Basic Training

Alister E. McGrath is a Christian theologian born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, currently serving as Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford. He's the author who wrote the recent book called "The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World" (amazon). This is a smart guy. He holds degrees in mathematics, chemistry, physics, and theology. He started out his academic life as an atheist, but then converted to Christianity in 1971 after arriving at Oxford University.

Why you ask?

[link] In the midst of this growing delight in the natural sciences, which exceeded anything I could have hoped for, I found myself rethinking my atheism. It is not easy for anyone to subject his core beliefs to criticism; my reason for doing so was the growing realization that things were not quite as straightforward as I had once thought. A number of factors had converged to bring about what I suppose I can reasonably describe as a crisis of faith—or lack thereof.

In other words; science is hard, dangit. He decided at that point that he needed a supernatural security blanket, and being steeped in a primarily Christian culture since birth, he obviously chose Christianity. This does NOT mean that Alister McGrath is any less smart, but it does mean that he's human.

Throughout the article I quoted above Mr. McGrath constantly alludes to atheism as "superficial" or "unsupported". The article is not such that he actually lays out his reasons why he makes these claims (his many books do that), but I believe that he makes the same basic mistake that he made in his "Twilight..." book. He redefines atheism to mean something that it does not.

Atheism and theism are binary descriptions. Theism indicates the presence of god-belief (of any kind) in a human being, and atheism indicates the absence of god-belief in a human being. Mr. McGrath does the only thing he can do as a Christian theologian and changes that basic definition of atheism to mean something like "the blind faith in the non-existence (of the Christian) God" so that he can write articles and whole books about it. The problem is that what he's arguing against isn't atheism.

Now, there may well be many atheists to which this particular description fits - Richard Dawkins, McGrath's self-appointed nemesis springs immediately to mind - but it is not required by the basic definition of atheism.

So, let's lay it on the table. McGrath is arguing against Dawkins' personal opinions, not against atheism as a whole. Atheism and theism are unassailable descriptions. You either possess god-beliefs, or you do not possess god-beliefs. Period. The end.

[link] Atheism, I began to realize, rested on a less-than-satisfactory evidential basis. The arguments that had once seemed bold, decisive, and conclusive increasingly turned out to be circular, tentative, and uncertain.

This is the place where he stumbles. Atheism and theism rest on nothing except the presence or absence of god-belief in a human mind. They do not "rest on" arguments, evidence, or anything like that. If you do not possess god-belief you are an atheist. If you do, you're a theist. That's it. Atheism and theism cannot be described as "superficial". They aren't that sort of animal. There is no such thing as "superficial" atheism or theism. God belief is there, or it's not there. It cannot be "half not there" or "half there". It doesn't work that way.

[link] The scientific method simply does not allow us to adjudicate the existence of God, and those who force it to do so (on either side of the debate) have pressed it beyond its acceptable limits.

I agree with McGrath here. The scientific method does not allow us to adjudicate the existence of (a) god(s). However, the scientific method makes the existence of any supernatural thing, including (a) god(s), completely beside the point. The scientific method does not concern itself with anything but the natural world. The philosophy that allows a person to do good science is NOT the scientific method itself. McGrath's Christian philosophy allows him to do good science. Dawkins' godless philosophy allows him to do good science. Whatever helps you through the day - as long as you don't confuse the two.

[link] In one sense, both theism and atheism must be recognized as positions of faith, belief systems that go beyond the available scientific evidence.

I do not agree with McGrath that theism and atheism "must be recognized as positions of faith." That's a ridiculous statement to make. Neither is a "belief system" or a "position of faith" - unless you've redefined the words so that they don't bear any resemblance to their meanings any more.

[link] This conviction naturally brings me into conflict with thinkers like Dawkins and his circle, who argue that the natural sciences in general—and evolutionary biology in particular—force us to atheism. Their highly contentious argument rests on decidedly shaky logical, philosophical, and evidential grounds; far from being an intellectual superhighway to atheism, it gets stalled at agnosticism, and is moved beyond that point by an aggressive use of rhetoric alone.

The scientific method is not a "superhighway" to anything. It is indeed a godless pursuit due to it's limitation to phenomenon that exist in the natural world, but a scientist's mind is his own. Atheist or theist, it just doesn't matter to the scientific method. It is, as I said above, quite literally beside the point.

Unfortunately, articles and books like McGrath's and Dawkins', instead of serving to enlighten people about their own philosophies and opinions (which they should, and do to a certain extent), end up polluting the public perception of atheists and encourage public consideration of atheism as "just another religion", which it's not, and atheists as curmudgeonly god-haters, which some may be, but not all. (If they are, then it is their own personal attribute, and not a general required attribute of atheism itself. Most atheists are not curmudgeonly god-haters.) It also confuses the public and mixes up the words "atheism", "science", and "evolution" into a sloppy mishmash of muddy thinking. This is one of the big reasons why we see the same snotty "arguments" made by Joe Christian against evolution, atheism, and science in general.

[link] Atheism is not the only conceivable worldview for a thinking person.

Atheism does not make this claim. It cannot. Richard Dawkins makes this claim. Sheesh.

[link] Belief in God gives us reason to examine the universe more closely, and generates a matrix that both encourages and facilitates an engagement with the world. Of course, I know this conclusion will be contested. The arguments remain open, despite rather crude attempts to close them down.

Again, whatever lets you sleep at night, Alister. You go ahead and curl up with your god-blanket if that allows you to do good science.

[link] I remain respectful of atheism, believing that I have much to learn from it and the concerns that it expresses. But I no longer share its faith. Or lack thereof.

Atheism and theism don't care if you respect them. Atheism and theism don't have "claims". Atheism and theism don't have "faith". Or lack thereof.

It always comes down to the basics.