Michael Shermer and Alister McGrath: Is God a Figment of Our Imagination?

The Religion and Society Series seeks to generate critical conversations on matters of faith, society and public interest. The purpose of the series is to play a catalytic role in helping shape discourse around topics that deeply matter to individuals and society.

Our dialogue brings together two leading thinkers who have thoughtfully wrestled with this question, each not only having embarked on a personal pilgrimage, but each bringing a lifetime of erudition, experience, and insights to bear on this theme. Alister McGrath, the athiest who would become a theist, and Michael Shermer, the theist who would become an atheist. This engaging dialogue was hosted at Convocation Hall, University of Toronto.

DR. MICHAEL SHERMER is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and Presidential Fellow at Chapman University. Dr. Shermer received his BA in psychology from Pepperdine University, MA in experimental psychology from California State University, Fullerton, and his PhD in the history of science from Claremont Graduate University.

As a public intellectual Michael regularly contributes Opinion Editorials, book reviews, and essays to the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, Science, Nature, and other publications, along with over 200 consecutive monthly columns in Scientific American, where he has been a regular contributor since 2001. He has appeared on such shows as The Colbert Report, 20/20, Dateline, Charlie Rose, Larry King Live, as well as interviews in countless science and history documentaries aired on PBS, A&E, Discovery, The History Channel, The Science Channel, and The Learning Channel.

Dr. Shermer’s next book is "Heavens on Earth: The Scientific Search for Immortality, the Afterlife, and Utopia." His latest book is "The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Lead Humanity Toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom." His previous book is "The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths." He also authored "Why Darwin Matters: Evolution and the Case Against Intelligent Design.” Dr. Shermer’s most famous book is "Why People Believe Weird Things, on pseudoscience, superstitions, and other confusions of our time."

According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, “Michael Shermer is a beacon of reason in an ocean of irrationality.” And in the words of the late Stephen Jay Gould (from his Foreword to Why People Believe Weird Things): “Michael Shermer, as head of one of America’s leading skeptic organizations, and as a powerful activist and essayist in the service of this operational form of reason, is an important figure in American public life.”

DR. ALISTER MCGRATH is a scientist, theologian, minister, and intellectual historian. He currently holds the Andreas Idreos Professorship in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford.

Aside from being a faculty member at Oxford, McGrath has also taught at Cambridge University and King’s College, University of London. Studying chemistry as an undergraduate at the University of Oxford, he eventually received three doctorates there: a DPhil in Molecular Biophysics, a Doctor of Divinity in Theology, and a Doctor of Letters in Intellectual History.

McGrath is noted for his work in relationship between science and religion and his opposition to New Atheism, having had formal dialogues with both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Among his best-known books are "The Twilight of Atheism," "The Dawkins Delusion," "Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life," and "A Scientific Theology." He is also the author of a number of well known textbooks on theology.

McGrath's main research interest at present is the area of thought traditionally known as “natural theology,” which is experiencing significant renewal and revitalization at the moment. He addressed this theme in detail at his Richardson Lectures at the University of Newcastle-upon Tyne (2008), his Gifford Lectures at the University of Abedeen (2009), and his Hulsean Lectures at the University of Cambridge. The Richardson Lectures have been published as "The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology" (Blackwell). His Gifford Lectures were published as "A Fine Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology." His Hulsean Lectures has been published by Wiley-Blackwell, entitled “Darwinism and the Divine: Evolutionary Thought and Natural Theology.”

[mitchmyers]

I like this type of debate (although it felt more like a discussion at times). Neither of them arrived “locked and loaded” with talking points. It felt genuine. I know one criticism of Shermer has been that he’s too laid back in debate settings, but I think when he’s matched with someone of similar temperament, a good rhythm can be established.

[robertspence]

Nice civil debate. I am with Dr. Shermer's positions but both were well spoken on behest of their side.

[johnnyd.]

One thing I've noticed about these comments is that people tend to believe that whatever they believed before watching the video was confirmed by their advocate on the stage. I guess that speaks to the eloquence of both presenters. What is even more remarkable is that most of the comments, though at times rather harsh, are nevertheless basically polite. That is what we need. Personally I think it would be good for debaters of religion to make a distinction between "religion" and "religious fundamentalism, " but if we can go in respecting each other as people a huge part of the battle has been won.

[MrMemyselfandi]

Wow! I really like Michael Shermer. He has a very honest conversational way about him. Dig that. I really liked Alister as well...and think he made some great points...but....I feel like I could have a beer with Michael. He just

[mhelfield]

I am impressed that Professor McGrath is still at it.

[gdobiewest]

This was a very enjoyable debate to watch, I tend to side with Michael Shermer in the end.

[maxxwellbeing]

It’s so hard to believe that adults can actually believe in the impossibility of God. The sheer impossibility of God is staggering.

[IllegitimusNon]

It seems to me that in his opening statement, Dr McGrath manages to completely avoid the subject of the debate and further more attempts to suggest that there is an equivalence between the faith one takes in the existence of a god and the faith we use in determining various realities of the world. Yes, you can argue that the non-religious use something you could call 'faith' in how they mould their world view, but it has a foundation that is objectively far more rational and logical than the religious world view.

It's a real shame he hasn't addressed the point of the debate at all as I was hoping for something more thought provoking than just the usual apologetic arguments dressed up in nice friendly language and delivered by someone with 'Dr' in front of his name.

[swab]

At 1:26:45 he begins to discuss the difference between a disconnected deity and one who came into history and experienced everything with us. What of the accounts in the Genesis account where God is purported to have been walking in the garden when Adam and Eve hid from him. If God before Jesus seemed rather distant and hadn't been amongst the rest of us before in history where does the Genesis account go? If we go with the idea that some parts were literally true and others were moral truths, which parts and why? Is the falling away literal truth or does it give people a reason to explain suffering? If the latter seems more probable or comforting to some I believe it isn't important to try to forcibly de-convert anyone but rather help people to understand that though their rather narrow minded beliefs are not intellectually honest and true from an evidentiary basis, the intent behind the beliefs in how they treat others does for the most part have a place in society.

[johngibson]

McGrath is basically arguing that god exists because he wants it to exist. The argument of having to have ethics or even human nature grounded in something transcendent is a pretty ridiculous claim to make. God has always been a concept of things unknown.

[donho]

If Santa Klaus was substituted for God in McGraths argument he wouldn't have to change any of it. His argument boils down to the idea that faith accompanied by supernatural belief is more interesting than the lack of it. But many of us don't need supernatural beliefs to find life interesting and personally meaningful.

[urasam]

After listening to several of McGrath’s lectures and reading a few of his works I have concluded that his entire position is based on an equivocation, if that’s the right word. He frequently states that science can only prove certain things but can’t prove “the big questions in life”. I believe that these “questions” are simply bad questions. Asking “what’s the meaning of life” for example is as pointless as asking “what’s the meaning of electromagnetism?”. Asking “why am I here?” is as daft as asking “”why is there a weed in my garden?” Asking “what is the purpose of life?” Is like asking “what is the purpose of blue?”
He also demands that atheists “prove atheism, which is ridiculous, since atheism Is nearly always defined as a lack of belief in any gods. Alister- prove your lack of belief in fairies.

[mrshankerbillletmein]

When I was a boy I believed what I was taught only sunday school talked about God but scientists had prooved evolution as fact thats what they told me at school and on TV. When I saw my son born and then develop into a person and experienced the love between us it seemed a miracle to me. I think thats when I started to grow up.

[michaelburnette]

Shermer makes a ton of ought and morality statements that have no objective explanations in his worldview.

[wmgodfrey]

Monotheism, a product of more a less a thousand years, The Axial Age Revolution, WHEN humans' cognitive capacities took an HUGE leap forward, cemented the one god-ness concept. A smart move TOWARDS meeting our innate evolutionarily developed spiritual needs, uniting ever increasing sizes of human populations, and giving us som guideposts to live by and work, coordinate, and collaborate together. RATHER more than LESS on all accounts.

[frmrchristian]

105:10
2020 will be the best year EVER!

[arizonaboy]

McGrath's point is that for those who believe, God is not a figment of their imagination is like astrophysicists who believe in dark matter, dark matter is not a figment of their imagination.

[bsaneil]

When Alister quotes Dawkins as saying he cannot be absolutely sure God doesnt't exist, rather too much is being made of this. Dawkins is taking a proper scientist's position. Dawkins also said that he doesn't believe that a giant teapot follows the same orbit as the Earth but no one sees it because it is the other side of the sun. But again he says that the proper position is that you cannot absolutely rule it out.

[gregbooker]

My answer to the debate title is "why does it matter? So many theists complain about god being hidden and not caring that I'm not seeing much difference between a non-existing god and a god who exists but doesn't care. Is there a difference between a non-existing dad and a dead-beat dad? Logically yes, Practically? No.

[ironsideandrew]

Great to see meaningful discussions like this taking place here in Toronto. Thanks to all involved in putting this on! We all have questions about God and existence, and conversations like this are worthwhile. Some good thoughts on both sides, though I felt Dr. McGrath was a bit vague in speaking to some issues (not all), and wasn't really engaging with the topics Dr. Shermer put forth. Dr. McGrath spoke of his feeling about belief in God, of how it is meaningful to him and humanity, and several times questioned the trustworthiness of scientific theory as an absolute truth. But it felt more like a rehearsed answer than challenging the thoughts of Dr. Shermer.
I felt he should have spent time asking Dr. Shermer about things we do know for certain - or at least questions that do point us towards legitimate belief in God. Specifically, questions around the origins of all life - that is, where did it all come from, even before the big bang - as well as the marvelous intricacies and seeming intelligent design of life at a micro-level (such as DNA), and the vastness of the universe, are necessary to bring to the table. These to me seem to be very good reasons to believe in a God. If this was flushed out (by people who are smarter than me) and it proved to hold up as I think it should, then there would be legitimate reason to believe in a creator God / being.
If this is the case, then it is more than reasonable to argue for things that seem impossible to us, such as the resurrection of Jesus, or the universal code of ethics implanted on humanity (as opposed to it simply being naturally developed - though of course there is some truth to this). Not only that, but it then allows us to say that God can do things which are beyond us, whether it makes sense to us or not. For example, Dr. Shermer made reference to the confusing statement that God sacrificed God to appease God. It does seem like nonsense, but so does saying nothing came from something in the beginning of all things. What if it simply happened, just like the beginning of all things, even though it is seemingly illogical?