´óÏó´«Ã½

I think its understandable that people start questioning the decision to leave much of the footage out of the documentary! However the decision to display the unedited version later is quite revealing and shows conclusively that William is right- that it was all do with cutting time for the program.

McGrath made such a big deal about this ommision that I was excited about seeing it, thinking that McGrath had given Dawkins a run for his money. Imagine the shock I got when I sat down to watch it a few months ago when it was first released.

I read McGraths two books refuting Dawkins. Since then I have always found his to be quite elusive and wishy washy. Even when reading his arguments you cant quite pin down what exactly his point is. However in saying that, I did think he made some good points against Dawkins.

But after watching this is was pretty embarassed for him. Nearly ever time a question was put to him he danced and danced, couldnt get to the point, on many occasions he seemed to change his point mid flow because he realised it was untenable. I could go on and on and on.

CAN ANYONE HERE HONESTLY SAY TO ME THAT MCGRATH MADE MUCH SENSE. DID HE LOOK AND SOUND LIKE A MAN WITH ANY CONVICTION ABOUT WHAT HE WAS SAYING????

The section about the virgin birth was laughable. Does anyone else think so?

My opinion of McGrath has virtually evaporated after watching this. I really cant take any more of his arguments, which seem to consist of the same thing- "I love how I see the world through the lens of religion therefore........"! He makes sweeping statements (much in the same way Dawkins does), however at least Dawkins attempts to back up his assertions. McGrath, once cornered, starts rambling on about symbolism, C S Lewis said this C S Lewis said that and then fails to arrive at any recognisable position!

I think I now understand why Dawkins released this footage!

Will is right - McGrath makes for boring tv. The producers were right to leave this out. He goes on and on and on and is obsessed with quoting cs lewis. He also has scary eyes, but that's no reason not to include them.

It's an awkward exchange, this standing-in-a-room-and-discussing-each-others'-views-as-though-we-respect-each-other, which seems contrived and strange: the British certainly don't do debate on TV as well as the Americans! Words are minced, and contributors sweeten up the content of their message when in the presence of the person they've criticised (when elsewhere they've written words like "ignorant" and "arrogant"). And why are these laboured dialogues are set up where everyone needs a seat but none are provided?! Who are these producers? Why did McGrath seem incapable of talking without his head tilted in an absurd degree to his right?

Anyway, I agree with comment #1 above: McGrath appeared to be almost entirely incapable of actually answering a question. Having read some of his critique of Dawkins, this might be a little surprising (perhaps he's better on paper than in person). He certainly had thought of answers to Dawkins but didn't seem able to provide them in this context as readily. How many responses did he start with the words, "Well there are some very interesting points..." or "You raise some very interesting questions..." -- it's all "very interesting" -- then proceed "And I suppose what I would want to say is this..." and mention along the way that Dawkins has highlighted "tensions" or something? It's all BS, and all added to the general feeling that he couldn't deal with Dawkins' argument at all.

What makes it amusing is that it was McGrath who complained that the exchange wasn't used in the film's final cut! Perhaps he remembered his own performance being much better than it actually was? In any case I can't imagine that he's happy with the result.

That said, Dawkins is more used to television and more able in that medium, so I'm not sure that this contrived scenario is necessarily a good measure of McGrath. Is that an excuse? Maybe, but this interview shouldn't be the only 'exhibit' brought to the attention of the court. There are, for example, recordings of a public debate between Dawkins and McGrath and for further assessment on this question.

William,

You say...

"I tend more to the view that the programmes were inevitably time-limited and that this material was simply less compelling, in televisual terms, than other interviews."

Disagree - Dawkins doesn't want to show Evangelicals as being in any way calm, considered and rational - much easier to interview extreme right-wing fundamentalists and pretend that they speak for all who believe in God. That's why the footage was left out.

Thankfully the low level of trust that the public now have in the media (the ´óÏó´«Ã½ being the most recent organisation to admit many counts of wrongdoing) might make people question whether they are being presented with all sides of an argument or just the side that is most "compelling, in televisual terms" or for that matter listener ratings terms.

Foss- dry your eyes mate. First of all, McGrath isnt an evangelical Christian so your point is rendered obsolete before you even begin.
Secondly, even when Dawkins showed the more extreme elements in his documentary, he never once claimed that they were representative of all who believe in God. In "Root of all evil", the former Jew turned radical muslim is representative of Radical Islam (as Dawkins pointed out). Ted Haggard was one of the leading lights of American Evangelism (broadly representative of that group I would say).
Having watched the McGrath segment, it is obvious that it was left out because there was little there that could have been easily cut. The Bishop of Oxford's piece was much better and subsequentlt made the documentary. He did well against Dawkins I thought.
BUT BACK TO YOUR MAIN POINT. TO CLAIM THAT DAWKINS EXCLUDED IT FOR THE REASON YOU SUGGEST IS LAUGHABLE. MCGRATH'S PERFORMANCE WAS VERY POOR AND THE FACT THAT DAWKINS RELEASED IT AFTERWARDS SHOWS THAT HE ISNT AFRAID OF SHOWING CHRISTIANS (ONCE AGAIN MCGRATH ISNT AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN), TO BE INTELLIGENT AND RATIONAL.

Joe,

McGrath isn't an evangelical? You should email him and let him know.

The rest of your posting is worth commenting on.

I don't think Alistair McGrath (who could well find moderate financial success, post academia, as a Kenneth Williams impersonator) came out of that interview as well as he would have liked.

He stumbled quite badly with respect to the perennial chestnuts of the origin of evil and divine intervention, and he reduced many of what he called the positives of religious belief to the level of psychological comforts. This proves nothing other than give credence to the 'religion as a crutch' theory.

To say the 'God knows what it's like to suffer because of Jesus' is all well and good, but it fails to answer why s/he doesn't then do more to stop unnecessary suffering in the world. All in all, while Alistair McGrath is no fundamentalist, by ant stretch of the imagination, he did, I think, fail to properly engage with Richard Dawkins.

The more I see of the new mellow Dawkins, the more I like him.

Incidentally, one of the questions dodged by McGrath was this:

A tornado occurs and a hundred people die. One little girl in the eye of the storm is alive and relatively unscathed by the storm. Was God responsible for saving her? (ie. did he intervene?) If so, why did he not save the one hundred others? If not, how can he be thanked for her survival?

(From Viz Letters: "A woman whose daughter was hospitalised in a U.S. tornado told ITV News that God would make her better. Presumably that's a different God from the one that almost killed her with a tornado.")

It's interesting that Dawkins two examples of the dangers of religion i.e (a) sectarianism in the six counties and (b) Muslim suicide bombers are both (a) the creation of British Imperialism and (b) for the most part a responce to it.

Tomas #9-

You are proof that almost anything can be read into anything given a penchant and the right axe to grind.

I am becoming concerned at Mr Dawkin's approach to life. You see I am a believer in what he stands for but not such a fundamentalist as to wish to rage an 'unholy war' against all who diasgree with me.

Huge debates loom here about very important things and we need big minds to defened reason and science.

Do people think he is beginning to do more damage than good?

I am becoming concerned at Mr Dawkin's approach to life. You see I am a believer in what he stands for but not such a fundamentalist as to wish to rage an 'unholy war' against all who diasgree with me.

Huge debates loom here about very important things and we need big minds to defened reason and science.

Do people think he is beginning to do more damage than good?

John #10

Well I would find great entertainment in hearing your case that Ireland's war is a sectarian one and not one caused by colonial occupation. Sectarianism is the legacy of and the main tool for colonial imperialism. To be angry at religion and belief in God for the conflict in Ireland is irrational anti-religious bigotry and demonstrates tolerance for a Pro Imperialist writing of Irish history. My point is that Dawkins should be angry at Imperialism namely the British, for War and division and has no rational basis to be angry at religion given the examples he cites.

Tomas-

As I understand the context in which Dawkins cites Ireland, he's certainly not "angry at religion and belief in God for the conflict." And to suggest, further, that his argument is "pro-imperialist" is absurd and totally unfounded. Dawkins' broad point, as I understand it, is simpler: it is clear that religion in Ireland has not been the moderating good that its adherents assert it to be. He goes on to express frustration that children are called "Catholic" or "Protestant" as though they've made that decision for themselves. Dawkins never intended to go into the diverse reasons for the conflict, complex as they are, and it's interesting that you criticise him for it since you do no better a job in that regard for your belief that it's 'all the fault of the British.'

You really hate the British, don't you?! How far back into history do you want to justify your anger? You think people should hate the Vikings, or the Romans, too? Imperialists! They're to blame for everything! And yet you - Tomas Whoever - were born in the 20th century presumably, where you could only have learned such hate by societal default rather than rational thought or ideology. I was born and raised in Belfast, the heart of the conflict, and lived there for the first 24 years of my life. I emerged without hate for either side; I wish the same for you.

How does stating historical fact constitute hate? I hate no one! Is Imperialism wrong and a moral evil? Yes, as is hate. I received an education of love in my "sectarian" (laughs) catholic education. Religion has been and continues to be a moral force for good in Ireland. Look at John McCabe (Presbyterian) for example and his role in preventing Ireland from becoming involved in the slave trade. And the Irish monastic intelligentsia’s role in civilising Europe in the void left after the Roman Empire. Furthermore if labeling children is wrong, then why do the new-atheists stop at religion? The answer is because they are anti religious bigots. If they were consistent, then a child should not be labeled at all. Allow children to choose their religion, language, nationality, gender etc, raise them with a multiplicity of all and impose nothing on them and favor nothing including love.

Tomas-

You're a Catholic? I'd never have guessed! I love how you can point to a country with more churches per square foot than almost anywhere else in Europe and assert that religion is a "moral force for good in Ireland." Citing a few examples such as John McCabe does not a "force for good" make.

You say: "If they were consistent, then a child should not be labeled at all."

I think Dawkins would agree with this, as would I. Religion is not being singled out as you suggest; isn't Dawkins' new programme about superstitions and other such things? (I haven't seen it, but I've heard about it.) My son is being brought up in the manner you suggest: as much as possible to impose no ideology (political, religious, etc.) except to instill a general love of freedom (within which all other choices can be made).