Read Online Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole by Stephen Law - Free Book Online

McGrath entirely fails to engage with Dawkins's argument. McGrath merely levels at Dawkins the inaccurate and irrelevant charge of scientism, and makes the inaccurate claim that Dawkins is trying conclusively to “prove” there's no God, which Dawkins explicitly is not.
    Still, it's worth spending a moment to consider why McGrath supposes there can be no conclusive proof or disproof of the existence of god. In his book The Dawkins Delusion—Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine , McGrath presents an argument of sorts:
Any given set of observations can be explained by a number of theories. To use the jargon of the philosophy of science: theories are underdetermined by the evidence. The question thenarises: What criterion be used to decide between them, especially when they are “empirically equivalent.” Simplicity? Beauty? The debate rages, unresolved. And its outcome is entirely to be expected: the great questions remain unanswered. There can be no scientific “proof” of ultimate questions. Either we cannot answer them, or we must answer them on grounds other than the sciences. 15
     
    McGrath's point seems to be that, when it comes to such worldviews as “god exists” and “god does not exist,” the two theories fit the observational evidence. They are, McGrath supposes, “empirically equivalent.” But then neither theory can be proved or disproved by appeals to the evidence.
    But is it true that the two theories fit the observational evidence equally well? Actually, as we'll see later in “ But It Fits!” any theory, no matter how nuts, can be made to “fit”—be consistent with —the evidence, given sufficient ingenuity. It doesn't follow that all theories are equally reasonable, or that we can never fairly conclusively settle the question of which among competing theories are true on the basis of observational evidence. In effect, McGrath here just asserts that the god question cannot be fairly conclusively settled on the basis of observational evidence. Again, he has no argument at all. But he does have insults. He peppers his responses to Dawkins with numerous ad hominem attacks, variously describing Dawkins's approach as “aggressive,” “embittered,” “fanatical,” and so on.
    Say “Ah, but of course this is beyond the ability of science and reason to decide” often enough, and there's a good chance people will start to accept it without even thinking about it. It will become an immunizing “factoid” that can be conveniently wheeled out whenever any rational threat to the credibility of your belief crops up. Perhaps this is why, rather than respond to Dawkins's arguments, McGrath just starts chanting the “Ah, but of course this beyond the ability of reason/science to decide” mantra, recognizing that many readers, even if momentarilystung by Dawkins into entertaining a serious doubt, can quickly be lulled back to sleep: “Oh, yes, I remember, it's beyond the ability of science … scientism … zzzzz.”
    Despite its intellectual trappings, McGrath's response to Dawkins, in essence, has no more substance to it than does that of the commentator who defended his belief in the amazing powers of crystals by insisting, without any justification at all, that the scientific method is far too “narrow” to refute such beliefs.
    “YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE”
    Let's now turn to a variant of “it's beyond science/reason to decide.” One reason why some suppose science and reason are incapable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that certain supernatural claims—for example, that fairies or angels or spirit beings exist—are false is that they assume you can't prove a negative. Indeed this is widely supposed to be some sort of “law of logic.”
    For example, Georgia minister Dr. Nelson L. Price asserts on his website that “one of the laws of logic is that you can't prove a negative.” 16 If Price is correct and this is indeed a law of logic, then of course it