News Religion Science

Jonathan McLatchie on UK radio

Spread the love

McLatchie’s a regular around here. At one time, he had the News beat. O’Leary for News still has his e-mail address.

Here:

Unbelievable? Scientific evidence versus religious belief – Jonathan McLatchie & Elliot George debate

Saturday 15th November 2014 – 02:30 pm

Elliot George is a retired science teacher whose new book “Godbuster: Exorcises all known gods” claims that science is about evidence whereas religion is about ‘belief’(and should therefore be rejected).

Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian currently studying for a PhD in cell biology. He says Elliot’s book is badly flawed, and that Christian belief is evidence-based because science itself lends support to the case for God.

They debate the meaning of belief, whether design is a good explanation in biology and why Jonathan chooses to believe Christianity over any other worldview.

MP3 of this show here.

“Exorcises all known gods”? You mean like, “Removes all stains”? Bet the author thunk that title up. Not the PR guy.

Anyway, enjoy.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Jonathan McLatchie on UK radio

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Jonathan M is really one smart cookie. Even atheists themselves, in the comments section of Unbelievable, were commenting on how poorly Elliot George faired against Jonathan, to which Jonathan promptly responded that he would gladly debate any atheist.

  2. 2
    Robert Byers says:

    Religions are about invisible conclusions. the bible says this.
    However belief in a creator is not the same. Its about seeimng creation as obviously created by a thinking being.
    Belief in god is not religion. Its a conclusion from facts observed.
    If conclusions are made that say some religion is wrong then same religion need only debunk those facts. Thats what creationism does.
    creationism greatly just debunks evolution etc etc as opposed to showing how God did this or that.
    Thats why its so easy.

  3. 3
    TSErik says:

    This was painful. I couldn’t help but feel embarrassed for Elliot George. He tries to dodge and weave, only to be counter punched by Jonathan M with reasoned arguments.

    It is then Elliot George cries for mercy stating that Jonathan is getting too technical? Dumb it down for the audience? I think it was for George’s sake, not that of the audience.

    George’s arguments were just a regurgitation of the tired “reddit” arguments that have been resolved so many times they are like a joke. When George then found himself on shady ground he shifted topics, or stammered, “but…but…science.”

    Did anyone get the feeling that Mr. George didn’t quite grasp what scientific inquiry was? He reminds me of the people that venerate science as a “thing”.

  4. 4
    johnnyb says:

    I had to stop listening. It was getting too painful. This guy wrote a book in which he obviously did absolutely no research, and didn’t bother to check any of his own logic.

    It is potentially true that he can win arguments against elementary school graduates and grandmothers (for whom his arguments were obviously aimed), but even with that I have my doubts.

    What I am most concerned about is that apparently this person has actually written books about science (I think that was what was being implied at the beginning of the debate). If you can’t logically piece two thoughts together, what makes you capable of writing a science book!?

    Usually, Justin Brierly does a better job of getting good, well-spoken atheists in to defend their position. I find it interesting that Christians regularly do their darnedest to get the most intelligent, well-spoken critics to debate with, while atheists tend to avoid well-spoken critics as a whole. Justin Brierly obviously failed in this case, but I’ll give him a pass because he does a great job normally.

    Elliot George’s Report Card:

    Ability to make logical distinctions: C
    Ability to use a logical distinction in an impartial manner: F
    Ability to take a logical distinction used against an opponent and test how it should be applied to oneself: F
    Basic Familiarity with Subject Matter: C
    Actual Research: F
    Ability to engage with ideas as presented: D
    Ability to avoid ad hominems: D

    Did I miss anything?

Leave a Reply