Alister McGrath is a clueless, self-contradicting, theological mess of a buffoon
3/01/2008 | 5:07 PM | Evolved Rationalist
Theistards often claim that atheists attack a strawman version of religion and not the 'oh-so-intellectual' version of leading theologians. Leaving aside the fact that most theistards accept the stupid version of religion and generally do not bother with 'intellectual' theological discourse (isn't this an oxymoron?), let's look at what an Oxford theologian has to say about religion.
This interview with Alister McGrath reveals the usual pot-headed, bowel-worthy, bile-inducing theistard stupidity characteristics of great theological minds.
The buffoon‘s dung pile is in italics.
I think Richard Dawkins approaches the question of whether God exists in much the same way as if he'd approach the question of whether there is water on Mars. In other words, it's something that's open to objective scientific experimentation.
Strangely, Mr. Buffoon got this correct. Dawkins does approach the god question in a scientific way, and his Mars analogy is actually good. Nevertheless, as is the case with all theological buffoons, it doesn’t take long for the usual theistard stupidity to set in:
And of course there's no way you can bring those criteria to bear on God.
Uh, why exactly can’t we? The buffoon gets up on his high horse by trumpeting that his imaginary friend is exempt from scientific inquiry, but he doesn’t give any reason for why this should be so. Yes, we all know that blind faith does not require reason, but this is really a delusion and sidestep of the highest degree.
I think Dawkins seems reluctant to allow that God may not be in the same category as scientific objects.
What the hell does this buffoon mean by ‘scientific objects’? Every damn thing is a scientific object in the sense that questions can be asked about it. This buffoon thinks that his fantasies are exempt from scientific scrutiny and has no qualms about asserting his opinion dogmatically. Tell me, why should science respectfully tiptoe away when it comes to religion? On what grounds is this foolish respect based upon?
A second point, which clearly follows on from this, is that Dawkins clearly believes that those who believe in God must prove their case and atheists have nothing to prove because that's their default position.
This buffoon often claims that he is familiar with the philosophy of science. So how is it that he does not even recognize that science does not deal with proof? Science deals with evidence, but apparently this is way over our Oxford theologian’s head. This inflatable gasbag of a theologian claims that atheists misrepresent Christians ("Nobody can object to Christianity being critiqued, but I do object it being misrepresented."), but here he blatantly misrepresents science.
Some friendly advice: Your buffoonery is getting too obvious, Alister. You might want to clean up your act a little bit.
But I think that's simply incorrect and it's obviously incorrect. Really, the only obvious position is to say: We don't know, we need to be persuaded one way or the other. The default position in other words is: not being sure.
This buffoon is lying through his teeth. In reality, his default position is never ‘not being sure’. His position is one based on dogma, or more aptly called: Blind faith. For this dishonest buffoon, it is never about not being sure; but believing and being certain about one thing or another, often in spite of evidence to the contrary.
As someone who has studied the history and philosophy of science extensively, I think I've noticed a number of things that Dawkins seems to have overlooked. One of them is this: One of the most commonly encountered patterns in scientific development is seeing a pattern of observations and then saying, in order to explain these observations, we propose that there exists something that is as yet unobserved but we believe that one day will be observed because if it's there, it can explain everything that can be observed.
Of course, if you're a Christian you'll see immediately that that same pattern is there in thinking about God. We can't prove there's a God but he makes an awful lot of sense of things and therefore there's a very good reason to suppose that this may, in fact, be right.
Now, wait a minute. Is this the same buffoon who earlier claimed that "of course there's no way you can bring those criteria to bear on God"? and "God may not be in the same category as scientific objects"? Isn’t he aware of this glaring self-contradiction, or has his theology warped his brain beyond repair? Even for a buffoon like Alister, this contradiction is seriously hilarious.
Theologians like this particular buffoon make assumptions about the world based on superstitious myths, but prevent empirically testing their claims at all cost. This is the exact opposite of how science works, so Mr. Buffoon again does not have any idea about what he is talking about.
So my question, therefore, is: How on earth can Dawkins base his atheism on science when science itself so to speak is in motion, in transit?
Buffoon McGrath is claiming that we can’t base anything on science because it is in transit.
Another piece of friendly advice to Alister: Why don’t you give up your cars and computers, for after all, anything based on science can’t work, can it?
The self-contradictions do not stop there. Compare this:
…I've spoken in many lectures about Richard Dawkins and critiqued him. And very often atheists will stand up and say: "How dare you criticize Richard Dawkins!" It's almost as if there's a new dogma of the infallibility of Richard Dawkins in certain circles and I find that bizarre.
To this:
The most serious, negative reviews have come from atheists …….
Buffoon, get your arguments in order, will you? Idiot.
First he claims that atheists avoid criticizing Dawkins with near-dogmatic conviction, then he claims that most of the negative reviews have come from atheists themselves. This buffoon is actually an Oxford theologian, right? My bad.
The second point I'd want to make is that certainly I believe in the Nicene Creed, but I don't believe it because someone has rammed it down my throat. I believe it because I've looked at it very closely and I believe it to be right.
A fatherless man who is also a god, this dead god dying because his father (who is also a god) sacrificed him to save humanity from some sins committed by two non-existent individuals who some theologians finally claim to be symbolic but then what the heck is the sacrifice of the fatherless god for?! Aaaarrrrrghhhh Bible, Bible, Jesus saves he’s watching you and people burn in hell for not believing in these consolidated bowels of god, Jesus loves you!!
Considering that no evidence for the above is forthcoming, the fact that people still believe in it up to the 21st century is simply incredible.
(And Alister McGrath is still a clueless buffoon.)
Posted in
Atheism,
Skepticism
|
Your "atheists themselves" link is broken.
Have you asked Oxford to revoke McGrath's doctorate (D. Phil.) in molecular biophysics and the various journals to withdraw the peer-reviewed science articles he has published?
"Have you asked Oxford to revoke McGrath's doctorate (D. Phil.) in molecular biophysics and the various journals to withdraw the peer-reviewed science articles he has published?"
Sinbad, what on earth does this have to do with the contradictions in this interview? Of course McGrath should have his credentials kept intact. His credentials aren't what are in question; it's his understanding of the atheist's position that we find questionable.
Where the fuck did I question his credentials, Sinbad? Nice way for you theistards to change the topic, huh?
What a demented, deluded, dumbfuck Christian theistard piece of scum you are.
Where the fuck did I question his credentials, Sinbad?
You claimed that McGrath "does not have any idea about what he is talking about" when it comes to "how science works," so I thought you'd be aghast that Oxford deigned to give him an advanced degree in science and that he has a number of peer-reviewed scientific articles published.
You also claim that McGrath misrepresents science, ignoring that proof is also a synonym of evidence. You accuse him of lying because "his default position is never ‘not being sure,’" misrepresenting his assertion that the default position is "not being sure." Moreover, while he does have a position (he has moved off the default position), he doesn't claim certainty as you allege. You also misrepresent McGrath's position on science being "in transit." You even find a false inconsistency between those who belong to the cult of St. Richard and those atheists who strongly criticized his most recent book since atheists aren't remotely monolithic. Duh!
What a demented, deluded, dumbfuck Christian theistard piece of scum you are.
I hate to pick on poor ignorant kids, even when they refuse to speak and act as if they are more than about 12, but some silliness is worth responding to, at least for entertainment value. Moreover, you'll probably sink to the usual ad homs for my saying so, but you might take a little more care in case you ever wish to hold down a real job. Your ranting sounds sufficiently infantile that your ability to be hired in the future is in real doubt (and I'm talking to you, Shalini Sehkar).
Sinbad, you sure wrote a lot and said very little. Your one point in the first paragraph was only an assumption. The next paragraph that followed was absent any coherent argument. The last paragraph was just silly. Try and get back on topic and actually answer the question.
Try and get back on topic and actually answer the question.
If you missed the answer you might want to work on your reading comprehension. Start with the Dick and Jane series....
Sinbad,
Paragraph #1: I think you should keep your silly assumptions to yourself.
Paragraph #2: If you can't fathom the idea that science deals with evidence, not 'proof', you need to read Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' sometime.
How did I misrepresent Mr. Buffoon's position about science being 'in transit'? That was exactly what he said in his interview - can't you read?
Your blabberings about a cult of St. Richard makes no sense whatsoever. Next, you theistards might claim that whoever agrees with someone is a member of that person's cult.
Paragraph #3: Uh...what?
Sinbad, you seem to lack the understanding that there is a difference between ridiculing an unintelligible proposition with actual reason and an infantile non-responsive argument; you being guilty of the latter.
Paragraph #1: I think you should keep your silly assumptions to yourself.
I think you should brush up on s-a-r-c-a-s-m.
Paragraph #2: If you can't fathom the idea that science deals with evidence, not 'proof', you need to read Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' sometime.
Strawman. I'm well aware of the distinction (as is McGrath). Re-read what I wrote. "Proof" and "evidence" are synonyms. Thus "offering proof" is the offering of evidence. It happens in courtrooms all over America every single day.
How did I misrepresent Mr. Buffoon's position about science being 'in transit'?
Since you shown no interest in carefully reading what people you disagree with write, much less understanding them, why should I teach you?
That was exactly what he said in his interview - can't you read?
Pot -- kettle -- introductions.
Your blabberings about a cult of St. Richard makes no sense whatsoever. Next, you theistards might claim that whoever agrees with someone is a member of that person's cult.
Pearls before swine and all that, but re-read please. You conflated the group of atheists who criticized McGrath for daring to critique Dawkins and those who criticized The God Delusion. The last time I checked, atheists weren't monolithic.
Paragraph #3: Uh...what?
It must be 11th grade vocab. Sorry.
Sinbad, you seem to lack the understanding that there is a difference between ridiculing an unintelligible proposition with actual reason and an infantile non-responsive argument; you being guilty of the latter.
Your homeroom teacher must have taught you how to use a thesaurus. That's a good start, but you also have to learn what the big words mean.
Sinbad,
One point,
Proof and evidence are NOT the same. Please take some remedial science courses so that you understand the difference. Science works by examining evidence. It's not a synonym for proof. An abundance of evidence can considered to be a proof.
Proof and evidence are NOT the same.
I am well aware that science doesn't deal in "proof" as it's usually used -- the question is how well any particular theory is supported. McGrath gets that to. What you ignore is that colloquially, "proof" and "evidence" are indeed synonyms. The OED defines it as "evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of anything" or "the evidence given and recorded in a particular case." I suspect that you're assuming that McGrath used "proof" in a mathematical sense -- shown for certain. But when he says that one group of people "must prove their case," he simply means that they must offer sufficient evidence.
Sinbad,
You sure hop around but that doesn’t make you a dancer, and again you are still saying nothing of substance. You write like you have a prison degree.
Smoke,
Sinbad is clearly taking a leaf out of his dear McGrath's book.
*snicker*
Sinbad,
Colloquial terms, have no place in academics, science, engineering, law, etc, to name a few.