by Bernie Dehler 12-18-07
Richard Dawkins interviewed former atheist Alister McGrath. Click here to see the interview free on YouTube (posted May 30, 2007). This interview was for a film project of Dawkins, but this segment never made it into production. McGrath, pictured to the right, is a Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University; click here to see McGrath's website. Here are my running notes of the 1 hr. 10 min. video segment.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Legend:
RD = Richard Dawkins
AM = Alister McGrath
Note: Much of this I paraphrased in my own words to save typing while capturing the essence.
Time: 0 (starting)
RD: Tell us you journey in atheism and from it.
AM: Grew up in Ireland. Atheism seemed reasonable, along with science. Starting re-thinking at Oxford and thought Christianity offered a better way of seeing things
RD: I’ve interviews a lot of wacky Christians and with their wacky beliefs… how do you feel about being in the same camp of these nut-jobs.
AM: All groups have this problem… even atheists have problems with other atheists. Some weird things do concern me, but we must engage with people of other faiths to help them as well as learn from them… they may see something we don’t.
RD: I try to engage those of faith, but it is difficult, because they invoke faith and turn-off reason…
<<… at this point they get into a friendly give-and-take where they confront and agree with each other, helpfully defining their terms with examples. Dawkins brings into play statistics regarding whether God exists or not, since it can’t be proven either way….>>
AM: In the end, is there a God?... regardless of probability, since there is a very low probability that any of us should be here right now.
RD: Explains how wonderful Darwinism explains the improbability of us being here… and God seems like a short-cut answer.
AM: God is above something that can be explained, being transcendent. CS Lewis is quoted, referring to the worldview of Christianity giving us a way to see and understand the world that makes sense. Which worldview makes the most sense for us, and helps our lives?
RD: If we don’t need God to explain the world, then it shows that God is improbable.
Time 15:00
AM: I don’t believe in God because it explains things, but for other reasons… but as a bonus, a belief in God explains things. A case of “atheism based in science” doesn’t pan out because about 50% of scientists believe in God. The question of “where did God come from” is interesting, but it isn’t what Christians ask, since it is understood that God is eternal and everything comes from Him. God created a framework for nature to act within, as in the science of physics.
RD: Saying “God was always there” is not an explanation. If you can’t say that about an eye, then why regarding God?
AM: Tough questions, like “where was the universe before it existed” or the “universe expanding into ‘something’ ” .
RD: I want to see something at the very base that is very simple… in-line with Darwinist thinking. Starting with a advanced conscience seems unreasonable. Science is not helped with thinking that such a God exists.
AM: It is difficult to extrapolate into the very distant past. Religion is more about how we should live, not so important in trying to figure out how we got here technically. How should we live and think… and hope for living and life after death.
RD: Religion does make claims that aren’t essential to a good life. From what you say, you sound like you might be a Deist… so why are you a Christian… with ideas of atonement, prayer, etc. There is no basis for it, so why? You were raised that way?
AM: In the end, one of the key reasons for belief in God is because of Jesus. It is not just abstract, or theoretical… but based on the life and death of Jesus. Same for Christian… key for belief is Jesus. All this about Jesus explains the view towards God and how to understand God. “Christianity is not about “explanation” but about “salvation.” Although, it does have some explanatory benefit.
RD: Evidence for life of Jesus and what He did is remarkable thin… theologians agree, don’t they?
AM: Talks about accuracy of Scripture… and the way of life perceived from his first followers. It transformed people’s lives. It transforms lives and explains the world around them.
RD: Sin and redemption… sin is ‘paid for’ by the torture of Jesus. Sounds unpleasant… punishment to expiate sin… also substitutionary (not fair or justice), also being punished for Adam’s sin, also dying for future sins… and who was He trying to impress (why not just forgive instead of self-torture?).
AM: Something wrong with human nature… we can’t redeem ourselves… no resources for that. The life of Jesus is the key for this… entering into Christ. Expresses God’s longing for us and being able to return and relate to him, removing sin which stands in the way. The cross is the point where this all happens.
RD: Sounds like you are making this sound like a symbolic, poetic thing, rather than the gory details. Why kill instead of simply forgive?
AM: The details are important, but they need to be interpreted… like Caesar crossing the Rubicon, not simply just a general crossing a river but a declaration of war… a much deeper meaning. In Christ, God is entering the world, and the world did it’s worst to Him. God entered the darkest part of the world to renew it. I believe in a God who enters the world to redeem it through Christ.
Time 33:00
RD: How do you know the faith you were brought-up in is the right one?
AM: I began as an atheist, so not brought-up in Christianity… accepted it because it makes sense. Christianity offers the narrative that offers fulfillment mentioned in other faiths. For that reason, I want to reach out to other faiths, to show them the fulfillment in Christ.
RD: What about “the problem of evil,” for example in tsunami tragedies.
AM: Some say we can’t explain it, some say it is important in how it is handled, in which being a Christian greatly helps. God wants us to help others.
RD: What about the sheer magnitude of a huge disaster, but a child is saved, why do people say God saved one child? Why not the others also? Why not just say the child was lucky?
AM: Could the world have been made in a different way, without the great tragedies? I don’t know. As for your example, people want to give thanks.
RD: Would you say God changed that one child?
AM: Yes, and give thanks for that, but not say that God caused the tragedy. Could a ‘safe” world be made? It’s not a question of God, but the way things are.
<<… more give-and-take about theoretical other worlds in which there may be no suffering… with examples form the 9/11 suicide-hijacking situation… >>
AM: People believe even more after natural disasters because people start to realize how dangerous the world is… ask themselves, who can I turn to? God provides consolation and comfort. Religion can meet people where they are and help them. Related to 9/11, a central Christian theme is that God works through others,,, may cause them to do something. … more give-and-take on the same topic…
Time 47:00
AM: I believe the Christian way of seeing things makes the most sense, of all faiths. God does not directly intervene… look at Christ on the cross… God didn’t save Christ. God is not like a nanny following us around trying to protect us… that wouldn’t be really living.
RD: Does God save a certain child or not… you seem to be saying both.
AM: Did God choose to save a lone survivor. Yes, God did, not because the others were bad, but God wanted to do one. This is a fallen world, a world of suffering.
<< My notes: seems like Alister was caught regarding not being clear… he did seem to say both, that God does directly intervene to save a child and that God doesn’t directly intervene to do things but rather works through people. Maybe the right answer is that God sometimes intervenes directly, and it is impossible to know for sure in which case He does or why He chooses to.>>
RD: Suicide bombers are sure they are right… their total conviction, leading to murder, is fueled by faith to give them the great courage (they are not cowards). You can’t reason with these people. Teaching “faith” is dangerous to kids, isn’t it?
AM: Faith can be a very dangerous thing, whether it is religious or atheistic. The idea of ridding people of faith has also caused great harm. This says more about human nature than religion. Religion can inspire human nature to go great or ugly things. Having studied atheism in the 20th century has shown me terrible things as well.
RD: People should say that their faith could be wrong. As far as ridding people of faith, you are talking of Stalin? Do you think Stalin’s faith in no God drove him to hideous things?
AM: Stalin saw religion as a threat to him, and Stalin saw religion as the cause of many evils.
RD: I think it is unfair to blame atheists for Stalin, or Hitler who wasn’t an atheist. Being atheist was incidental to Stalin, unlike suicide bombers who’s faith is instrumental, thinking they’ll get to paradise for their actions. As Sam Harris says: “It is easy to see why these suicide bombers do what they do; just imagine that they believe exactly what they say they believe, then it makes sense.”
AM: Atheism had a good case of evils done in the name of religion over time, and in the last centuries we saw the evil from institutionalized atheism. It proves that as humans, we need to be careful about any ideology.
RD: Atheism was not central to Hitler or Stalin… it was incidental.
AM: I hear your objections, but atheism is a core, not an add-on to Marxism,,, and one reason why religion was to be removed by force. History of the 20th century can show that atheistic evil can match religious evil done by state powers. The real issue is human nature.
RD: When society polices actions, we should all be concerned when thought is policed, and that is dangerous. Maybe Stalin got the idea of though police from religious training.
RD: Do you think science and faith are incompatible?
AM: No. History shows some conflict, but we need to work it out.
RD: You said atheism is in decline. What do you mean by that?
AM: Atheism is shaped by culture… if religion is a bad thing, then atheism grows. Seems like we now have a growth in post-modernism… especially amongst the younger people… a growth of interest in spirituality. Atheism losing its appeal.
RD: What about a “spiritual atheist?” like Einstein, who didn’t believe in a supernatural power.
AM: That could be a debate as to whether Einstein was an atheist. However, many atheists can say it is natural to explore their spiritual side. But it seems like a conflict for a Marxist who stresses materialism only and then looking for a spiritual side.
RD: I would call myself a ‘spiritual atheist’ not believing in the supernatural, but having a wonder of the universe and wanting to explain them, without a desire for supernatural understanding.
AM: Some use ‘spirituality’ to explain wonder in nature, while others use ‘spirituality’ for things transcending nature.
Time 1:05:25
Interesting, Alister asks to ask a question of Richard,,, “turning the tables” so to speak.
AM: I noticed you have a double critique of religion: logic but also flashes of anger. Why the anger? What makes you upset about religious people.
RD: Religion teaches people to stop questioning. It is an enormous privilege to be here, alive, in the universe, with our scientific knowledge; so to not encourage but rather shut it down is upsetting. It is depriving people. The other reason is that faith can be a terrible weapon… human bombs, and this is only done because of indoctrination from a young age. A “reasoned argument” would never be dangerous, so I want to stop the violence at the root. A third reason is that innocent children are taken over by whatever religion they are born into, saying “this is a Catholic or protestant child” in N. Ireland. The child knows nothing and has no opinion. Labeling kids makes this worse.
Comments