I agree with McGrath that Dawkins' empiricism cannot prove or disprove the existence of God a priori. But Dawkins' concedes this by admiting to be a 6 on his 7 point scale of atheism. I agree with Plantinga that belief in God can be as rationally foundational as non-belief in God. However, when we give this 'God' content, I wonder what sort of God empirical reality supports. What type of God is compatible with:

- The ant I accidentally squashed this morning?
- My kitten that fell into a drainpipe and died?
- 10 million sperm squirming for one parking space?
- 10 million galaxies no human has ever seen?
- Damage to a brain that can radically alter beliefs?
- A brain easily fooled by illusion and delusion?
- Multiple revelations that are difficult to understand?
- A man who prayed for God's grace every night for a decade and became a non-believer?

McGrath defends the emperor's cloak well but Dawkins points out how incompatible it is with the colours theists ascribe it.

Adam, Australia,

I haven't read the McGrath book (nor do I intend to do so). The title "Atheist fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine" tells me enough. -- Firstly, atheists are NOT fundamentalists. Atheists would be prepared to change their stand if presented with sufficient genuine evidence. Fundamentalists would not. -- Secondly, atheists do NOT deny the "Divine". They simply say they do not believe in it. -- On both these counts, if the title of his book is anything to go by, McGrath completely misrepresents what atheism is about. Another beautiful example of the atheistic viewpoint being (deliberately?) misrepresented by a believer.

alan, cologne,

Matt - I just stumbled across this site as I was browsing and hit upon your reply to my comment. Yes, I said theologians are at pains to argue and explain rationally why their god exists. You are a prime example. -- You claim to be arguing rationally. But you are only arguing rationally about your own rationality. You are not arguing about proof or evidence of your god's existence. When you try to do that, you will of necessity begin to argue irrationally. OK? -- You see, even rationally thinking persons can suddenly start arguing irrationally - especially when it comes to their (irrational) beliefs. I hope you follow me.

alan, cologne,

"Miraculous" cures? How about the wonder of health! The human body comprises approximately 100 or more trillion total cells. Only 10% of them are human cells. The rest are parasites and assorted microbes. 500 to 1000 different species of bacteria live in the human body. Each of your cells contains about 10 billion protein molecules of approximately 10,000 different varieties. Each cell is continually involved in billions of chemical reactions. In a human body a trillion atoms may be replaced every millionth of a second.
It is amazing that we are ever healthy! That the mechanisms of cell repair and regeneration sometimes breaks down seems hardly surprising. We have a long way to go in our understanding, and surprise cures and remissions need not be attributed to supernatural causes just because the natural mechanisms are yet to be elucidated.

jim rogers, sydney,

"maybe religion helped people survive!...."
John, maybe at times this was so, but it's time to grow up and move on........

jim, sydney,

It's really amusing to read the naive and hackneyed opinions trotted out by fundamental atheists.
Not a shred of evidence for God? Well - presumably even atheists think something created us, there's plenty of evidence it is intelligent.
Did Communists kill in the name of atheism? What's your point? Did the Spanish inquisition kill in the name of theism? Or are you confusing religion with theism (a habitual athiest error)? The point is not about religion, but about ideology, and atheism has shown itself as capable of inspiring destructive ideology as theism.
And one more thing - going on about crusades and puritans. Has it ever occured to you that at the time of these religious wars most people couldn't read, the bible was in latin, and could only be interpretted by societal leaders? Add a bit of plague and the biting cold of the "little ice Age" and then all you darwinists can ask yourself whether atheism would have stopped people fighting.
maybe religion helped people survive!....

John, London,

Although I am a Christian, I like so many mortals, had difficulty dismissing scientific evidence of evolution, the "big bang" theory and so forth , that is until I read Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator". A journalist and an avowed "spiritual skeptic", Strobel interviews scientists in the hope of debunking God and ends up being convinced (by these very scientists) that scientific theory is just that - theory - and that there had to be an intelligent force to create our amazing universe. I recommend Strobel's book to all seekers of the truth.

Linda Wilkins Parker, Elliot Lake, Canada

Just to add to Fraser from Auckland's point, Hitler was not an atheist, or even a secularist (although a small number of Nazis were). The Nazis believed in "Positive Christianity". Even if it were true that Hitler was professing belief to pander to the masses, it would show that creating religious justifications will make people more likely to commit genocide.

Communism may have had atheistic origins, but by the time of Stalin and Mao it had taken on a religious significance. One could almost say that communism was a religion in the making. Leaders were practically worshipped, people encouraged to accept their orders without question and die for their cause. One Soviet poster of Lenin read "Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will always live": to communists, Marx was the father, Lenin the son, and communism the holy spirit. If communism had not collapsed under its own inefficacy, it would have been interesting to see how it developed.

Leigh, Oxford,

Why is this issue so often represented as Christians vs. atheists? The world is vastly more imaginitive when it comes to supernatural beliefs. There are atheistic beliefs that still allow for supernatural powers, just not a god. What about polytheism? Why doesn't Professor McGrath explain why he believes that his idea of a god is the right one and why he believes that Hindus and the ancient Greeks (for example) are wrong?

Adam Haar, Geelong, Australia

Oppression and evil have been done by religious and non-religious people. This was probable because they evil and cleverly manipulated others not because of whether they were relgious or not (for that read (Atheists). Problems of intolrence can also rear their ugly head with relgious and atheists alike. Richard Dawkins is highly misguided in his views but yes he is entitled to his opinion and is entitled to express them just anyone else who is religous iare entitled to express their faith in God.

You can see the world in mechincal terms and say that is because of a God. It is very hard to prove that God is a human invention. So believing in God is justified not because of this as such but because that how many people make sense of the world. If relgions are taken for their teachings as whole their would be no fighting or war.

So calm down everybody and show some respect for each other!

Steve, Buckhurst Hill, Essex

Professor Mc Grath (and, if he has been quoted correctly, Sir Peter Medawar) prejudge the issue if they ask "What is life about?" This presupposes that the universe has a purpose and is about as sensible as asking what is a rainbow about? Science cannot tell us anything about the motive behind a natural phenomenon because it does not have one. It takes a religous person to tell us that a rainbow is God's promise not to send another flood to drown the world, which in fact may happen if science doesn't avert it.

Michael Imison, Halesworth, Suffolk

There is plenty of evidence of the existence of belief in gods. But no evidence of the existence of any god. Not a shred. People may claim to have revelations and other people may believe them. That's up to them. But society must remain secular if it's to avoid irrational, often violent or oppressive religious rule. We should defend freedom to practise any religion but must also defend our secular society in which free speech, democratic rights, women's rights and gay rights are upheld.

cath boylan, guildford, uk

"And FWIW, many more people have been massacred in the name of atheistic worldviews like communism (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot...) than you might care to admit."

i would beg to differ on that one.

also did the despots and dictators you listed kill all those people because they were atheists? or does it have more to do with megalomania, lusting for power and cult of personality?
traits which can likely be found in any conflict where many have died. religious or otherwise

The constant use of people like hitler and stalin to somehow prove that atheism is bad is just as stupid as equating all christians with Jim Jones or David Koresh

fraser, auckland, new zealand

The author, Alister McGrath, has failed to refute a single claim by Dr. Dawkins, and has instead focused on Dr. Dawkins' own character.

Presumably, had McGrath been born amongst 10th century vikings, he would be arguing against mischaracterizing the important spiritual message of Baldur's sacrifice. Until he can present a reasonable argument as to why one should believe that worship of Jesus should take precedence over that of Baldur apart from childhood familiarity, the burden of proof is on him.

B. Dewhirst, Worcester, USA/ MA

I can not prove that invisible gnomes don't exist. You can not prove that invisible gnomes do exist. Does that mean we are both correct? Does it mean I ought to respect any wild speculation you can think up, simply because I can't prove it?

Belief that there is no god is not equivalent to belief in god, and should not be given the same status. If someone is innocent until proven guilty, that does not mean that the assertions "she is guilty" and "she is innocent" have equal footing. Innocence is the original position; it does not need to be proven. Guilt, on the other hand, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A scientific hypothesis, like an accusation of guilt, is false until proven true. We don't need to prove a hypothesis false, because that is its original position. The burden of proof is solely on the person making the claim. In other words, it isn't necessary to disprove the god hypothesis in order to reject it, because it hasn't yet been proven.

Alex, Brooklyn,

Alan Barley: I think your own post contains the answer to the question it seems to pose. You point out how "strange" it is that theologians make effort to demonstrate the rationality of their belief, presumably implying that such efforts demonstrate the lack of such rationality. But then you paint religious belief with the term "superstition," and contrast it with "think[ing] critically and rationally." It is such charges, made by atheists such as yourself, that theologians seek to answer. If you call me superstitious and nonrational (which you just did), don't be surprised if I make efforts to counter your belief. And when I do, please don't cite my effort to demonstrate my rationality as evidence of my lack of rationality. That's circular, straw-man-ish, and unbecoming one who deems himself a critical and rational thinker.

And FWIW, many more people have been massacred in the name of atheistic worldviews like communism (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot...) than you might care to admit.

Matt Guerino, Beaverton, Oregon, USA

McGrath could have written many things here, but he chooses to point out that a scientific and rational outlook and religious faith are not mutually exclusive. He isn't writing about anything more: if he was to write about the meaning of life, or God, or theology, he would need more space or another column. I think he deals effectively with the topic he has chosen.

As for accusations of ad hominem, Dawkins is guilty of the same.

As for comparing belief in God with a belief in Santa Claus, I recommend looking at contemporary philosophy of religion (Plantinga, Wolterstorff et al) for an understanding of exactly why God is a reasonable hypothesis (as an aside, Dawkins shows very little philosophical understanding in the God Delusion, as non-religious reviewers including Thomas Nagel and Terry Eagleton have noted).

Phil Craig, London, UK

Odd, isn't it, how theologians are at pains to argue and explain rationally why the object of their studies (theo) actually exists. Of course we atheists can't prove that gods don't exist - we can't prove that Father Christmas doesn't exist either. On the evidence, however, we prefer to rely on our ability to think critically and rationally. And so - when we see the mass of widely conflicting religious superstition (I prefer this word to "belief" or "faith") and religious hypocricy whiich has promoted death, persecution, torture and fear throughout history and continues to do so today, we prefer to free our minds and reject the comfortable idea that we are answerable to some "higher being" in a later world rather than to our own enlightened consciences in this one.

alan barley, cologne ,

My understanding of Dawkins argument is not what is the accurate truth (Allen Doodes) but what is probable.

I find the observable concept of religion in retreat as science and education fill in the blanks of the 'jigsaw puzzle' compelling.

We exist in order to exist (John Fowles - The Aristos) I can handle that !!

Phil Davis, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire

Christian faith is not a blind leap. The Biblical documents we have today are accurate copies of the earlyest manuscripts of the Old and New Testerments. The New Testerment is one of the most accurate ancient texts we have access to, with 24,000+ manuscripts. These were writen as early as 30-50 yrs after the originals and these were writen only 30-40 yrs after the death and resurection of Christ. This compares with Tacitus' History, regularly used as a source on this period, which has approximatly 20 manuscripts, the earlyest 1000 years older than the originals. For more details please see the accademicaly rigorous 'The New Testerment Documents, Are the Reliable?' by F.F. Bruce. Also, these documents show Jesus as the Old Testerment Messiah, Matthew's Gospel opens with five prophesises fulfiled by His early life. Finally, in the Bile Jesus tells us the life's purpose: to have a perfect relationship with God, through Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross, Mark 12v28-31+Ephesians 2v1-10

Gareth Rhymes, Hull, UK

Peter Senior: I'm curious as to whether you're the same Mr Senior as mentioned here: http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/PeterSenior. If so, can you confirm that you believe the universe is only around 6,000 years old? (i.e. since the last ice age, the domestication of the dog etc).

Tony Gillett, London, UK

Is it me or they actually arguing about two different things?

Mr Dawkins, as far as I can understand his arguments, is arguing about what the ACCURATE TRUTH is (in so far as a human mind is capable of understanding that) whereas his opponents are argung for what is the most BELIEVABLE TRUTH. Two very different things.

Actually, I suspect that the problem may be, in part, that Mr Dawkins is confusing Religion with Christianity, and arguing from a mindset that is Christianity is false, all Religion is false. And his opponents all seem to be arguing from within the same mindset. Christianity is (provably) false, but other religions may provably true. Or disprovable as well.

Is there a godhead? I don't know. I find the evidence for it, at best, ambiguous. Certainly the current mainstream (western) Christian beliefs are at odds with what the Gospels say Jesus taught, and the Gospels certainly don't support the concept of Jesus as the Old Testamernt's Messiah. Me? I'm literally Agnostic.

Allan Doodes, Oxford, UK

Lest it be thought that only the religiously biassed could possibly disagree with Professor Dawkins, please take note of Professor David Stove's opinion.

"Most educated people nowadays, I believe, think of themselves as Darwinians. If they do, however, it can only be from ignorance: from not knowing enough about what Darwinism says. For Darwinism says many things, especially about our species, which are too obviously false to be believed by any educated person who retains any capacity at all for critical thought on the subject of Darwinism."
So You Think You Are a Darwinian?
Philosophy Vol. 69, 1994, pp. 267-277.

Peter Senior, Loughborough, UK

Stephen Hayes: are you the same chap who believes "we should instead humble ourselves before our Creator" in the following article?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3424201.stm

To pick up on one of your points - no one discounts the possibility that a tendency towards holding religious beliefs has its roots in there being some form of selective advantage, in a strictly Darwinian sense (I'm not for a moment suggesting that there is evidence that 'Gods people' benefit from his favour!). But whether there is such an advantage or not has absolutely no bearing on whether religious beliefs are indeed the truth - the issue is an interesting question of how our brains evolved and says something about the environment which they did so. Fascinating stuff - but absolutely no straws here for the likes of McGrath to desperately cling onto.

Tony Gillett, London, UK

What's life all about, Professor McGrath? Reading through your tirade I didn't see any answer to that question. Instead, you concentrated your attack on Dawkins and atheists.

I have never heard any churchman explain what life is about. In fact, they are usually so busy telling us how to prepare for death that they miss life entirely.

Who cares if there is a god or not? If believing in one makes you feel more secure, like a baby blanket, then where is the problem? And for us thinking people who question belief without proof, we have better things to do with our time, like living our lives as productively as possible, loving and being loved.

But it is when theists try to force their beliefs on others that I stand up and say, Stop! Believe in your god or gods, but leave the rest of us alone. Belief is a personal matter. To you, I am an atheist. To me, I am a human being living my life to the full.

One more thing: Evolutionists have the fossils. We win!

Marc Holt, Bangkok, Thailand

Some of these points have been refuted by Dawkins, others are blatant personal attacks. In a tradition of academical criticism and honesty these untruthful attacks have no place.
If anything, these 'academic contributions' only serve to reinforce the stereotype of 'dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads' and stigmatise a group, atheists, who are being clearly suppressed in, per example, the United States.
It begs the question: Where are the religious thinkers that will face Dawkins in honesty with arguments based in reason, not appealing to emotions?
Where are these shining knights of faith? How sad an image of God if he is defended by the insulting and the contemptuous!

Jerôme Serpenti, Maastricht, Netherlands

What feeble arguements from Professor McGrath. Richard Dawkins admits that he would change his mind about god if he saw reasonable evidence for his existence. That is the hallmark of a true scientist. Sadly the same cannot be said about McGrath and his ilk - their minds are fixed in time - a bronze-age mentality

Bob Russell, Winnipeg, Canada

I'm confused. So science openly says, 'We don't know the answer to this question, and we don't even know if we can ever answer it'. Religion responds, 'Ah, but we can create an answer, which we openly admit we cannot prove and have no objective evidence for, but which we still maintain to be true' and somehow this is a failing of science?

Neil Barron, New York, USA

Nothing but continued meaningless ad hominems and personal attacks on Dawkins and not a damn thing that hasn't been answered before. Where are the responses to Dawkins' criticisms of the underpinnings of a belief in god(s)? Where is the refutation of the notion that the existence of a creator god is of extremely small probability? There aren't any despite the fact that so many of the defenders of theism claim that Dawkins brings no new arguments and none that have not been dealt with and refuted before. Usually they add a statement that they don't have space or time "here" and they never provide citations as to where those arguments have been successfully refuted. Why do they do that? Because that's all they can do!

Jacques, Franklinton NC, USA

Uh, sir, atheists have no interest in "proving" there is no god.

Without you, a believer, there would be no atheists.

Think about it.

John, Portland, Oregon

I also recently heard Alister McGrath speak, at Southampton university, 700 people turned out to hear him on Dawkin's 'The God Delusion', filling both main lecture theatres and using a video link.

I was impressed by his reasoned, systematic exposure of Dawkins' assertions as biased, unreasonable and blinkered. In particular, responding to Dawkins' idea of Christianity as a 'mind virus', McGrath showed that this, if true, must equally apply to atheism and also deny the possibility of reaching independent conclusions after reflective thought.

He also showed that Dawkins had been highly selective in evidence he chose to consider, for example concentrating on the tiny, unrepresentative 'Christian voice' group but ignoring the massive, mainstream Christian Aid. Dawkins had also chosen to ignore a mass of published evidence that Christians tended to be healthier and live longer than atheists. Surely some selective advantage then?

I look forward to reading The Dawkins Delusion

Stephen Hayes, Southampton, UK

Given that all religions make the claim to having the "divine truth" on what basis am I to believe one claim over another? For if I believe one I am necessarily refuting the others (Ba'hais of course like to have their cake and eat it). All cannot be true.
Yet God by his nature must be unknowable ( if I knew God completely I would of course be comrehending the divine which would be alomost a claim to divinity on my part!). We have only the words of thosewho claim to have had communication with "God" to know "what he wants" and they all contradict each other!
Theism is a relic of cultural history and one day we will abandon this more primitive form of thinking.

Bunc, ayrshire, scotland

Francis Collins and Owen Gingerich are guilty of propagating pseudo science and both have diminished their respective professions. For science's sake, they and Alister McGrath should "just get out of the way".

Tony Fioretti, Kangaroo Island, South Australia

Alister has no concept of the difference between an Eisnteinian 'god' and a personal 'god'. Dawkins does not attack the former.

bigrz, Redmond,

Alister McGrath makes the simplest of errors. He says that science cannot answer all the questions, therefore it must fall to religion to answer them. What gives religion such authority? Why not philosophy? And why should it not be that no human endeavour yet devised can answer these questions? To talk about the meaning of life could be as meaningful as talking about the meaning of underpants.

To argue that religion has any answers at all conflicts with its track record: think of its opposition to social and scientific progress, its obscurantism and its part in wars, genocide, burning of witches and heretics.

Stewart Ware, London,

You're just annoyed Richard Dawkins continually calls theology a waste of time.

"If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?"

Too right.

Frank, London,

Sir,

Two points:

I find McGrath’s affront to Dawkin’s supposed black and white attitude remarkably naïve, given that his church, and his fellow believers in scriptural doctrine the world over, have and continue to take an identical stance; bluntly put, our old book is right and everyone else’s isn’t.

I must also question Prof McGrath’s own intellectual honesty, given his statement: “the hallmark of intelligence is not whether one believes in god or not, but the quality of the processes that underlie one’s beliefs”. Knowing, as we do, that there exists no evidence to support the existence of a god, the only ‘indication’ of any such possibility is our inability to prove a god does not exist, suggest to me that McGrath as a scientist or philosopher is not examining his own beliefs with any great rigor and the ‘processes that underlie his beliefs’ are to say the least erroneous.

Simon Quick, Cham, Switzerland

Dawkins belief that science can answer questions about the existence of the universe is inspiring and optimistic. Although, I'm sure he would admit that with our limited human capacity, we may never conceivably be able to answer that question but as a scientist it is important to be striving for discovery. To jump from the realization that science can't disprove god to believing he does exist, begs the old celestial teapot question. Your answer is, I just feel god/christ/allah/vishnu (depending on where you are born). So if there was a creator of the universe, like the aformentioned scientists propose, what makes you think he loves us...will give us an afterlife...is important in our lives at all. It is much more likely that if there was some creative force, it doesn't care about the inhabitants of a pale blue dot. That is up to us humans to care about this place.

Casey , Gainesville, Florida, US

McGrath is right to say that there are questions like "what’s life all about?" which science can take only a peripheral interest in. but surely questions like this are best addressed by philosophers without recourse to supernatural nonsense

Dave Cross, London, UK

Prof McGrath fails miserably to recognize the existense of faiths other than Chritianity. The choice is not binary between Christianity and Atheisim (if I can capitalize "A"). Hinduism/ Buddhism have presented some of the best thinking for such difficult questions. As a professor of Historical Theology at Oxford, I would expect him to present a balanced view of thinking presented by all religions. The one-sided thinking tarnishes the argument he is trying to present and the logic rings hollow.

There may not be ultimate reconciliation between science and religion since one must understand that the objective of science is to show/prove "what" and "how" wheres religion tries to prove "why" as well.

A Pathak, Boston, USA

McGrath addresses Dawkins' over-emphatic enthusiasm but not his arguments. He looks at the question from a Christianocentric viewpoint as if the choice was between a scientific atheism and the Christian god, ignoring the many other gods in the world, some with greater followings, whose cases need to be assessed - not to speak of thousands of now-neglected dead gods.
Even within his Christian universe, McGrath treats his religion as a fixed package, never addressing the anomaly that he is putting up against science a tribal deity of a Semitic tribe of 4-5000 years ago whose identity and character have evolved in extraordinary correlation with the history and development of his worshippers.
His recourse must be to strip the historical and cultural baggage out of his belief system. But then he really is in trouble, as he needs to start by defining what a god is, how it works and interacts with him, and why we should believe in it. And there Dawkins gets him, fair and square.

David J F Pollock, London,

There certainly may be questions that the scientific method can never answer, but theologians have never reached a consensus on even the most basic of questions, such as whether polygamy ought to be allowed or prohibited, whether god(s) approve of slavery or not, or even how many gods supposedly exist, because theology does not discover any new information.

Theology is merely a system of building fiction; J.R.R. Tolkien's writings on elves is deeper and more detailed than, say, the Brothers Grimm, but that doesn't make it less fictional. "Modern" religions are no less fictional than any other superstitions.

Brian Westley, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

McGrath points to a book by Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project. This is a poor move. Collins, in his own field of expertise, is a strong supporter of evolution, and this is not where he finds his support for God. Instead he finds it in other areas, outside his expertise, such as the origin of morality. Collins considers this to be a question that science cannot answer, and yet other scientists with expertise in evolutionary biology and cognitive science are already working on such questions, and making progress.

quork, IvoryTower, USA

McGrath’s arguments are unexceptional and deserve a serious response. Science can tell us many things, but it cannot address many of the wider questions of life. It is then certainly fair to scrutinise opposing worldviews to see which gets everything that matters in. If naturalism is the truth, then how do we explain the existence of rationality, or free will? Or are these also delusions (as some scientists hold)? If so, then we no longer have science or scientists in any relevant sense. And on what basis does an adherent of naturalism judge that diverse sexual orientations have equal moral value, but that rape, infanticide and bestiality (etc.) are beyond the pale? (remembering that strong arguments for rape and infanticide can – and have – been mounted on a naturalistic understanding of the behaviour of primates in the wild). Atheists cannot act as if they have no searching questions to answer.

Arthur Jones, Manchester,

It is not adequate to simply assert the limits of science without demonstrating why. McGrath, exactly why is it that science can't answer the questions you've mentioned, or - to be more precise - how are theologians like yourself uniquely qualified to do so, in a way that precludes any thinker of sufficient faculty from participating in the discussion?

I get the impression you just have a chip on your shoulder, because a fellow Oxford professor has insinuated in a best-selling book that you and other theologians have literally wasted your professional lives studying a discipline which amounts to little more than semantic acrobatics and dubious pontificating, like this article.

Robert Maynard, Sydney,

I find that the big majority of atheism is based on personal reason (Atheist education, God is unfair, don’t need god logic, personal experience …) and atheists who are interested in debates look for philosophical and scientific reason.
The Most important scientific and philosophical reason that Dawkins omitted that prove the existence of a designer: The universe is described by mathematical formula , its not based on pure hazard … Mathematics = elegance ….
Who is more important Albert Einstein or Dawkins … Einstein believed in a designer!

Jimmy romanos, Edde Byblos, Lebanon

I listened to Alister McGrath when he recently spoke at Southampton university and I thought his debunking of Dawkins convincing. He presented clear evidence that Dawkins in 'The God delusion' had failed to follow the normal rules of scientific enquiry due to his a priori commitment to atheist materialism and personal dislike of Christianity.

It is rich of atheists to accuse a Dawkins debunker of 'ad hominem' when Dawkins has made his reputation by accusing Creatonists of being tantamount to child molesters for teaching children that Darwinism may be questioned and alternative beliefs systems explored.

There is much evidence for the existence of God, primarily through the prophecies and historical testimony Jesus but also very much through the irreducibly complex nature of life th euniverse and everything which is very far from being explained by materialist science.

Stephen Hayes, Southampton, UK

Weird how so strong a reaction can come from such a simple misunderstanding. Science's refusal to claim knowledge about such issues as these does not constitute an attack on those who do claim such knowledge.

How can neutrality ever be considered an attack? I think it has to do with people limiting themselves to black/white interpretations. To ignore the third possibility (neutrality) is a big mistake.

Why is it so common for people to think that science claims to "have all the answers" or something similar? That is such a huge stretch from reality.

godma, Seattle, Washington, US

It should be obvious to anyone who has read The God Delusion that Professor McGrath does not (indeed, cannot) refute any of Dawkins' main arguments, and must retreat to the vacuous statement that Christianity simply "makes sense of things." His primary accomplishment has been to confirm the suspicion that one can become a prominent theologian and still display transparently fuzzy thinking. Perhaps such thinking is in fact a necessary attribute of those who engage in this brand of "scholarship."

Frank Messina, Logan, USA

"What is life all about?"

It's not that no-one can find an answer, it's more that it isn't a valid question. Life isn't 'about' anything. It just is. It's a Monty Python sketch, without a punch-line. Enjoy it while it lasts.

John Flemming, Scunthorpe, UK

Richard Dawkins is vehemently opposed to any who accept an authority outside science. However, this, as Alister McGrath shows, leads him to a state of denial that displays his adoption of scientism and philosophical materialism. Dawkins is unable to recognise that Christians have contributed substantially to the world of philosophy and, ultimately, he confuses rational thinking with rationalism. Ultimately, we have a clash of world views. It is not just that Christians argue that we have a “superb way of making sense of things”; the stumbling block for Dawkins is that Christians make truth claims that have roots outside the methodology of science. His response to this is what reveals his position to be first ideological and second fanaticism.

David Tyler, Manchester, UK

McGrath is right to say that there are questions like "what’s life all about?" which science can take only a peripheral interest in. but surely questions like this are best addressed by philosophers without recourse to supernatural nonsense

Dave Cross, London, UK

Once again Alister McGrath has strained and strained only to produce an odoriferous collection of ad hominems, misinformation and arguments from incredulity.

He might consider that "Why are we here?", "What's life all about?", and his unasked, but obvious, "Who's responsible?" could well be answered by "No reason", "Nothing" and "No one'". And rather than foisting off the answers to his favourite Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin he should realise that we each have to take responsibility for our own meaning of life.

Oh, by the way, it is up to the theist to provide convincing evidence (NOT *proof* - proof is for maths and whiskey) for his deity or set of deities.

Martin D Hutton, Woodbury, USA

A completely unsatisfactory attempt at debunking Dawkins, when all else fails, attack the personality and not the arguments, F minus Mr McGrath, must do better.

bipod, Glasgow, UK

I attended McGrath's talk to the Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow a few months ago. It was the biggest load of unintelligent tripe I have ever heard. I had hoped for a reasoned debate on his views on creationism, god, etc, but was treated to a tirade of sneering, sanctimonious drivel. His mis-representation of facts was astounding.

zeno, Glasgow,

McGrath claims Dawkins argues along the following lines 'Science has all the answers — and God isn't even on the short-list. Only science-hating idiots think otherwise. '

Isn't this misrepresentation, bordering on mendacity?

Steven Carr, Newcastle,

"They know that they can’t prove that God is there, any more than an atheist can prove that there is no God."

What an unfortunate statement. Of course atheists can't disprove a negative. However, the existence of a positive CAN be determined to a level beyond reasonable doubt in an objective way. It just hasn't been done, forcing believers to resort to mental contortions to define God outside of proof.

Alister starts with the assumption that there is an abstract, 'overall' meaning to life and derides science as unable to work out what it is. He dismisses the possibility that it is a 'nonquestion' without providing any justification. Please, Alister, explain why there is something "all about" life that we need to know? We can live and enjoy a fulfilling existence without an ultimate meaning, surely?

David, Gold Coast, Australia