Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dawkins - 'The God Delusion'
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 121 of 167 (384643)
02-12-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by iano
02-12-2007 11:26 AM


Re: "Dawkin's Delusion"
This from another critique which makes some of the same points about Dawkins rant-rather-than-reason approach in The God Delusion.
I've got the book sitting here on my coffee table, and I have to say this is a pretty clear misrepresentation of the content of the book.
What I wonder is why nobody seems to be able to address the arguments of his book without completely misrepresenting them, calling Dawkins names, etc. If anything substantiates the central thesis of Dawkins book - that religion is not something that can be rationally defended - it's this phenomenon of religious believers not being able to marshal any kind of rational response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by iano, posted 02-12-2007 11:26 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 02-12-2007 4:31 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 122 of 167 (384667)
02-12-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by crashfrog
02-12-2007 2:53 PM


Re: "Dawkin's Delusion"
I agree that it is an inaccurate characterization to call Dawkins book a "rant-rather-than-reason", but it is a rant. Dawkins isn't interested in a dialogue. He's taking the approach, "Let me show you how stupid you are." This is what has other scientists so abashed.
There was much anguishing among scientists at the Beyond Belief 2006 conference about the difficulty of each side understanding the other, and a visible though perhaps minority opinion was that this problem has no solution. Each side has significant non-negotiable positions, for example representative among them is that the earth is 6000 years old on one side and 4.56 billion years old on the other, as we're well aware here.
Dawkins approach of, "You blithering idiots, can't you see you have no evidence, and that a book by primitive nomads of long ago is not a science book." I know sentences of this precise sentiment do not appear in the book, but evangelical Christians will come away from the book's reading feeling as if they've been called blithering idiots.
The problem is that Dawkins is both right and wrong. He's right that they are blithering idiots for ignoring obvious science. And he's wrong in thinking that in this approach lies a solution. In fact, it seems guaranteed to increase intransigence.
The other side has few of the Dawkins type, at least at the national media-visible level. They are much more savvy about packaging their message attractively. But they in essence feel the same as Dawkins, that scientists are blithering idiots for ignoring the plain truth of the Word of God as recorded in the Bible.
Religion and science have been bickering for centuries, and it's unlikely to end. But as Sam Harris accurately notes, we live in a time where religious ignorance can produce consequences on a global scale, and we can perhaps no longer afford this ignorance if we hope to survive to the next millennium.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2007 2:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2007 5:12 PM Percy has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 123 of 167 (384678)
02-12-2007 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Percy
02-12-2007 4:31 PM


Re: "Dawkin's Delusion"
Dawkins isn't interested in a dialogue.
Well...
What I thought was weird is that you drew such a distinction between Harris and Dawkins, and after reading both Dawkins' book and Harris's dialogue with Sullivan (about which we have another thread), I'm struck by how I don't see a difference between them. I'm not familiar with Harris' book or books - An End to Faith, is it? - but Dawkins' book reads like Harris' arguments to Sullivan put in book form.
I mean, in the dialogue, it's abundantly clear that Harris is not about to become Catholic - the fact that the religion is based on affirming that events that didn't happen actually did makes it an intellectually dubious effort from Harris' perspective. And whatever spiritual merit exists Harris thinks he can get from a source that doesn't require him to believe that up is down and black is white.
Now, from my reading of the book, Dawkins is less focused on the spiritual, and that's fine; that's not important to everybody. It may or may not be important to me, and many may disagree about what exactly falls under the heading of "spiritual", anyway. He's largely more concerned about expanding a thesis that Harris hits on in the dialogue - religion is not a net benefit for human societies and the individual experience.
I know sentences of this precise sentiment do not appear in the book, but evangelical Christians will come away from the book's reading feeling as if they've been called blithering idiots.
Maybe it's time for them to be called that. Pandering to religious nonsense hasn't achieved anything; instead, religious tribal warfare threatens, now, every corner of the Earth. To cross-pollinate from another thread, when an Orthodox Jew feels that he can beat a woman senseless for having the temerity not to get into the back of the bus, maybe it's time to draw a line in the sand about how exactly religion tends to inculcate mental habits that don't result in just, peaceful societies. Especially now that religion and region are no longer synonymous.
The other side has few of the Dawkins type, at least at the national media-visible level.
You think so? From here in the midwest, where I've lived all my life, I wonder if I see things a little differently. I've always been raised amidst messages that to focus on scientific truth is to "ignore the bigger picture", and that to use science to try to deny God is to "miss the forest for the trees", and that "there are many paths to truth", a formulation that puts every single one of the world's "approved" religions on the exact same footing as science, even though that's a position that the most casual observer should be able to see through immediately.
I couldn't count on two hands the number of national religious figures who claim to have a hold on truth that, within their own magisteria, is at least as valid as scientific answers to science questions. There's that many. The only public figure I can think of who represents the other side is Dawkins; if I ever see Harris on C-SPAN I guess we can add him to the list.
I'm not saying that Dawkins doesn't take a confrontational approach in the book - but it's only confrontational in comparison to the ridiculously non-direct, circumspect, tip-toeing-around-the-religious tone that otherwise dominates the discussion of the relationship between science and religion. I think it's time for the religious to hear matter-of-fact statements about the intellectual vapidity that lies at the heart of their belief structures, and have to deal with it. Bending over backwards to avoid offending their sensibilities is what leads to things like the imposition of Shari'a in otherwise secular countries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 02-12-2007 4:31 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 02-12-2007 5:29 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 125 by Percy, posted 02-12-2007 5:47 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 127 by nator, posted 02-13-2007 8:35 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 124 of 167 (384682)
02-12-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by crashfrog
02-12-2007 5:12 PM


Re: "Dawkin's Delusion"
Crash,
I have to agree with you. I'd like to see a real discussion of the book (by those who have read it ). Perhaps Percy or Jazzns would like to tear it up paragraph by paragraph? Maybe in a thread per chapter format?
I'd enjoy being forced to reread it with a more critical eye helping to look at it more closely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2007 5:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 125 of 167 (384689)
02-12-2007 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by crashfrog
02-12-2007 5:12 PM


Re: "Dawkin's Delusion"
Hi Crash,
Ned says he agrees with you, and so do I. Much of your post is written as if you're disagreeing with me, but I think you just interpreted a couple portions differently than I'd intended.
What I thought was weird is that you drew such a distinction between Harris and Dawkins, and after reading both Dawkins' book and Harris's dialogue with Sullivan (about which we have another thread), I'm struck by how I don't see a difference between them.
You're right. I had another difference in mind, that Harris is interested in dialogue and Dawkins isn't. Dawkins is dismissive where Harris is inquisitive. That doesn't mean they believe differently, but they definitely interact with the other side differently. For example, I doubt Harris would ever talk himself into the situation Dawkins did with Ted Haggard, where Dawkins was upbraided for arrogance, ironically by someone who only a few months later was revealed a hypocrite of the highest order.
Maybe it's time for them to be called that. Pandering to religious nonsense hasn't achieved anything;
Dawkins and Harris definitely agree about this. But Dawkins wants to do it regardless of how the religious feel about it. Dawkins has the kind of intolerance that makes you glad he wasn't a member of the Nazi party during World War II.
The other side has few of the Dawkins type, at least at the national media-visible level.
You think so?
The type I was thinking of was the "arrogant, let-me-make-myself-look-as-bad-as-I-can" type.
I'm not saying that Dawkins doesn't take a confrontational approach in the book...
Right. We agree. And it's the kind of confrontational style that leads people to bar the doors and unlock the gun racks.
Scientists for the most part are today blessed that religious atrocities are usually committed against the religious. Dawkins style is capable of changing that. I don't want him for a front man.
Concerning his book, I haven't completed it yet, but what I find startling is its lack of original insights. It is a diatribe and I'm reading it as a chore rather than because I think I'll learn anything.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2007 5:12 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2007 8:13 PM Percy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 126 of 167 (384729)
02-12-2007 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Percy
02-12-2007 5:47 PM


Re: "Dawkin's Delusion"
I had another difference in mind, that Harris is interested in dialogue and Dawkins isn't. Dawkins is dismissive where Harris is inquisitive.
I can't speak to that. Like I said I've never read Harris' books. For all I know Harris only appears more willing to dialogue because I'm only reading him in a dialogue, but from what I've seen of Dawkins' public appearances he's more than willing to field questions from believers, etc.
Again I can't say that Harris is more willing to dialogue than Dawkins. And I guess I can't think of what it would look like in a book, except maybe as an afterword - "Hey, email me and dialogue with me!"
Maybe I'll get the Harris book and see if I can detect what you're talking about. I'm not trying to be obtuse, and God knows Dawkins doesn't need to be defended by the likes of me. I think he just gets a bad rap for being "confrontational" when really, he's just being less deferential than others.
But maybe I feel that way because that's how I'm recieved, in a lot of these debates. (Also I'm somewhat pissed that blogger Amanda "Pandagon" Marcotte was forced out of John Edwards' campaign today for the exact same thing.)
For example, I doubt Harris would ever talk himself into the situation Dawkins did with Ted Haggard, where Dawkins was upbraided for arrogance, ironically by someone who only a few months later was revealed a hypocrite of the highest order.
Maybe I just couldn't read the exchange without the knowledge of what Haggard had been doing, but when you posted that exchange, Haggard's criticism just fell flat for me. And Harris has certainly been accused of arrogance and the like by Sullivan, so from where I'm sitting spurious accusations of arrogance are pretty much par for the course for these sorts of discussions, so maybe they don't get an traction with me.
Different perspective, I guess.
The type I was thinking of was the "arrogant, let-me-make-myself-look-as-bad-as-I-can" type.
Bill Donahue? Jerry Falwell? James Dobson? These are just off the top of my head. You mentioned Haggard already. Maybe I'm just not sure what you're talking about but it seems like every major fundamentalist Christian organization has one or two chairmen each that are falling all over themselves to look like arrogant, hypocritical, panty-sniffing asses.
Concerning his book, I haven't completed it yet, but what I find startling is its lack of original insights.
Now that we're in agreement. But I think a lot of those arguments will be fresh to much of his audience, even if to us they're just retreads of ground we've been covering for years.
Or, maybe they won't. For my own part I'm a lot more excited by the prospect of another Harris entry in his blogalogue with Sullivan than the idea of sitting down with a chapter of "The God Delusion." His last entry really resonated with me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Percy, posted 02-12-2007 5:47 PM Percy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 127 of 167 (384823)
02-13-2007 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by crashfrog
02-12-2007 5:12 PM


Re: "Dawkin's Delusion"
quote:
I'm not saying that Dawkins doesn't take a confrontational approach in the book - but it's only confrontational in comparison to the ridiculously non-direct, circumspect, tip-toeing-around-the-religious tone that otherwise dominates the discussion of the relationship between science and religion. I think it's time for the religious to hear matter-of-fact statements about the intellectual vapidity that lies at the heart of their belief structures, and have to deal with it. Bending over backwards to avoid offending their sensibilities is what leads to things like the imposition of Shari'a in otherwise secular countries.
Perhaps there is a bit of a cultural difference here, too.
Dawkins is english, and I can recall being rather shocked the first time I saw how British politicians are questioned by reporters over there compared to in the US. There are NO softball questions for the most part. The political press are really hard-nosed and probing and extremely skeptical. The rancor and directness in Parliament is also quite extreme compared to the US, although it does have a ritualistic flavor to it.
I think that Monty Python got it right in their portrayal of the Grim Reaper in The Meaning of Life:
Grim Reaper: Shut up, you American. You Americans, all you do is talk, and talk, and say "let me tell you something" and "I just wanna say." Well, you're dead now, so shut up.
At the end of the day, I agree with Crash. I'm tired of reality-denying religions being catered to. All that has led to is to their grasping at power that they use to take away my rights.
The thing we have to keep telling ourselves is that they are irrational.
Trying to reason with irrational people is pointless.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2007 5:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Percy, posted 02-13-2007 9:16 AM nator has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 128 of 167 (384834)
02-13-2007 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by nator
02-13-2007 8:35 AM


Re: "Dawkin's Delusion"
It's not that I disagree with what everyone else is saying, but when it comes to this:
nator writes:
The thing we have to keep telling ourselves is that they are irrational.
Trying to reason with irrational people is pointless.
And it's not that I disagree with this point. But we do have to live with these people on the same planet, and whatever the solution is, Dawkins doesn't have it. I don't want someone speaking for my side who is capable of alienating his own fairy godmother.
Crash compared Dawkins on the science side to Falwell and a couple others on the faith side, but there's really no comparison. You put Falwell in front of a camera and he'll charm the average listener. You put Dawkins in front of a camera and all you'll get is more converts to the other side. This is a serious problem, especially since it concerns someone who holds a chair for the communication of science to the public.
By the way, and I guess this is for Crash, one key difference between Harris and Dawkins is that Dawkins sees fundamentalists as the root cause of the problem as compared to religious moderates. He almost sees religious moderates as allies, think of the Methodists and so forth. But while Harris agrees with Dawkins that fundamentalism is the root source of concrete threats to civilization, he sees religious moderates as far more sinister because of the enabling role that they play, and the way that they make it okay in our society to believe as a group what would be considered insane in an individual. They make it okay to be irrational.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by nator, posted 02-13-2007 8:35 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2007 9:25 AM Percy has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 129 of 167 (384838)
02-13-2007 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Percy
02-13-2007 9:16 AM


Re: "Dawkin's Delusion"
You put Falwell in front of a camera and he'll charm the average listener.
I find myself disagreeing with you, but it's possible that I'm not the average viewer. I mean perhaps you're not familiar with Falwell's incendiary remarks, but it seems like if you put a mic on Jerry Falwell you don't have to wait very long before he's insulted something a lot of people hold most dear.
Dawkins comes off as a sassy-but-endearing British grandfather, like a kind of atheist Father Christmas.
Your mileage my vary, I guess. I see these personalities completely opposite to the way you do.
AbE: I'm sorry, Percy, I don't mean to be combative, and I'm largely in agreement with you. It's just my experience that I perceive these personalities in the completely opposite way that you style them, and I don't think I'm alone. On the other hand I can't think of a single way that we could test the appeal of these two men without cherry-picking their "best" and "worst" public appearances or statements, and I don't see what that would prove.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Percy, posted 02-13-2007 9:16 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Percy, posted 02-13-2007 9:57 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 130 of 167 (384839)
02-13-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archer Opteryx
09-28-2006 7:50 AM


Dawkins' book
I'm wondering if anyone has read The God Delusion, a new book by Richard Dawkins. If so, I'm interested in what thoughts you have.
I've read the book. I'm not at all sure my opinion will be of any value to you or anyone else. However, you'll find mixed reviews on the book if you visit Amazon.com.
My suggestion to anyone interested is to read the book and make up your own minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-28-2006 7:50 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 131 of 167 (384847)
02-13-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by crashfrog
02-13-2007 9:25 AM


Re: "Dawkin's Delusion"
crashfrog writes:
I find myself disagreeing with you, but it's possible that I'm not the average viewer.
Right, exactly. You're already polarized. So to take the most recent and probably most egregious Falwell example, I don't think the "average viewer" saw Falwell's comments about 9/11 on the Pat Robertson show as terribly offensive, at least not until the comments themselves became news and drew very specific criticism. Until they make headline news, the topics discussed here are not often thought about, if at all, by the general public.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2007 9:25 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Jazzns, posted 02-13-2007 11:29 AM Percy has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 132 of 167 (384872)
02-13-2007 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Percy
02-13-2007 9:57 AM


Dawkins' Audience vs Harris' Audience
I think one important point is being missed here.
IIRC, Dawkins has often said that one of the reasons that he says what he says is to empower people who are already atheists to speak out about the important issues. He also targets his message to people on the fence and again IIRC he has even said exactly that somewhere.
Harris seems to specifically design his message for the religious. His newest book is 'Letter to a Christian Nation'. His goal is direct dissassembly of the religious or at least the religious influence on society by the body of the currently religious.
As an analogy, Dawkins is building an army while Harris is a saboteur.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Percy, posted 02-13-2007 9:57 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2007 11:36 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 133 of 167 (384873)
02-13-2007 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Jazzns
02-13-2007 11:29 AM


Re: Dawkins' Audience vs Harris' Audience
As an analogy, Dawkins is building an army while Harris is a saboteur.
Well said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Jazzns, posted 02-13-2007 11:29 AM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by bebotx1, posted 03-13-2007 11:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
bebotx1
Member (Idle past 6222 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 134 of 167 (389530)
03-13-2007 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by crashfrog
02-13-2007 11:36 AM


Re: Dawkins' Audience vs Harris' Audience
I read The God Delusion, I'm sure we all have.
I have also listened to the following audio by Dr Denis Alexander.
Sometimes it's worth hearing an alternative point of view, this guy is an evolutionary biologist as well, so this isn't ID territory.
http://thinker.blog.co.uk/2007/03/14/richard_dawkins~1900300

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2007 11:36 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 135 of 167 (405232)
06-11-2007 11:23 PM


Bump - Double Up - Bump Bump
Time for a bump, two "God Delusion" mentions in the past ten minutes:
Percy writes:
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins: an absolutely horrible book. He's not a theologian or a student of religion or even of psychology. The book is just an extended uninformed rant. The book attempts to make the point that those who believe in God are operating under a delusion, and while there are valid ways to make this point, Dawkins doesn't manage to stumble across many of them.
Crashfrog writes:
In what way, uninformed? I've got his book on my coffee table right now and speaking as a former Christian (who was one for years and is familiar with theology at all levels) I didn't encounter a single thing I thought Dawkins was misinformed or uninformed about. You don't have to be a tailor to see that the emperor has no clothes. You don't have to have memorized every magic item in the Dungeon Master's Guide to know that Dungeons and Dragons is just a game.
It's certainly true that he didn't interview literally every believer about their belief in God, but that hardly seems necessary. Is that why you're calling him ignorant? Because he didn't have a response for literally every variation of theist woo?
I'll tell you what, though; for all Dawkins' book is criticized for being shoddy reasoning, I've not seen a single refutation that wasn't based entirely in disingenuity. For instance, most recently, Alister McGrath's book. Less than a third the length of Dawkins' book, it largely accomplishes that feat of economy by grappling with strawmen. If God exists, why isn't it possible to defend that position from atheists without being disingenuous? If atheist arguments are so impotent, why is it that they're only every refuted as strawmen?
I don't think a digression into The God Delusion would be appropriate for a thread about the evolution of food, but more importantly, I think you've lost track of how it was introduced into the discussion. WS-JW asked if people thought The God Delusion was "a good read or not so good," and I gave him my opinion and told him why. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean we can hijack this thread into a discussion of the book. If you think it's a book he should read then go ahead and tell him what you liked about it, though to me it seems a sure why to alienate a sincere Christian. Heck, I'm not even a Christian and I was alienated. Even friends and colleagues of Dawkins have lamented the book.
ABO "Dawkins needs more than ammunition..." writes:
Dude, if the kid decided to jump of a water tower trying to fly, would you quote Dawkins. Dawkins as an atheist is the cream of the crop but as a bible commentator he’s a dingbat. Any one with even a minimal knowledge of the bible can tell this guy can’t read or he’s just plain ignorant about the bible. Dawkins’s personal war against Christianity does not confirm the non existence of God, neither dose it prove his faith based molecule to man concept. His crowing accomplishment can only be the comfort you and others have received from his predigest garble, in the hope there is no God.
These are certainly some passionate condemnations, but they don't really seem to explain what it is, exactly, that Dawkins is supposed to be so ignorant about.
It's true that Dawkins didn't investigate literally every single interpretation of the Bible, which means it's really easy for writers like professional Dawkins coat-chaser Alister McGrath (The Dawkins Delusion) to present some interpretation Dawkins didn't mention like it undermines the argument of the God Delusion, but people like McGrath seem completely oblivious to the fact that the Bible can be read in any one of a nearly-infinite number of ways rather undermines any claim one might make that the Bible communicates timeless, universal truths.
A reviewer on Amazon made the same point I was about to:
quote:
If he seriously imagines that most of his readers, let alone Dawkins's, are so expert in biblical scholarship that they know who is believed to have written each book then he is even more out of touch with reality than the rest of his book suggests. More generally, does he seriously imagine that most (or even many) Christians base their beliefs on the conclusions of theologians?
This example illustrates the emptiness of the whole case of Christian apologists such as McGrath, because he wants to pick and choose which parts of the Church's teaching to believe, so that any example of horrors, whether from the Old Testament (easy!) or the New (not as difficult as one might think) can just be dismissed as something that is no longer part of the teaching of McGrath's particular sort of Christianity. The fact that vast numbers of fundamentalist Christians believe every word of the Bible to be literally true, and that the overwhelming majority of them know much less about academic theology than Dawkins does, is nowhere addressed in this books. Just as Christian biologists who want to retain a role for God in evolution find themselves drawn into postulating a "God of the gaps" to explain smaller and smaller gaps in knowledge, so McGrath imagines a world in which Christians believe only in those bits of Christian doctrine that are not obviously distasteful.

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-07-2007 1:51 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024