Oh, dear! This piece by Alister McGrath seems very weak indeed.

Gary Paul Gilbert

A cultural taboo was broken.

The "obvious evidential and rational deficit" of the so-called New Atheism? There's no evidence in god-talk. It's tradition and interpretation of texts and feelings. That's why, once the opinions of the religious are excluded, the discussion can proceed on a rational basis. There may be something to metaphysics, but since experience of it is subjective, it's undebateable. (And experienced so variably and contradictorily, it gives no certain direction.)

It's not that the New Atheists have swept the field with argument. It's that the certainties of the Dr. McGraths' no longer seem credible, much less necessary to ethical or constructive living.

Well, McGrath makes a good case for (atheist) Baggini and (secular humanist) Kurtz.

From his infantile sarcasm in the first paragraphs (similar to the infantile sarcasm of the New Atheists he derides), I think I'd prefer if McGrath NOT try to defend MY TEC-Christian faith, thank you.

JC Fisher

@Murdoch Matthew, re

It's tradition and interpretation of texts and feelings. That's why, once the opinions of the religious are excluded, the discussion can proceed on a rational basis.

What's "rational" about excluding "tradition and interpretation of texts and feelings" (and "opinions")? Those are important mental functions of the human animal. It would be as irrational to exclude them, as to exclude our empirical mental functions!

That's why, once the opinions of the religious are excluded, the discussion can proceed on a rational basis..

Strike that sentence quoted by JC Fisher (tgflux) -- reads better without it.

The thing is, doctrinal disputes are settled by authority (if they're settled at all); there's no end to them. (Blocks in our neighborhood have six store-front churches, each with the Truth.) Maybe we can't have a rational discussion of religion, which is all tradition and intuition. We can only look for consistency in our arguments, and evaluate the effects. But we must insist on evidence in matters of fact.

I don't know that I would call it the breaking of a cultural taboo. It's more of a biting of the apple, a falling into sin from a pre-lapsarian state. Fundagelical atheism is what this is, and the divorce from the erudite irreligion of the continental philosophers is conspicuous. It's transgressive, or rather, it revels in its own sense of transgressiveness, but that's the Spirit of the Age talking.

Look, there's nothing new about either the tone or the enthusiasm of the "New Atheists." Some of us remember Madalyn ("Mad") Murray O'Hair. I once heard her speak, and her "poke that hive with a stick" attitude made Dawkins look positively polite.

She convinced me in that appearance that she wasn't really "a-theistic," as much as she was "anti-religion." She had a clear and well developed concept of the God she decried. It wasn't much like my concept of God as a believer; but it was clear and comprehensible. It was also clear from the evidence - from the energy and intensity of her anger - that this God was so very important to her. Without it, she had little to speak about.

I have lived, if briefly, with a Theravadinist Buddhist family. In that tradition, whether or not there is a God is simply irrelevant, and not a matter for controversy. Now, that, and not this "Let me tell me all about this God I need you to believe in so that my anti-faith has some meaning," is real atheism.

You know, Matthew, we need to consider what constitutes evidence. Have you seen a quark? I haven't. Have you seen a black hole? I haven't. I believe in them, but I haven't seen one; and so far, and almost by definition, they are beyond our tools of perception. They make sense in light of the math; but as near as I can tell, all that does is make the math a language of faith. I like Brian Greene's books. On the other hand, you might be interested in my thoughts on Greene's appearance on "The Colbert Report," and what we might call a "hymn to the math" that he proclaims.

Marshall Scott

Yes, Scott, we all live by faith, in a world we haven't personally checked out. We live by the stories we hear and we trust the experience of those who tell them. That's why L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith can start new religions from scratch, and Right Wing radio can persuade millions to accept its made-up facts. (Have you seen the President's birth certificate?) It's a truism that the problem with even the most beneficent religion is that it trains people to believe without evidence. The Church is trying to have it both ways, to value the tradition while living in an empirical world. It's not proving easy. The Church is down to emphasizing fellowship and culture, with a fillip of mystery.

You're absolutely right that "whether or not there is a God is simply irrelevant, and not a matter for controversy" is the real atheism. That seems to be where we're headed, as more people find it unnecessary to live with reference to the Christian tradition.

That seems to be where we're headed, as more people find it unnecessary to live with reference to the Christian tradition.

Um, "we're", Murdoch? Who is this "we" of which you speak? ;-/

JC Fisher

re "more people": feh, I don't trust atheist #s, anymore than I trust Fundy #s! People are TOO COMPLICATED, for simple "more believe this" "fewer believe that" tables & graphs. Ever seen how polls change in an instant? Ever notice how different pollsters note people believe contradictory things AT THE SAME TIME?

Someone will ALWAYS believe something I consider to be absolutely crazy. And others will always REFUSE to believe, something I hold as absolutely essential! *LOL*

Who is this "we" of which you speak?

You're right, "we" is a dangerous word. I thought using it to mean us as a society was justified, given the statistics on religious belief published recently. (And no, I have no reference for those, just memories. I think some were posted on the Café.)

I'll turn you over to my husband, Gary, if you want close readings. I deal in impressions.

Ever notice how different pollsters note people believe contradictory things AT THE SAME TIME?

Odd to be arguing with you, Marshall, when we seem to agree basically. Or at least we have similar dislikes.

I should have referenced JC Fisher in my 2:09am comment, though I find Marshall Scott's approach sympathetic as well. The memory is going.

Yes, it's called double-think, or compartmentalizing, and I alluded to it earlier: "The Church is trying to have it both ways, to value the tradition while living in an empirical world."

I don't think it's just the Church doing it, MM.

I think it's the human condition---and it's probably psychologically healthy, to a signficant extent (my hunch is that the severely mentally ill, e.g. paranoid schizophrenics, CANNOT compartmentalize).

[I would also add that I don't believe we live in ONLY "an empirical world". Of course, that's only my opinion---I can't empirically prove it. ;-/]

OK, England. I just wanted it clarified, that that the "we're" of your claim didn't speak for me (I suspect there's a good number of English your claim doesn't speak for, either, but I'll leave that to them!).

Scripture, Tradition and Reason: speaking personally, I find all 3 "necessary"! ;-)

JC Fisher