"Chimp" <pan_paniscus1859@yahoo.com> wrote in message

(See Alister McGrath's book, "Dawkins' God". Theres a review on my
website www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm )

Having read the book, I'd say that the label "hopelessly amateurish
and naive" fits McGrath better.

PS The intro to your book in your web page seems to think
that merely insulting atheists (calling them childish, naive,
not very bright, etc) is equivalent to arguing against them.
Is your book better than that?

You'd have to read it. $1.25 for a download won't break the bank.

What is very characteristic of atheists is that they affect great

When you scratch the surface, you find that most of it has been culled

paperbacks - they read the "Selfish Gene" and think themselves experts

evolutionary biology, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" and suddenly

all the scholars have it wrong. The "Pauline Christianity" argument is

the best example of this.

That is quite characteristic of usenet in general, not just
atheist posters!

However you will see that I don't apply this as a blanket description of

atheists. Dawkins is a real scientist, and there is no point in denying

he is right on evolution.

Of twelve arguments, obviously most will be clearly fallacious.

Eh, why is that clear?

Can you give a few examples of McGrath being amateurish, by the way?

I've only read "Dawkins's God" and "Twilight of atheism" by
him, and would have to get hold of the books again to provide
anything specific. But:

McGrath's biggest problem in "Dawkins's God" is that
Dawkins really hasn't written that much on religion and
essentially nothing on theology (his forthcoming book
may change that), so McGrath most of the time invents a
target rather than attacking what Dawkins has actually said.

And much of his complaint seems to be that Dawkins
attacks other varieties of Christianity than the one
McGrath favors.

To give an example from your website (since I don't
have the book to hand). You say "McGrath finds similar
weaknesses in the treatment of Paley, whose theory is
referred to in Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker".
. . . Paley's argument is of course utterly wrong, but the
mistake Dawkins makes is to suppose that it is somehow
normative of the Christian tradition. Physical theology was
a short-lived movement, confined to late eighteenth to early
nineteenth century Britain."

Well, Paley's "Argument from Design" is _exactly_
what the American Creationist movement regards
as its central criticism of Darwinian evolution.
Dawkins was quite right to see it as a central
target which he had to meet head on, which was
the point of the book.

The fact that there may be other, more "sophisticated"
Christians who don't make that argument doesn't
change that.

People like McGrath tend to criticize Dawkins for
arguing against naive and childish theology, implying
that Dawkins thinks that that is all there is to theology.

But Dawkins's choice of target is because it is
precisely those theologies (e.g. biblical literalism
or Islamic fundamentalism) that are the biggest threat
to what he holds dear.

"Twilight of atheism" is weird; McGrath gives a long
historical review of atheism, and then declares it to
be in intellectual decline, without any real argument.
His only reason seems to be along the lines of
"I, personally, found it intellectually unsatisfying,
therefore it is".

Chimp