Wednesday, April 19, 2006 AD
Empty and vacuous?
In one of the comments on the back of Alister McGrath's book Dawkins' God (1 | 2) | 3), Michael Ruse comments that he "cannot wait to see Dawkins' response of Alister McGrath's critique".
Well, Richard Dawkins seems to have declined the opportunity to respond at length to Alister McGrath. However, he did respond briefly to an interview with Alister McGrath on the Science & Theology News site. So here is Richard Dawkins' response to McGrath's suggestion (covered in my previous post) that he is ignorant of Christian theology:
However, in the closing chapters of his book McGrath moves beyond simply demolishing Dawkins' views and makes some interesting positive points about the history of science, and we will take a look at this in the last couple of posts in this series.
Well, Richard Dawkins seems to have declined the opportunity to respond at length to Alister McGrath. However, he did respond briefly to an interview with Alister McGrath on the Science & Theology News site. So here is Richard Dawkins' response to McGrath's suggestion (covered in my previous post) that he is ignorant of Christian theology:
"Yes, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content. I imagine that McGrath would join me in expressing disbelief in fairies, astrology and Thor’s hammer. How would he respond if a fairyologist, astrologer or Viking accused him of ignorance of their respective subjects?This depressing affirmation of wilful ignorance tends to underscore Thomas' point that perhaps Prof Dawkins isn't perhaps worth all this trouble. But, as I said in reply to Thomas, for all that Prof Dawkins has nothing that is worth saying about religion, he is nevertheless treated by the media (at least in the UK) as a sort of atheistical counterpart to the Archbishop of Canterbury. So it was well worth Alister McGrath's while in taking Dawkins on and revealing the intellectual (let alone spiritual) barrenness of his position.
The only part of theology that could possibly demand my attention is the part that purports to demonstrate that God does exist. This part of theology I have, indeed, studied with considerable attention. And found it utterly wanting.
However, in the closing chapters of his book McGrath moves beyond simply demolishing Dawkins' views and makes some interesting positive points about the history of science, and we will take a look at this in the last couple of posts in this series.
