This post was originally written on July 18, 2008. Somehow, it got deleted from the forums today in the process of copying stuff to my hard-drive. The best I can do is copy it here as a new entry.

I was going to post this video but I'm not sure how to do it. Here is the link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626) for interested parties. It's a 70-minute debate between the world's leading atheist Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, and a leading Christian theologian Alister McGrath. Dawkins interviews McGrath on his book Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life.

They discuss the probability of God's existence by looking at the origins of the universe. Both men are scientists. Dawkins openly confesses that no one knows how life began. If I remember correctly, he calls it the base of the universe. However, he argues that it makes no sense to put an intelligent designer at the beginning. He thinks Intelligent Design discredits itself simply by arguing for intelligence at that point because the beginning must have been simple rather than complex. I am sure readers know more about this than I do.

McGrath argued that God is like the sun and provides light by which he can understand the rest of life. McGrath used God especially to understand evil in the world, such as natural disasters and the Terrorist Attack on the United States commonly known as 9/11. He found God especially helpful to explain tsunamis, or the saving of a single child when many others perished.

Dawkins had particular problems with these items. Regarding tidal waves and tsunamis, McGrath explained that the world is as it is and God does not intervene. Regarding the saving of a single child when many others perish he said he would tell parents that God saved their child. Dawkins found a serious inconsistency of thought in these two items. If God does not intervene in the world because it is as it is, then it does not follow that God saves a child. McGrath did not concede the point.

At the end, McGrath was allowed by the moderator to ask Dawkins one question. He told Dawkins that he often comes across as being angry and asked him why he is angry. Dawkins admitted that he may well come across as hostile at times. He gave three reasons for feeling hostile toward religion. Let's see if I can remember them.

1. "The chances of you and I being born and having the opportunity of ever being alive and knowing this wonderful universe are so slim," he explained. The wonderment showed on his face as he talked. I do not pretend to be quoting verbatim; I am summarizing from memory. "It is such a wonderful opportunity to learn all we can about the universe. Yet religion seems to shut down the questions. That seems very wrong." His voice got colder and harder toward the end of the answer and one could feel what a serious blasphemy of human resources this seemed to him.

2. Children are labeled from birth by the religion of the parents who brought them into the world. He used for his example the Protestants and Catholics of the Northern Ireland situation. "Generation after generation after generation. And generation on generation. Without end."

3. "Belief without sufficient evidence is lethal." He nearly choked when he said that. He referred especially to suicide bombers. "These young men are raised from childhood to believe that this is the right thing to do. They don't do it for politics but because they believe it!" Dawkins emphasized. "Even our bravest soldiers who are trained to fight for victory don't go out expecting to die. I am used to arguing or fighting verbally--using reason--like we are doing now. But these men would not change their mind no matter how much I talked or reasoned with them. They would just kill me."

Dawkins talked about 9/11 quite a number of times. He told McGrath this is why he is angry at religion. There is no reasoning with that kind of religion. He credited McGrath for being somewhat more reasonable in most matters. However, as a commentator, I add that this is why consistency is so highly important. If we compromise on intellectual consistency and allow room for God to intervene because it takes the edge of shock off for the parents of the surviving child, then we have to say God intervened and caused the earthquake or hurricane that killed the other thousand children who perished.

This raises a moral and theological problem: Were the other people all bad parents deserving of losing their children? Were they all weak in the faith in need of testing? Were they all strong in the faith in need of reinforcement? Exactly how would the world be different if there were no God in charge of the universe and things just happened?