« Alan Johnston | Home | No election »
Dawkins v McGrath
By Huw Leslie | July 14, 2007
Somehow I don’t find it surprising that my favourite athiest Richard Dawkins couldn’t find the time to include the interview below with Alister McGrath in his documentary - after all, moderate, non-creationist Christians aren’t nearly as interesting as fiery mouthed, intellectually challenged creationists, are they?
Anyway, at least he was persuaded to upload his interview with McGrath to Google Video. McGrath is the author of the excellent Dawkins Delusion, and makes several good points in the interview. He annoyed me when talking about the problem of evil - he argued that the world comes as-is, and God doesn’t interfere, and therefore allows evil to happen. Well, that doesn’t solve the inconsistent triad of benevolence, omnipotence and evil, because if He were benevolent and omnipotent he would intervene. He does, however, hint at the more sensible explanation that natural evil offers humans the chance to respond to it, and points out that a ‘toy world’ (Swinburne) with no evil just wouldn’t work. That explanation is entirely adequate, and I see no need to add the slightly incoherent fluff that almost leans towards process theodicy.
Dawkins talked about a hypothetical situation in which one girl survived a hurricane, and ten thousand died; the parents of the girl praised God for a miracle, and Dawkins rightly asked whether God did save the girl, and if so, why did he not save the ten thousand? Again, McGrath could have expressed himself better. He hinted at anti-realism, in that he mentioned the human need to praise God, but he should have emphasised that more. My view, broadly speaking, is that it is irrelevant whether or not God directly intervened to save the girl. Whether he did or not has no effect. The effect is caused by the fact that the parents either believe or do not believe that God intervened. The fact that they do is potentially powerful in guiding their future faith and behaviour. That is the crucial point which needs to be raised, and I think that definitely counts as a ’silver lining’ effect under the Irenaean Theodicy. If McGrath had taken that angle, there would not have been the inconsistency which Dawkins correctly spotted.
Other than that, a great interview. I was pleasantly surprised to see Dawkins in moderate mood. Presumably he would not have been as moderate had the interview been conducted more recently; McGrath called him the ‘grumpy atheist’, and Dawkins has retaliated by quoting Yeats, comparing himself to a dog, and McGrath to a flea. Now now children.
Topics: Theology |
Comments