Alister Acgrath: A Comparative Analysis

Similar to Gould, Alister E McGrath believes that science and religion are in conflict, and that this conflict is counterproductive. McGrath was an atheist who became a devout Christian. Contrary to Gould, however, McGrath believes that science and religion are complementary, and that religion fulfils needs that science cannot. McGrath states that science is “existentially inadequate” and that it cannot answer some of life’s most important questions. He uses Popper’s ultimate questions as examples of those questions. Popper’s ultimate questions are “why are we here?” “what is the point of life?” and “why is there something rather than nothing?”. McGrath is a fan of science, and believes in evolution, he acknowledges that science plays a very …show more content…
Dawkins wrote a book called the The God Delusion, where he explains his many arguments against faith. Dawkins believes that religion is unnecessary, and at times dangerous, and that science is the only realm that people should be concerned with. Much of what Dawkins argues in his book is that although the world seems to have some natural order, that can all be attributed to evolution through natural selection. He believes that the critical flaw in religious people’s views is that they perceive a natural order in the world and attribute this to God. Dawkins writes in his book that “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” “Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.” Essentially Dawkins argues that faith is a way of avoiding the difficult and complex questions in life. Dawkins also believes that teaching children faith is dangerous and unfair, as children do not have the ability or knowledge to dispute religion at a young age. This results in children believing religion as fact, without giving them the opportunity to decide what they believe in for themselves. Dawkins provides his logic on why God does not exist, he states “The temptation [to attribute the …show more content…
McGrath’s book was a criticism of Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. McGrath points out that one of Dawkin’s main arguments is that the world is so complex and improbable, that if God created the world he would have to be at least as complex and improbable as the world. Dawkins then argues that something so complex would need an explanation that we currently do not have. McGrath points out that Dawkins has admitted that humanity itself is incredibly improbable, however, we are here. McGrath is stating that it is irrelevant how improbable God is just as it is irrelevant how improbable humanity, what is relevant according to McGrath is whether God is actual. McGrath argues that it is obvious that God is incredibly improbable, however, anything that created humanity, and humanity itself is incredibly improbable. Therefore, it is not reasonable to say God is very improbable and therefore he does not exist, because any explanation for the creation of humanity will be improbable. However, Dawkins argues this point by stating “We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.” Moreover, McGrath argues that Dawkins unfairly portrays religious people as not very intelligent. McGrath disputes this by pointing out that both he and Antony Flew converted to religion as adults after obtaining educations at some of the best schools in the world. Dawkins