Comments on: McGrath on Dawkins: “philosophically naïve and deficient” http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/ Not praying for (or on) you Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:43:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: nullifidian » The Times: How dare you call me a fundamentalist http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/comment-page-1/#comment-516 nullifidian » The Times: How dare you call me a fundamentalist Sun, 13 May 2007 19:20:19 +0000 http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/#comment-516 [...] an example of one of his replies, which echoes many of my thoughts of the purpose of The God Delusion: You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . “you attack [...] [...] an example of one of his replies, which echoes many of my thoughts of the purpose of The God Delusion: You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . “you attack [...]

]]> By: Dan http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/comment-page-1/#comment-458 Dan Tue, 08 May 2007 20:52:38 +0000 http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/#comment-458 Sorry about that edit, all went wrong: McGrath's errors available here: <a href="http://homepages.shu.ac.uk/~llrdjb/shs/delusion.html" title="Deluding who about what?" rel="nofollow">Deluding who about what?</a> Sorry about that edit, all went wrong:

McGrath’s errors available here:

Deluding who about what?

]]> By: Dan http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/comment-page-1/#comment-457 Dan Tue, 08 May 2007 20:50:15 +0000 http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/#comment-457 A compilation of McGrath's errors and misinterpretations in "The Dawkins Delusion" can be found here: <a href="http://homepages.shu.ac.uk/~llrdjb/shs/delusion.html" title="Deluding who about what?" rel="nofollow"> For someone who insists on accuracy in others, he sure makes a lot of mistakes of his own. Dan</a> A compilation of McGrath’s errors and misinterpretations in “The Dawkins Delusion” can be found here:

For someone who insists on accuracy in others, he sure makes a lot of mistakes of his own.

Dan

]]> By: Nullifidian : Blog Archive : Simon Conway Morris: Is Dawkins Coherent? http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Nullifidian : Blog Archive : Simon Conway Morris: Is Dawkins Coherent? Sun, 04 Mar 2007 04:18:16 +0000 http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/#comment-72 [...] I’ve mentioned before, this is a misrepresentation of the point of The God Delusion, and shows that not only have [...] [...] I’ve mentioned before, this is a misrepresentation of the point of The God Delusion, and shows that not only have [...]

]]> By: Why Dont You Blog? : Dawkins Delusions - Deluded Reviewers? http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Why Dont You Blog? : Dawkins Delusions - Deluded Reviewers? Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:16:43 +0000 http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/#comment-71 [...] Now we have looked at McGrath in the past (here and here, and this has also been looked at on Nullfidian’s blog) so there is no pressing need to revisit that aspect - suffice it to say McGrath is confused on [...] [...] Now we have looked at McGrath in the past (here and here, and this has also been looked at on Nullfidian’s blog) so there is no pressing need to revisit that aspect – suffice it to say McGrath is confused on [...]

]]> By: TW http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/comment-page-1/#comment-52 TW Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:00:46 +0000 http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/#comment-52 Blimey - nice line in troll you attract! I see what people mean about his writing style - it does start off well, but obviously the excitement got him/her towards the end. I suspect the illegibility is there to mask the mountains of logical fallacies and pure nonsense. Wish I got ones like this.... Blimey – nice line in troll you attract!

I see what people mean about his writing style – it does start off well, but obviously the excitement got him/her towards the end. I suspect the illegibility is there to mask the mountains of logical fallacies and pure nonsense.

Wish I got ones like this….

]]> By: nullifidian http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/comment-page-1/#comment-46 nullifidian Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:30:40 +0000 http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/#comment-46 Thanks Ron, same to you! As <a href="http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/12/awooga-awooga/#comment-43" rel="nofollow">TBEJ said</a>, his can spell (or at least find their way around a spell checker)... Perhaps he's using the Argumentum ad conturbem (if my Latin's not as rusty as I suspect it might be!) Thanks Ron, same to you!

As TBEJ said, his can spell (or at least find their way around a spell checker)…

Perhaps he’s using the Argumentum ad conturbem (if my Latin’s not as rusty as I suspect it might be!)

]]> By: Ron http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/comment-page-1/#comment-44 Ron Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:54:14 +0000 http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/#comment-44 Jeebus on a stick Zarove. There is a thing called spell-check that will make your ravings easier to understand. Oh, try reading Dawkins' other book "The God ILLUSION." I will likewise try to find "The God DILUSION" so I can better understand your point. Way to go Nullifidian, this one's a keeper. Happy Darwin Day to you both. Jeebus on a stick Zarove. There is a thing called spell-check that will make your ravings easier to understand. Oh, try reading Dawkins’ other book “The God ILLUSION.” I will likewise try to find “The God DILUSION” so I can better understand your point.

Way to go Nullifidian, this one’s a keeper.

Happy Darwin Day to you both.

]]> By: Nullifidian : Blog Archive : Awooga! Awooga! http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/comment-page-1/#comment-42 Nullifidian : Blog Archive : Awooga! Awooga! Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:33:41 +0000 http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/#comment-42 [...] yea, oh yea! My first fundietroll, and in the guise of none other than the infamous Zarove. And on Darwin Day, no less! [...] [...] yea, oh yea! My first fundietroll, and in the guise of none other than the infamous Zarove. And on Darwin Day, no less! [...]

]]> By: Zarove http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/comment-page-1/#comment-40 Zarove Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:22:20 +0000 http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/#comment-40 As un[popular as I'll be here for saying this, the accusations against McGrath aren't Valid. Dawkins sets about to destroy beleif in God in general, not to address the common pew sitters. Therefore, saying that McGrath ought to look at Grannies who get togather for a singalong and lookign at those who dont go to Church but callthemselves Christians is rather a bit of a misdirection from McGraths point. His problem with Dawkins is the same one even other Atheistshave had. Dawkins simply doesn't allow for any possibility other thna his own predetermiend worldview, and doesn't even understand the theology he is disparaging. Dawkins is not a Brillaint man when it comes ot addresisng either religious belifs or Human nature and society, and by ignorign wat Christians ( And most rleigious people in general) mean by Faiht and assumign all Faiht is blind and no one has ever criticlaly evaluated their faiht is to do a great dissrvice tothe reader. After all,the vast majoriy of Atheist havent criticlaly evaluated thir atheism either, and theirs a fair share of completley mindless atheists. On the other hand, to ignore the not-so-average pewseter who has invesed itme in reading their scripture thrugh and htuinking on such matters is irresponcible and rperehensable. And to completley ignroe theologians whilst writtign a tracg on theology is neglegent. I've read "The God Dilusion" and wasn't imressed.Even the Science sections, which Dawkisn ought to excell in,, are so filled with Logical flaws and presumption passed off as fact as ot make them near worthless, and the rest, his comparring the wrost actiosn den inthe name of religion tothe best ccomplishments in scieunce, are onesided and unjust. Indeed, the very premise of their bign a war betwee Science and relgion just plays on a commonmyth thats not really true. Dawkins didnt address any thilogical points, outside of some famous ones, such as Aquinas's, and even then misrepresented ( Or misunderstood) them. And his beligerant, arrogant tone combines with the above to render the book nohignbut a hateful diatribe. As un[popular as I’ll be here for saying this, the accusations against McGrath aren’t Valid. Dawkins sets about to destroy beleif in God in general, not to address the common pew sitters. Therefore, saying that McGrath ought to look at Grannies who get togather for a singalong and lookign at those who dont go to Church but callthemselves Christians is rather a bit of a misdirection from McGraths point.

His problem with Dawkins is the same one even other Atheistshave had. Dawkins simply doesn’t allow for any possibility other thna his own predetermiend worldview, and doesn’t even understand the theology he is disparaging.

Dawkins is not a Brillaint man when it comes ot addresisng either religious belifs or Human nature and society, and by ignorign wat Christians ( And most rleigious people in general) mean by Faiht and assumign all Faiht is blind and no one has ever criticlaly evaluated their faiht is to do a great dissrvice tothe reader. After all,the vast majoriy of Atheist havent criticlaly evaluated thir atheism either, and theirs a fair share of completley mindless atheists.

On the other hand, to ignore the not-so-average pewseter who has invesed itme in reading their scripture thrugh and htuinking on such matters is irresponcible and rperehensable. And to completley ignroe theologians whilst writtign a tracg on theology is neglegent.

I’ve read “The God Dilusion” and wasn’t imressed.Even the Science sections, which Dawkisn ought to excell in,, are so filled with Logical flaws and presumption passed off as fact as ot make them near worthless, and the rest, his comparring the wrost actiosn den inthe name of religion tothe best ccomplishments in scieunce, are onesided and unjust.

Indeed, the very premise of their bign a war betwee Science and relgion just plays on a commonmyth thats not really true.

Dawkins didnt address any thilogical points, outside of some famous ones, such as Aquinas’s, and even then misrepresented ( Or misunderstood) them.

And his beligerant, arrogant tone combines with the above to render the book nohignbut a hateful diatribe.

]]> By: Why Dont You Blog? » The Anti-Dawkins http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/comment-page-1/#comment-15 Why Dont You Blog? » The Anti-Dawkins Sun, 04 Feb 2007 18:03:19 +0000 http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/#comment-15 [...] entertaining link courtesy of the Nullifidian Blog. This time it is Professor Alister McGrath who comes under the spotlight. Claiming his two [...] [...] entertaining link courtesy of the Nullifidian Blog. This time it is Professor Alister McGrath who comes under the spotlight. Claiming his two [...]

]]> By: nullifidian http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/comment-page-1/#comment-14 nullifidian Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:47:30 +0000 http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/#comment-14 McGrath is a loon. I think there's an element of him needing to be seen as a senior academic defender of faith, rather than leaving it to the likes of the effete common or garden variety theist, whose arguments are of the 99p-store standard. McGrath is a loon. I think there’s an element of him needing to be seen as a senior academic defender of faith, rather than leaving it to the likes of the effete common or garden variety theist, whose arguments are of the 99p-store standard.

]]> By: TW http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/comment-page-1/#comment-12 TW Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:39:24 +0000 http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/02/04/mcgrath-on-dawkins-again/#comment-12 Thanks for the heads up. It amazes me the depths that creationist / religious [insert derogatory term of choice] will go to. I bet Dawkins actually likes it! Thanks for the heads up. It amazes me the depths that creationist / religious [insert derogatory term of choice] will go to.

I bet Dawkins actually likes it!

]]>