Before we turn to our debate, those of you who have developed an interest in Arminianism and Molinism may find the posts at the Center for Theological Studies: Classical Arminianism and Molinism: A Comparison and Contrast Between Two “Mediate” Theologies helpful. Deirdre Richardson, M.Div. is the author of both Part 1 and Part 2. Click on the “Parts” to jump to the site.
This page offers important interactions with British atheist Richard Dawkins. We begin with a discussion/debate that was recorded; the next focuses on a debate that will not occur, according to Dawkins, but not because many parties have not tried to make it happen: Richard Dawkins rejects a debate with Prof. Craig.We conclude with evidence in two videos of why Dawkins prefers to avoid being on the same stage with Craig: it will end badly for him.
Richard Dawkins, atheist, interviews Alister McGrath, a molecular biophysicist, former atheist, and now Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture. He had previously been a professor of molecular biology at Oxford and then a professor of historical theology. You will not be surprised to learn he has Ph.D.s in both molecular biophysics and historical and systematic theology. He has authored The Dawkins’ Delusion; The Science of God; A Scientific Theology (3 volumes); and Glimpsing the Face of God: The Search for Meaning in the Universe.
Before viewing Prof. McGrath in his discussion it may be helpful to understand a philosophical position he describes as “especially congenial” to the development of his science-based theology (see his The Science of God): critical realism. Wikipedia describes this school of thought thusly:
“In the philosophy of perception, critical realism is the theory that some of our sense-data (for example, those of primary qualities) can and do accurately represent external objects, properties, and events, while other of our sense-data (for example, those of secondary qualities and perceptual illusions) do not accurately represent any external objects, properties, and events. Put simply, Critical Realism highlights a mind dependent aspect of the world, which reaches to understand (and comes to understanding of) the mind independent world.
Contemporary critical realism most commonly refers to a philosophical approach associated with Roy Bhaskar. Bhaskar’s thought combines a general philosophy of science (transcendental realism) with a philosophy of social science (critical naturalism) to describe an interface between the natural and social worlds. Critical realism can, however, refer to several other schools of thought, such as the work of the American critical realists (Roy Wood Sellars, George Santayana, and Arthur Lovejoy). The term has also been appropriated by theorists in the science-religion interface community. The Canadian Jesuit Bernard Lonergan developed a comprehensive critical realist philosophy and this understanding of critical realism dominates North America’s Catholic Universities.
We turn now to Oxford Don Richard Dawkins’ rejection of a debate with Dr. William Lane Craig of Biola University:
William Lane Craig responds to Dawkin’s refusal in a BBC radio interview:
Dr. Craig hammers Dawkins’ pseudo-logical argument:
In this segment from a William Lane Craig presentation. Dr. Craig explains the logical incoherence of Daniel Dennett’s Uncaused Cause Argument for the Existence of the Universe.