Marc, Dawkins says no such things. He has even ended the God Delusion saying there may be things we may never know. And religion has tried to claim they know things and are still wrong (10,000 year old universe, sun goes around earth, man comes from dirt, etc.)

Brett Watters, Victoria, Canada

There's missing a "not" after point.

Marc, Engelskirchen, Germany

Dawkins has, in my opinion, a pretty strange view of religion and science. He says, science will one day be able to explain everything, so it is logically pushing back religion on that field, which, in the past, was used to explain nature. But religion never was to explain the things physics does today, it never happened to be, to tell the people the world is round or not, it was never supposed to give a comment on that and although the bible contents some ancient worldviews, it is and thats the point a scietific book and no one should read it like that, although some poeple do. Religion explains something, that neither physics nor any other science can explain: Why. Why the world came to be and so on, but not how, how is the question physics and other sciences answer. So these two fields do not overlap, they actually work hand in hand. By the way, Dawkins somehow does not differenciate between believe and know, well all in all not the greatest scientist at all.

Marc , Engelskirchen, Germany

Dick, I think that "pinning" McGrath regarding belief in miracles wouldn't be so easy for Dawkins - Dawkins is basically an adherent of a dualist vision of reality in a reductionist form (natural law / memes), which in philosophical terms is rather antiquated, which is the most heavy-handed prohibition of an "interventionist" God. A more contemporary, phenomenological approach to knowledge and being or other non-dualist vision wouldn't necessarily pose such a problem here. I don't know whether McGrath is a dualist in this sense. Look forward to sharing some god-talk with you sometime over a few beers.

James, Antwerpen,

A pity, that mcGrath is a believer in the traditional sense (two realities, supernatural miracles etc, elements on which Dawkins could easily pin him down). More interesting would have been to let Dawkins discuss with a person who knows that religion (incl. belief, myths, & ritual) might be considered a tentative language in which people try to deal with life in general and esp. with defining what is human. The last term not being predefined. Religion as finding of the self, god-talk as invention of "man"...

dick wursten, antwerpen, belgium

Science puts forward theories that are falsifiable (Popper). Science exists and evolves by corrective feedback and fundamentalism (strict and unswerving adherence to a dogma) has no place in science or indeed rational thinking. Dawkins is primarily a scientist and to call him a fundamentalist only displays an ignorance of the scientific paradigm.

Des Greene, Cork, Ireland

We are told that the Lord spoke to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I think Richard Dawkins is miffed because the Lord hasn't spoken to Richard Dawkins.

john Hyde, Acomb, Hexham,

I don't think one has to be religious to be a fundamentalist. In todays world there is a lot fundamentalism around with regard to the issue of human rights. If the right of the individual is practiced to determently, then this can be seen as a kind of fundamentalism.

Futhermore, you can be a fundamentalist without even relating to a text of any sort.

We all have a mind frame, a way of percieving things.

The fundamentalist will stick to his prejudices despite of what happens in his life. Even when he is experiencing things that, had he not been so mentally rigid, would have tilted his worldview.

A. Brekkan, Oslo,

Belief in God in itself has no particular value. As the book of James (Bible) points out the devils believe in God but it does them no good, apart from terrifying them.

There are two simple reasons for belief in God which RD avoids. First there is no possibility that what Bertrand Russel calls, "a fortuitous collocation of atoms" in a universe which has no purpose or meaning (as far as we can see) should or could produce rationality, meaning and purpose in its products. Until someone explains how this can be it makes infinitely more sense to believe that "in the beginningwas the LOGOs (Word)" meaning a rational mind which in turn produces creatures who also have rational minds.

Secondly as Bertrand Russ points out in "A FRee Man's Worship" "only on the foundation of unyielding despair can the soul's habitation hencforth be built." The stubborn persistence of hope in the human spirit gives the lie to the "fortuitous collocation of atoms". You cannot live the atheist position

Peter Kimber, Dirleton, East Lothin

How can there be reason in a world that came about by chance/for no reason? The atheistic worldveiw contradicts "rationality". If the a human being is nothing more than a complex bag of chemicals governed by the laws of physics, you say what you want to say and i say what i want to say! and theres no reason to rationalize! If a human has no dignity, but is just a "product of evolution" no better than a dog or a horse then why do atheists condemn war? After all its survival of the fittest isn't it? Atheism is intellectually dishonest in character and hypocritical, atheistic presuppositions do not comport with each other and carried to its logical conclusions it is irrational and absurd! All the while dressing up in the costume of "rationality"! As for agnosticism it is self refuting because if you cannot know anything for sure, then how do you know that you know that you cannot know anything for sure? You need universal absolute laws in your worldveiw! Christianity provides this!

Arnold Rangihuna, Gisborne, New Zealand

Richard Dawkins cannot be a fundamentalist. He has no 'sacred' text to be fundamental to. No, this man presents clear, persuasive, rational and logical arguments, and should be lauded and admired for doing so.

Jay Wood, Petersfield, UK

A lot of harm has always been done in the name of religion, agreed, but a lot of harm has also been done in the name of communism and fascism too, to name a couple of biggies. Perhaps the common denominator in 'doing harm' is not God or religion, but human nature which tends towards self interest and abuse of power, given the chance. The God of the Bible sacrificed his own Son that we might be forgiven, and live to know Him and to love our neighbour. I think science is fantastic, I am an intelligent graduate, but I can see the huge 'faith' required to believe that everything from molecular structure, DNA, the extraordinary universe, music, love, the human body 'evolved by chance'. I feel sorry for Richard Dawkins. The effort required NOT to believe in a creator God must be enormous. I choose God with my thinking scientific brain. It requires less faith.

Andrea, Canterbury, UK

Ok. Sorry if I may turn out a little cocky or if this comment ends up being too long. It's just that there's so much crap being said here.
I'd like to say, first of all, that I am an agnostic, i.e., I hold that it is rationally impossible to prove the existence of God. This does not mean that I believe that every religious belief is stupid, nor that a rational understanding of things is the only possible understanding. In fact, I think that there is a limit to what can be rationally understood, and that there is reality eyond that limit (see Hume and Kant).
Having said this, I would like to respond to some comments:

Martin Bentley, from Bristol, said: "The problem for the devout is that they believe they know the truth and therefore never can know any real truths; because anything that challenges what they believe is a threat. " Now, this statement can apply to religious fundamentalists and "scientific fundamentalists" alike, and there are a lot of people who do not realize that.

Javier, Santiago, Chile

To Russel, from Australia: Not all Christians (or religious believers in general) "put their hands over their ears and hum quietly to themselves", nor do they "shun science as irrelevant". Granted, some of them do. But to condemn a whole system of belief just because some of them who claim to belong to it do not understand such belief, or practice it in a way in which it should not be practiced, or interpret it in a way in which it should not be interpreted, is, I think, a gross error.

To all those who say that "more pain, suffering and death has been perpetrated as a result of religion that for any other reason", I think that statement is impossible to prove. Even if this wasn't the case, I think that the previous argument applies.

Javier, Santiago, Chile

Jawahar Lal Dhar, from India, said: "Religion has given mankind nothing but death, cruelty, wars,narrow mindedness" First of all, this is obviously not true. At the very least it has given happines and hope to millions of people. Whether or not this hope is a false one is another matter. Besides, your statement is itself incredibly narrow minded, and it's a shame you did not see that.

Stop the hatred and actually discuss the thing, guys.

Javier, Santiago, Chile

While I agree with Dawkins regarding evolution vs intelligent design, I believe the real danger to society is not restricted to religion but to mysticism per se. Religion (in all its guises) is just one form of mysticism; history is full of examples of how the minds of people have been manipulated to serve a variety of agendas. The God/Allah/Shiva etc concepts are all products of mysticism. Mysticism is the opposite of reason and honesty and it is used by politicians, prophets, evangelists, certain philosophers (e.g. Kant, Hegel, Plato) to create false realities. The so-called 'higher causes' offered by religions are in fact designed to generate guilt and through this to effect control over the minds and lives of people. Martin Luther himself said "Reason is the enemy of religion". The Pope's recent utterings regarding atheists conveniently forgets that Tsarist Russia was one of the most religious and mystical countries which created the conditions for the Bolshevik Revolution.

Brian Stewart, Durban, South Africa

If there is an event that is beyond science to explain in 2007, it will get explained may be ten years from now. I stand on my own, without a religious faith and I can assure you I am doing fine.Religion has given mankind nothing but death, cruelty, wars,narrow mindedness. Let live - without telling us what faith to have. Let our children be taught pure common sense and not immaculate conception.
Jawahar, India

Jawahar Lal Dhar, Baroda, Gujarat, INDIA

The main block with Chrsitainity today is we need to rediscover the logic (Truth as Jesus put it) behind the concept of the Trinity. The Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit describes the real structure of the self; the real experience of self. Self (whether God's or our own) is a universal phenomenon and cannot be a 'singular' experience. Even God's sense of self (as well as our own) has to be made up of three persons - Father, Son and person of Will. Father reflects to the Son all that it is and vice versa. But each has to have complete independence of the other and only be joined by each's own free will ( in the person of free will or Holy Spirit). So we have self awareness but also unity of self (i.e not a split sense of self). Three persons in one. It is all Jesus was trying to say. Don't believe me? Read my book "The secret of the Kingdom of Heaven". It is short but will give you proof of this. Can't give more here but read it and you may see it is true and amaze yourself.

David Carnegie, Bath , U.K.

" Central to this argument is: has there ever been an event that is beyond science to explain. That is, is there one situation where something metaphysical has happened? If there is one, then, we have to realize that not all is material and mechanical - there is something else. "

I have to argue!!. Just becuase Science can't explain it yet does not mean that it is due to "something else". we are not at the pinnacle of knowledge but we are trying. At least scientists are and to default to supernaturalism where ever we can't explain something is just plain laziness. Before we understood the natural world and solar system there was a sun god and a storm god and a water god. To argue that there is something supernatural because we don't understand is falling in to the same trap as our ancient ancestors.

Hey, too bad to all the people that could be helped with stem cell research and all the africans that could use condoms and NOT contract AIDS.. God knows best.. Ridiculous.

Ben Armadale, Geelong, Australia

Be careful of your dogma - both scientific and religous. Dawkins has only his faith to stand on, McGrath has faith and the experience of conversion. If you read the book "Biology of Belief" writen by a PHD in biology, you will find several examples of scientific dogma that have created problems for "non-believers" in the science dogma of a particular time. The Christian faith has its own history of dogma creating problems for "Believers".

Central to this argument is: has there ever been an event that is beyond science to explain. That is, is there one situation where something metaphysical has happened? If there is one, then, we have to realize that not all is material and mechanical - there is something else.

And of course, Hawkins has a question for us all: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" While Dawkins says "What a silly question." and answers "I don't know." theists will say "It is obvious that there is a cause!"

randy, St Pauls, canada

I've found it odd that Dawkins refuses to enter into actual theological discussions. He stated that he doesn't read theology because he doesn't see the point. He then dismisses christianity as just as silly as faith in a 'flying spaghetti monster'. Surely it is theology (and philosophy) that might enlighten Dawkins through rational criticism as to the differences between Jesus and the spaghetti monster. If it can't justify the difference, that's another matter.

I've heard Dawkins argue that just because the universe is large and complex, our conclusion should not be to give up rational investigation. Yet he seems to give up when it comes to religious belief because - 'well, why should I believe in Jesus rather than Thor or Zeus?'.

I was also disappointed that McGrath seemed afraid to argue theologically why he believes in christianity. I expected more from a theologian and christian! CS Lewis must be rolling over in his grave or frowning from heaven -or neither if Dawkins is right!

Laura, Belfast,

I reel in amazement when I read Peter Gliddon complaining that "more pain, suffering and death has been perpetrated as a result of religion than for any other reason." Whilst not denying that religious belief certainly has given rise to human conflicts that have caused great suffering I cannot help but marvel at Mr Gliddon's selective amnesia with regard to the hundreds of millions of people who suffered during the twentieth century due to conflicts driven by the zealous pursuit of wholly secular ideogies such as "freedom", world communism, Italian fascism, German National Socialism, the right to national sel-determination, and so on. The singling out religion only reveals the superficiality of Mr Gliddon's anti-religious prejudices, prejudices which the world would certainly be better off without!

Frederick Farrar, London, UK

More pain, suffering and death has been perpetrated as a result of Religion that for any other reason. The belief in a God appears to either give one the excuse to cause suffering to others or for others to cause suffering to the believer. There is no answer to the debate, those with Faith in either direction will be unshakeable even if shown uncontrovertible proof. All one can hope for is that people of all persuasions eventually reach a conclusion that it isn't necessary to kill people who are different or just disagree with you.
I'm also waiting for the Gloucester Old Spot to fly over.

Peter Gliddon, Falmouth, Cornwall, UK

I've yet to locate my immortal soul. As for morality - my own comes from contemplating what sort of world I would like to live in. Religion has yet to deliver that - perhaps cold rationality might yet....

Mark Wilkinson, London, UK

I am growing tired of Richard Dawkins. As a professional ecologist with a PhD in landscape ecology I do not consider myself one of those who ‘put their hands over their ears and hum quietly to themselves'. His work as been the stable fodder of years of ecologists and biologists. However, I was disgusted by his use of the MMR controversy as an example of where failure to listen to science has caused problems. Might I remind Professor Dawkins that Andrew Wakefield's work appeared in Science, one of the leading Peer Review journals of the science community. Perhaps those who review such work need a higher level of scientific integrity. The scientific and medical professional are as guilty as anyone in resulting mess.

I think that I have to agree with Steve Jones' comment that those from Oxford educational establishment have too much time on their hands.

Dorian Latham, Newcastle, UK

Oh Theresa. Dear Theresa. ‘Thank God for her Majesty the Queen,and Prince Charles,who have more intelligence than Dawkins..They are aware of Gods presence’ - how is it even remotely possible you believe, mad as you are, that people who believe in God are automatically granted intelligence of the highest order. Yes, because the Queen is DEFINATLEY more intelligent than Richard Dawkins, thank you for this, I am so enlightened now. And as for anyone else you’ve decided to cast your opinions on, no one leads such a humdrum existence as yourself, sitting there chattering happily to your friend the invisible pink unicorn and his associate you’re acquiring a liking to - the flying spaghetti monster. Lastly, because I’m having so much fun here, you say prove that god doesn’t exist - when rather if it's you that takes a liking to the flying spaghetti monster, it is not up to us normal folk to insist you are wrong, it is your job to do the proving.

Lauren H, Basingstoke, England

It's really not up to the non believer to disprove anything. The theist makes the claim that there is a god, therefore the burden of proof belongs to them.
I think it's remarkable how much science has achieved and yet with every new wonderful discovery the religious simply put their hands over their ears and hum quietly to themselves.
It's a sad thing to think that when reason and logic have cured all disease and answered the questions of how life came to be and discovered life elsewhere in this amazing universe, there will still be masses who believe in the ridiculous supernatural stories of whatever scripture they ascribe to and shun science as "irrelevent"

Russell, adelaide, australia

I would actually like to answer Scott M from Exeter. Scott, the teaching of eternal damnation has been a terrible pagan heresy that made its way into the bible after the fifth century. I have been a Christian for 10 years and always struggled with the God who loves and yet condemns and burns. One day I stumbled across the idea of 'universal reconciliation' - that God in His love will one day restore all men to Himself.
Read up at www.tentmaker.org - at the very least it will upset your friends who believe a loving God is going to burn those who have not heard and do not believe.
Just a couple more general things - 1) you only have to look at the universe (and yourself in the mirror) to see that you were designed. It's obvious - if you were the pinnacle of evolution what about all the intermediary humans with tentacles etc...!
2) Humans demand an answer - but we may not get it. God's perspective is so much bigger than ours we can only grasp "the hem of the garment".

Thanks
Doug

Doug C, HARROW, England

I think we should have religion because it led humans through
difficult times.Even though it might not make sense it hope that we shall over come these obstacles.

naima jackson, lithonia, georgia

The Tsunami proved absolutely beyond any doubt that there is no such person called a omnipresent, almighty, merciful God.

Over the history of man this has been proved over and over again. use a little bit of intelligence and commonsense.

K de Abrew, Colombo , Sri Lanka

Science is the study of the laws of cause and effect. Both the atheist and the thelogan have to evenually reach the point where they run out of causes to explain effects. For the atheist the primary cause is just that things are and for the theologan the primary cause is just that God is. Both are imponderable and inexplicable and both are therefore similar to one another and each results in a set of "religious" beliefs.

Paul Hudson, bristol, uk

To Thomas Front Canada..and Nick P...I pity the two of you..what a humdrum existence you two must have....Tell me this..you are so adamant that God does not exist...PROVE IT..As for Nick P...you have obviously NOT studied your Einstein...Like your advocate...Dawkings,what utter fools you are,to suggest that the billions of people all over this planet,are deluding themselves,because they know more about life that you do...a bit of advice....take the 'blinkers' off...There are way more 'believers'.than non uneducated species like yourselves..Get a life.FOR GODS SAKE....

theresa mc ginley, east kilbride, Scotland

In response to Theresa McGinley: there is no "why", and there will never be. Only the arrogance of humanity insists on there being a "why" as to our existence. We exist as the natural and inevitable consequence of evolution, not as the wet dream of some invisible omnipotent deity. The concept of religion is often quite seductive in this manner because it convinces its followers that they themselves are "special", "unique", or "chosen"; it gives a sense of importance, of belonging, and most importantly, it gives a sense of righteousness. These are the qualities we are taught to crave and why so many persons will cling tenaciously to the idea of being chosen by a higher power. You are not special, nor unique, nor are you the creation of God. You are simply what you make yourself to be, nothing more and nothing less.

Thomas Front, Thorold, Canada

Einstein DID NOT BELIEVE IN A GOD. anytime he referred to "god" it was a metaphor for what science has yet to understand. how deep your religious conviction must be. as long as someone smart does it i can believe too. humble.

nick p

nick p, crown point, in

"The Universe with a God would be a very different kind of Universe from a Universe without a God," is Dawkins starting point here. Do we need to listen to any more of the argument? A man who knows that much knows everything, and can tell us at first hand whether there is a God or not.

For me the whole God Problem is precisely that a Universe with a God seems to be scientifically indistinguishable from a Universe without a God, because God exists (if he does) too deeply behind the chain of mechanisms Science is able to uncover. But either way, it strikes me as a philosophically empty assertion.

It's faith-based certitudes like this opening premise of his that have me doubting seriously whether Dawkins ever listens to himself, or knows how to think about what he's saying.

Chris Bidmead, London, Greater London

What a shallow lot you are.Science tells you 'how' but it does NOT tell you WHY...and if Enstein believed in God,then it is good enough for me..Dawkins is deluding himself....never mind about the 'God Delusion' more likely the ' Athiest Delusion'

theresa mc ginley, east kilbride, Scotland

I cannot stand Dawkings...He is full of hatred,for people who dare to believe in God..The greatest scientist that ever lived Albert Enstein,believed in God...I truly believe that Dawkinks must have been abused as a child.Maybe that explains his 'obsession' with religion...He is angry at God..Thank God for her Majesty the Queen,and Prince Charles,who have more intelligence than Dawkinks..They are aware of Gods presence..Dawkins was furious at Prince Charles,s lecture in Reith 2000,all because the Prince dared to talk about mans 'intuition'.and the Creator...No one is safe from Dawkins wrath..

theresa mc ginley, east kilbride, Scotland

Being a "christian refugee" myself I empathise only with Dawkins. It must be acknowledged that science and logic cannot disprove faith of any kind (FAITH being the key word here!) .however both points are irrelevant. I feel whether or not God exists is not the main concept in question here; it is a moral question of whether one is willing to pledge their existence (physical or otherwise) to a genocidal, ethnic cleansing and megalomaniacal deity or recognise the unfavorable qualities in the abrahamic god and justly deny this entity. Surely the same christians that adhere to Christ's noble teachings cannot then, conversely, worship a God willing to condemn those who do not believe in him to eternal damnation! This is unjustifiable! whether or not God is the most powerful entity in existence does not mean that he can impose his sanctions on those who do not (and CANNOT) believe, especially as the "morals" I refer to are modelled on the teachings of the old and new testament! (wankers)

Scott M, Exeter, United Kingdom

If you want a really sparky debate try listening to the Dawkins and Quinn radio debate at http://www.rsa.org.uk/audio/index.asp

David Gifford, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey

Every so called 'fans of dawkins' blindly thinks that his claims is legitimate. But a person who know their basic theology can detect the ignorance and hatredness from his part. For instance, he says that it was Paul who encouraged preaching the gospel to the gentiles not Jesus. Every common Christian who know their Bible will find out who gave the 'The Great Commission. In fact, 'Jesus died for all sinners' and' 'Jesus opened the door to Gentiles' is the most fundamental and basic teaching in Christianity. Moreover, in Acts and his epistles, it is clearly revealed that Jesus gave Paul the mandate to preach the gospel to the world. Unsuprisingly, Dawkins seems to be ignorant of the basics of the Christian theology which makes it quiet hard for every true Christians to even consider reading his book which is nothing but some pages full of hatred and hostility.
Finally, I encourage all fans of Dawkins to read McGrath's book 'The Dawkins Delusion?'. Then come here and worship dawkins.

Jeswin, Barnstaple, North Devon

"Alister McGrath is one of the most profound thinkers in Theology"

As Dawkins has so often, and rightly in my opinion, pointed out, there can be no profound theological thought or debate. Theolgy is a non-subject.
I am sick and tired of weight being lent to, "Religious beliefs", I struggle to respect anyone who believes in a supernatural god anymore than I struggle to believe in someone who tells me they can fly. The recent interest in Scientology through John Sweeneys' documentary I thought was quite telling as you had many religious pundits openly amused at their belief in Xenu and the Thetans. What's interesting is that I see ALL religions in the same way as they see Scientology. It's nonsense and for me the job of atheists everywhere is to start openly ridiculing religion, see if we can shrink its influence, the sooner we do the better off we'll all be.

Carl, Manchester,

What a waste of time. They made some decent points (on both sides) but arguements consisting of one statement never satisfy the need to examine and counter each point an opponent makes. Much too short to be effective. Heres my two sense though. If everyone spent as much time exploring the world around them as they do constantly affirming and reaffirming to themselves their belief in something someone else made up, we would all have realized long ago that life itself is wonder-filled and beautiful enough without having to make believe. I look forward to a world in the future where my children don't have to humor such infantile world-views as religion promotes. I think it is time a seperate society was created in which freedom from religion was a major focus, and atheists were the majority.

Curtis, San Diego, Ca

Alister McGrath is one of the most profound thinkers in Theology today. Most of the criticisms levelled at him by the previous commentators, are unfair and unjustified. McGrath attempted to take the debate to a higher level with
commonsense and cautious concern for overstepping his area of expertise. On the other hand Dawkins, gave the false impression that he had substantial knowledge that extended across a myriad of mixed disciplines.

Wayne McMillan, Whalan, Australia

Alister McGrath is one of the most profound thinkers in Theology today and most of the criticisms levelled at him by the above commentators are unfair and unjustified. McGrath attempted to draw the debate to a higher level in a cautious and reasoned manner, without straying out of his area of expertise. On the other hand, Dawkins gave the false impression that he had substantial expert knowledge across several disciplines.

Wayne McMillan, Whalan, Australia

My download is 8KB per sec taking 3 hrs for 79 MB of Part 1 on a dual-Athlon cpu and 2mb RAM. Please, anyone, how long should it take? The super new Times layout prompted me to buy this computer.
Dawkins might know as he's a scientist. But wasn't atheism debunked in the 20C-Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc? What would he have done at the Christmas football match in the trenches of WW1? Scoffed at the ranks? What would an honest atheist say to the wilful destruction of all Europe's ancient places of worship if it were to happen today? Have you read “Red Cavalry” [1924] by Isaac Babel? What of the families and individuals, rich and poor, inside churches singing Latin Mass, or worshipping otherwise? What worth are they? Why did Dr Johnson, one of our greatest thinkers, believe in God-at the height of the enlightenment? I’ve yet to read a book by Dawkins (for free as one reads Dan Brown). Does his anti-Christian faith and his science allow him to denounce ordinary believers too? How and why?

Paul, Taichung, Taiwan

What seems to be missed by all the correspondents here is that every Christian starts out by not being a Christian. At some point the information they assess in order to have faith becomes convincing. How convincing? Well, convincing enough for them to confidently assert a position that others may laugh at! It would be much better if we went back to the proper concept of toleration that allowed people to co-exist with others that they had disagreements with. Respect for the individual even though I may not respect your beliefs. Too much 'discussion' is just name calling. If you want to read a reasoned response to 'The God Delusion' try 'The Dawkins Letters' by David Robertson ISBN 978 184550 2614

Ian Thompson, Tain, Scotland

I was frustrated by the quality and brevity of this debate. What interested me was Dawkins's hypocritical argument about what is done in the name of religion. When McGrath carefully (and slowly) laid out that religion can be a good thing, and positive influence on society, Dawkins threw it back and said he wasn't interested in whether it had a positive effect on society or not. Then why does he spend so much time highlighting fundamentalist people of every religion, building a straw man of extremists and lunatics before gleefully setting fire to it? Sorry, Prof - can't have it both ways.

Secondly, the debate got annoyingly sidetracked onto the nature of McGrath's faith and whether he thought all religions were basically the same. It amazes me that people can hold this view, when the most cursory glance at the worlds five or six major religions show huge contradictions and disparities. Why claim they are all the same and leading to the same God? Can't really see how this is logical.

James, Hammersmith, London

People will hear what they want to hear in this debate, whether one person makes a reasoned and coherent arguement or not.

The only people who will have gained anything from this are those who are truly open minded.

Most , if not all the posters to this board do not fall into this camp.

Ultimately it comes down to choice and it is quite clear what choice the majority of posters' have made; irrespective of arguments which demand further consideration.

nathan, cambridge, UK

I'm no atheist, but McGrath did seem rather feeble. His book is rather better. He seemed to be reticent in really attacking Dawkin's position. The last questioner in the debate made what seemed to me the crucial point: we all have faith - we have to. At the end of the day, observations cannot be made independently of the theories of the observer. Furthermore, both observations and theories can only be reasoned with on the basis of presuppositions which are held by faith because there is no alternative. For example, faith in the laws of logic. Both theists and atheists have faith. We all build complex thought structures to make sense of the world we live in. The question is, which makes more sense of the world and ourselves: theism or atheism? The answer to me seems to be theism.

John Denning, DURHAM, UK

"Science can only ask how, it cannot ask why."

Perhaps I could refer you to a passage in Dawkins' latest book, 'The God Delusion' :

'It is a tedious cliche (and unlike many cliches, it isn't even true) that science concerns itself with how questions, but only theology is equipped to answer why questions. What on Earth is a why question? Not every English sentence beginning with the word 'why' is a legitimate question. Why are unicorns hollow? Some questions simply do not deserve an answer. What is the colour of abstraction? What is the smell of hope? The fact that a question can be phrased in a gramatically correct English sentence doesn't make it meaningful, or entitle it to our serious attention. Nor, even if the question is a real one, does the fact that science cannot answer it imply that religion can.

Hope this helps...

Miles Kershaw, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom

"Science can only ask how, it cannot ask why."

I would like to refer you to a relevant passage in Richard Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion':

'It is a tedious cliche (and unlike most cliches, it isn't even true) that science concerns itself with how questions, but only theology is equipped to answer why quesions. What on Earth is a why question? Not every English sentence beginning with the word 'why' is a legitimate qustion. Why are unicorns hollow? Some questions simply do not deserve an answer. What is the colour of abstraction? What is the smell of hope? The fact that a question can be phrased in a gramatically correct Engish sentence doesn't make it meaningful, or entitle it to our serious attention. Nor, even if the question is a real one, does the fact that science cannot answer it imply that religion can.'

Hope this helps...

Miles Kershaw, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom

How can reading the Bible save your life? There isn't any evidence on the truth value of anything written in it. It is nothing more than a fictitious, vacuous, and utterly useless piece of literature. Believing such preposterous nonsense is surely an insult to one's intelligence.

Derek, Waverly, United States

A theologian like Alister McGrath, who has little grasp of other religions apart from Christianity, should go back to school and learn his craft before engaging in public debates. Eloquence of itself just won't cut it . I thought the less of McGrath, the more I heard from him.

His Christianity is clearly "fundamentalist", considering that he believes in the historicity of the virgin birth and literal miracles such as the resurrection which both violate the laws of physics. Clearly, these are stories no different from other stories we find in other religious myth. How come a professor believes these things actually happened and not see them for what they are, legends perhaps conveying some message? I sure would like to see what evidence he has for his beliefs. All things considered, McGrath arguments were extremely weak and coming from a professor, very disappointing.

Radhica Laukaran, St. James, Trinidad

"I can't disprove God, but I can definitely disprove the Bible so that is a start towards a safer world. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ The best way to destroy a thing is to know it. If you really read the Bible it will make you an Atheist."

What a ridiculous claim! Do you honestly think you can disprove the Bible? Every argument that site brings up can and has been countered. And if you really read the Bible, and understand it, it will save your life.

Science can only ask how, it cannot ask why. It defines laws by observation and interpretation. It is important in reaching conclusions about nature, but it has limitations. It is not the be-all-and-end-all of knowledge.

David, Kilkenny, Ireland

he problem of the BELIEVER is: s/he believes they know the truth (and, therefore, can never come to the truth).

Moreover, any challenge/s to their beliefs and faith; is perceived as a threat !!!

Bill T, Springfield, IL

The problem of the NON believer is: s/he believes they know the truth (and, therefore, can never come to the truth).

Moreover, any challenge/s to their beliefs and faith; is perceived as a threat !!!

Bill S, Springfield, U.S.A, MO

As the most of the religions are just man made philiosophys no wonder the mess going on and i say religione is more harmfull than usefull.
By the way these religions have nothing to do with the Bible even if they say so.How can true religion agree with al sorts of immorality that are even among thier own clergy's.If there is a true God (and there is!!) the time for reaping is very close.Goverments have so many problems to deal with that religions are just one of them to sort out.
So i say thats enough its time to pay for century's of wickedness in the name of God

christian, Verona, Italy

I found the debate interesting. But i found the comments above very disappointing sounds like all the athiests want to do on this site is be nasty. I felt on the whole that Mr McGrath made some very profound comments. I dont think science explains everything and I dont accept Dawkins epistemology.

John Butcher, Liverpool, England

This was as one-sided a debate as I've ever heard. The religionists were pretty hopeless in their conviction, each speaker wasting valuable minutes wittering on about themselves before botching their arguments. Nigel Spivey's anthropological arguments were out-done in rank feebleness by those of Julia Neuberger, trying to claim the hopelessly misguided Make Poverty History campaign as in some way a product of religion! Only religion could make a dunce of such a clearly intelligent person. So it was left to the stammering Scruton to predictably add a hackneyed, Daily Mail-style cod philosophy to justify religion. He wound up tying himself in knots .....On the other hand Hitchens was his usual persuasive self, forensic, emotive and potent as ever. Dawkins was devastating in taking Spivey apart before distilling down some essential elements of The God Delusion and Grayling was erudite, measured and witty as one can be in the dismantling of The New Testament. No contest.

Jonathan Anthony, London, London

Is the audio of the section with Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Grayling available? I downloaded two parts of the debate but could not find either of them.
Cheers!

tom, scottsdale, USA/AZ

Amusing that one of the retorts to this was that "the very first scientists were Catholic". Exactly the kind of arrogance that a blinkered religious world view provides us with. Let's ignore the Ancient Greek mathematicians shall we? Or the Babylonian Astrologers? Or the Chinese who were hundreds of years ahead of the Europe at one point? What makes some of these Catholic Scientists great is that despite the intellectual handicap of religion they still managed to do some science.

The problem for the devout is that they believe they know the truth and therefore never can know any real truths; because anything that challenges what they believe is a threat.

I can't disprove God, but I can definitely disprove the Bible so that is a start towards a safer world. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ The best way to destroy a thing is to know it. If you really read the Bible it will make you an Atheist.

Martin Bentley, Bristol, UK

McGrath's answers were very straight-forward, but his answer assumes that hte listener is able to think logically and has some background knowledge about teh general area. Dawkin's answers were full of handwaving -- oh scientists are working on it. Trust us.

Oh and he seems to be ignorant of the fact that the very first scientists were Catholic (e.g. Albert the Great, Bacon, etc)

He is also unware of the "theory-laden" view of science.

Jess, Toronto, Canada

Much is made of this supposed issue. Those who choose to believe in one or more of the diverse gods that human mythology offers, have thus stepped outside the possibility of discourse. To discuss something that is "not of this world" is mere pretence, since its attributes depend solely upon the whim of the believer.

Nowhere within the vast literature of all the worlds theologies is there even a scrap of evidence for a god - just stories, allegories, hints and innuendos about your fate if you don't agree. Magic is the recourse of the unhappy (or uneducated) who are unable to experience the excitement of living in a deeply complex universe - and the joy of unravelling its many mysteries.

The "immortal soul" is a bag over your head with pictures on the inside - available free from a church, temple or mosque near you.

Sean Shalor, Coventry, UK

McGrath comes from the Tony Blair school of answering questions. The words are eloquently spoken and in the right grammatical order, but completely devoid of any meaning. It seems his religion inspires him to commit himself to absolutely no viewpoint on any topic - ironically, the theist appears to be the nihilist.

McGrath's positions are mirages - when one probes for something more solid from him, he evaporates into meaninglessness only to reappear elsewhere. In the end, it becomes tiring and timewasting.

Rtambree, London,

Proof, as if proof were needed, that McGrath is constitutionally unable to give a straight answer to a straight question. There's theology for you.

Steve, Leicester,