This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
I thought that was a very thoughtful and measured review of McGrath. But while Parsons is right in his two fundamental points that 1)previous ideological associations of atheism are not necessary parts of it and 2)McGrath does not engage with the very best intellectual cases for atheism, some of his other observations fall wide of the mark. He pulls out the old 'naturalistic explanations leave nothing for God to do' canard, seriously misunderstanding the role of God in creation (as do most atheist apologists). And his attempt to isolate a 'core' of genuine argument behind Dawkins' rhetorical tirade is unintentionally funny. It has more than a whiff of hagiography to it: Dawkins is popular and has given atheism a likeable public face, so let's back him up even if he has no idea what he's talking about. I think it would be best just to associate the best arguments for atheism with their real proponents and disown Dawkins.
Post a Comment