2. Comment #46298 by toomanytribbles on May 30, 2007 at 8:45 pm
is it possible to repost this on youtube?3. Comment #46300 by damianpeterson on May 30, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Fantastic. For 45 minutes it's a gentle game of ping pong and then when it comes to the issue god and suffering McGrath's arms get tired and Dawkins switches to a tennis racket. At 50 minutes McGrath is undone.4. Comment #46303 by keith on May 30, 2007 at 9:27 pm
That's the best interview I've ever seen Richard Dawkins give. He comes over as being a great listener, capable of thinking on his feet and really interested in the other point of view, rather than being simply exasperated by the same old nonsense. In other interviews he occasionally seems on the verge of losing his cool (or maybe it's just my own blood that's boiling through not being able to jump through the TV screen and strangle whoever he's debating).5. Comment #46306 by dgcoulson on May 30, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Doesn't the slippery, addled blather of McGrath just about distil the 'intellectual' basis of Christianity? Pressed quite reasonably by Dawkins to explain the inconsistency in claiming his god can, and does, on occasion save an individual child whereas in most cases it is humanity's lot to learn about existence through capricious hardship, McGrath can come up with no better than the standard Christian trump card along the lines of 'well, I've explained myself quite satisfactorily, if you cannot understand it I'm not going over it any more.' If you wish to observe the true essence of Christian thought, as practiced an Oxford theologian scholar, look no further than 49:40. Apart from the temerity of chiding Dawkins, as if he is some dullard undergraduate, McGrath is apparently completely unaware of the ludicrousness of his own position. Tssch. Christians are the same the world over. Only this one puts up the semblance of a reasonable argument. Which makes him even less worthy of any respect for his lofty academic position. Utterly shameful. A complete fake.6. Comment #46317 by krogercomplete on May 30, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Favorite part: in response to Dawkin's argument that the designer must be at least as improbable as the thing designed, McGrath actually said that, improbable or not, the question is whether or not God actually exists (improbable isn't impossible after all)!! My eyes started to move in opposite directions as I groped for the significance of this statement. So much for improbability arguments I guess. Evolution and the wholly natural "fine tuning" of the universe will just have to be attacked on other grounds from now on. Actually, lets just change all the rules for God.7. Comment #46319 by krogercomplete on May 30, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Favorite part II: I love the CS Lewis quote about believing in God as you believe the sun rises because through it you see everything else. No shit. By believing in God, a difficult to comprehend universe is explained. If answers to tough questions are what you are looking for, I can make up just about anything you want. Excellent reason to believe in God.8. Comment #46329 by robhu on May 31, 2007 at 12:03 am
Google video says this for me:9. Comment #46336 by tomasekeli on May 31, 2007 at 1:21 am
We're sorry, but the provider of this video has not authorized Google to display this video in your location.10. Comment #46342 by IceFreak2000 on May 31, 2007 at 1:46 am
I can't view the video either; my ISP is Nildram (Pipex) in the UK11. Comment #46346 by Hugo on May 31, 2007 at 2:19 am
I get SQL errors in the article on this page (Google reader shows it ok)12. Comment #46397 by Martin on May 31, 2007 at 5:44 am
Comment #46346 by Hugo:I get SQL errors in the article on this page
And can't see the movie, it seems that it is only visible in the US, ...
13. Comment #46429 by BigJohn on May 31, 2007 at 7:33 am
"We're sorry, but the provider of this video has not authorized Google to display this video in your location." Plus, a bunch of mysql warnings.14. Comment #46434 by Hugo on May 31, 2007 at 7:46 am
It is also being discussed in the forum, I've posted a link to this page there and am doing the same here15. Comment #46461 by TheHardProblem on May 31, 2007 at 10:52 am
woo! its ávailable again. for me that is16. Comment #46463 by Richard Dawkins on May 31, 2007 at 11:09 am
Thank you Josh for getting it up and running again. Apologies for the time when it was not available during today.17. Comment #46471 by steve99 on May 31, 2007 at 11:41 am
For those who can't see it yet - be patient, it is well worth it. It was a good, polite - even friendly - debate, with McGrath even conceding the strength of many of Dawkins' arguments, and Dawkins saying that McGrath made reasonable points. I believe this is evidence (if such were needed) that helps demolish criticisms of Dawkins as an angry and fundamentalist atheist. He argues with a polite perstence. Nevertheless, it is devastating. It obviously does not have any effect on McGrath's faith, but it certainly is very revealing to viewers.18. Comment #46472 by Lodestone on May 31, 2007 at 11:49 am
I emailed the viewing problem to Josh(as I am sure thousands of others have) and it appears to be working now... Thanks from the United States. I have not been able to see it all but what I have seen so far has been refreshing civil. Good form Richard.19. Comment #46480 by simonova on May 31, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Imagine quoting CS Lewis!! Richard was on top of this interview from the first second. Bravo for exuding confidence and treating McGrath with respect that he didn't deserve.20. Comment #46482 by chbg21808 on May 31, 2007 at 12:38 pm
One of the most pleasing interviews I have seen from Professor Dawkins... It was more like a debate, but without a moderator. I would love to see more extended interviews like this from Dawkins.21. Comment #46486 by doodinthemood on May 31, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Is there a version of this that isn't so quiet? it's virtually silent for me, I had to put my speakers on full and get lots of background hiss.22. Comment #46490 by yourmaninamsterdam on May 31, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I actually very much enjoyed this conversation.23. Comment #46494 by SonOfPearl on May 31, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I think this discussion captures nicely the reason why the title 'The God Delusion' is so apt.24. Comment #46495 by doodinthemood on May 31, 2007 at 1:13 pm
also "The way I would respond would be this"... It's an interesting catchphrase but it gets a tad annoying after a while :)25. Comment #46496 by NMcC on May 31, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I've said this before on another thread, but I think it's worth repeating: I don't know about McGrath being deluded in his belief about God, I genuinely believe that he is deluded about his own biography.26. Comment #46497 by Jiten on May 31, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Why do the interview standing up? Surely it would have been more comfortable sitting down.It made me uncomfortable!27. Comment #46502 by Reg on May 31, 2007 at 1:43 pm
The part that did it for me was fifty minutes in, when Richard's tenacity, superior debating skills and of course being armed with truths, had the man flummoxed. Darwin's rottweiler had the rag and Christ's Yorkshire terrier had yapped itself into a state of exhaustion, wishing it could crawl up its own arse. Whereas The Hitch gives a verbal bitch slapping, a Richard Dawkins onslaught is the verbal equivalence of ripping out the theist heart and watching its last beats. I don't feel that I would ever want to see Richard debate that imbecile again as he has proven himself not up to the task, that's him finished. What a team the musketeers are, they give me hope and make me glad to live in these times.28. Comment #46504 by flyingscot on May 31, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I enjoyed the interview very much and do appreciate that it was posted for us to see.29. Comment #46505 by Lionel A on May 31, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I also suffered from the'We're sorry, but the provider of this video has not authorised Google to display this video in your location.'
30. Comment #46507 by scottishgeologist on May 31, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Keith asked:31. Comment #46524 by jaytee_555 on May 31, 2007 at 2:36 pm
This interview was a rare treat, and not least because of McGrath's fluency. It is not often one gets to see the absurdity of Christian belief so clearly articulated. Each time McGrath thought he had raised an unassailable defence of his position, Richard walked right through it as if it had been an open door. McGrath has arrogantly (and frequently) accused Dawkins of simply not understanding theology, but given all that time to 'explain' it to him, and come out of the interview looking like a confused teenager is quite ironic. McGrath's arguments were so incoherent overall that Richard was not challenged in the slightest. Because it is lengthy and unedited, I think this video is a classic, and needs to be circulated as widely as possible.32. Comment #46555 by Russell Blackford on May 31, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I watched most of it, but was pressed for time and didn't make it to the end (will try again later). I enjoyed this discussion very much - McGrath was courteous and articulate, not someone I'd be interested in denigrating, at least going just on this. Much of what he said made sense to me, though my experience is pretty much the opposite of his: i.e., I found that the religious way of looking at things didn't make sense as a good explanation of how the world works, after trying to get by with it through my teenage years.33. Comment #46564 by toomanytribbles on May 31, 2007 at 4:41 pm
well, mcgrath is being truthful when saying he was once an atheist -- all children start out that way.34. Comment #46586 by godisanidiot on May 31, 2007 at 6:10 pm
It's so funny, after a time of listening to christians you really can predict what they will answer, which escape routes they will take in a debate.35. Comment #46589 by GodlessHeathen on May 31, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Watching McGrath dance and twist and evade as Dawkins pressed was somewhat sad.36. Comment #46601 by keith on May 31, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Steve99,37. Comment #46615 by ericross on May 31, 2007 at 8:11 pm
I couldn't believe that McGrath actually argued something like, "I'm not sure God could have made a world without earthquakes." If the Christian God existed then of course he could have -- that's what omnipotence means. I was even more surprised, however, that Dawkins let him get away with that ridiculous rationalization.38. Comment #46618 by caledonventures on May 31, 2007 at 8:30 pm
In response to comment 46471 Steve9939. Comment #46643 by Dianelos Georgoudis on June 1, 2007 at 1:20 am
I think that this interview very well illustrates the fact that theism and atheism represent radically different worldviews, i.e. different ways to understand reality. This is evidenced by how often Dawkins and McGrath simply talked past each other. Dawkins apparently thinks that the issue of God's existence is a matter of scientific investigation or of applying the scientific method (for example where he compares the existence of God with the existence of the eye, and thinks that the complexity of both must be accounted for by some naturalist explanatory means) – whereas McGrath repeatedly insisted the religion is about understanding reality and our place in it beyond the scientific investigation of, and resulting knowledge about, physical phenomena.40. Comment #46656 by godisanidiot on June 1, 2007 at 3:11 am
But God does in some rare occasions, and particularly in the midst of great calamity, directly interfere, for example to save that one child. So I don't understand what Dawkins found so hard to grasp in McGrath's position.
41. Comment #46658 by Rtambree on June 1, 2007 at 3:18 am
McGrath has no clothes. He is an intellectual imposter.42. Comment #46676 by bouwe on June 1, 2007 at 4:12 am
I was a bit surprised at his manner, i.e. the courteous, conciliatory approach, as some of his written comments that we've all seen have been very nasty and personal.Wasn't it McGrath who wrote a letter to one of the British papers calling Dawkins "Britain's grumpiest atheist"? He's all polite and civilized in person because he's a wimp; when he is safe in his study writing letters he starts getting personal. He is willing to paint Dawkins in this unfair light and distract people from learning what RD is talking about.
43. Comment #46682 by ryanbooker on June 1, 2007 at 4:33 am
I really enjoyed that conversation. I found McGrath's faith in God very illuminating of the religious mind. He gave a lot of long winded, yet meaningless or purposely abstract answers, and seemed very content to flip between an interventionist God and deistic God whenever it suited him.44. Comment #46705 by bitbutter on June 1, 2007 at 8:02 am
An entertaining clip.45. Comment #46724 by Logicel on June 1, 2007 at 9:28 am
I was unable to endure McGrath's repellent physical gesturing and verbal style more than a few seconds. However, I have read some of his articles and am familiar with his sophisticated brand of religious hogwash.46. Comment #46726 by steve99 on June 1, 2007 at 9:39 am
It is inappropriate to condemn free speech
Mcgrath lectured with an elequence of affected speech, with more than a small dose of condescension, mistakenly construed as politeness.
47. Comment #46727 by Rtambree on June 1, 2007 at 9:45 am
A fascinating question is... does McGrath actually believe the drivel that emanates from his melodious larynx?48. Comment #46729 by Logicel on June 1, 2007 at 9:51 am
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote: His position seems to be this: God as a rule does not interfere with the natural order; after all if God did as a rule interfere with the natural order then we would be living in some kind of magical Mickey Mouse kind of world and clearly the world we live in is nothing like that.49. Comment #46730 by Logicel on June 1, 2007 at 10:01 am
I forgot the exact percentage, but a hefty bit of our so-called verbal communication comes from the non-verbal bits, like body language, hand gestures, tone and inflection of the voice, etc.50. Comment #46732 by Rtambree on June 1, 2007 at 10:04 am
48. Comment #46729 by Logicel
1. Comment #46296 by caledonventures on May 30, 2007 at 8:31 pm
McGrath's verbal diahorrea about christianity, god and faith is pathetic.Nothing that came out of his mouth makes any sense whatsoever. He must have been left in the nursery too long without human verbal contact.
A few months in a closed unit, may help!
Other Comments by caledonventures