Lately I have been watching and listening to a number of interviews and debates with Alistair McGrath, former atheist and now Christian apologist. During a couple, namely his appearance on a talk show (The Hour) and a debate with Richard Dawkins that was cut from Dawkins documentary, McGrath comes off looking bad at best. In a great deal of circles, McGrath is considered a top authority on apologetics and debates on a very public and very constant level. Part of this appeal comes from, I’m sure, what Dawkins calls McGrath’s “street cred” of being a former atheist. Regardless, his arguments fail greatly in light of his hype.
The biggest problem is the constant inconsitancy in McGrath’s theology as a whole. At times he appears close to being a Deist, and at others he gives answers that are almost fanciful and void of reason all together. For starters, he readily presents himself as a theistic evolutionist, which does not bring complete inconsistancy in itself (although comes pretty close), but he never completely reconciles how he can believe in a uncreatable Creator and an evolutionary mindset. Also, and more notalby, Dawkins poses a question about God’s provision for a child in the midst of a tragic earthquake that killed thousands, in which the parents thanked God for saving her. Dawkins could not understand why God would save the girl and kill the masses, and McGrath could not help him gain any headway. While there are strong theological answers that would have been quite sufficient (which I will not go into for the sake of time), McGrath gave an answer that was actually less convincing than the overused “faith” card. On one hand He said that God set into motion the world and allows it to run without intervention, thus by that argument the child just got lucky. Then, however, he claimed that he believed that God really did intervene and save the child, but gave no reconciliation between the two.
Perhaps the most startling of his inconsistant argument dealt with the atonement of Christ and penal substitution. Dawkins stated that he could not understand why the all powerful God had to die in order to forgive sins and could not merely absolve sins with a word. McGrath the procedes to dive down into a C.S. Lewis-esq proposal about how the crucifixion’s main purpose was to be an example of Christ’s love and a symbolic gesture at best, thus eliminating a great portion of the Biblical concept of atonement.
Ultimately throughout the entire interview and debate, nothing was said…on either part. Even a man who claims that Christianity can be backed by evidence was able to give none in the face of ”tough” questions. I have to believe that there is a switch in our brains that turns off when presented with debates that challenge our faith. In reality, Christianity is a completely rational and reasonable faith and it is painful that the vast percentage of those who debate and defend our faith happen to be unrational and disconnected. God works through history and science and upon careful study it can clearly be noted that both are rationalized in and through one another. Atheists are scared of God and Christians are scared of reason, but the fact is that God is quite reasonable and presented His creation with ample evidence by which He and His work of Creation and redemption can to a greater extent than we believe, be explained and understood.
