Dawkins on Christian Inconsistency...

[Sunstone]

Somewhere in his writings, Richard Dawkins makes the interesting point that, when he is speaking directly with a member of the Christian clergy or a Christian theologian, that person will often enough give a relatively sophisticated and nuanced view of some issue or feature of Christianity.

However, when the same person is talking, not to Dawkins, but to the average believer, they all too frequently discard the sophisticated and nuanced view of an issue or feature in favor of promoting a cruder yet more traditional view.

For instance, the same minister as will tell Dawkins to ignore crude ideas about hell and that "Hell is merely a metaphor for being separated from God" will too often turn around and tell their congregation that a literal lake of fire awaits them if they do not have faith in Jesus.

So is Dawkins right about that? Does that sort of thing happen more or less frequently? And what do you make of it, if anything?

 

[StarryNightshade]

1.) I want sources.

2.) A fully fledged out experiment with correlations, populations, statistical significance, independent/dependent variables, and repeated measures

3.) And it all to be published in a peer reviewed journal.

Then maybe there will be some credence to there being a general inconsistency with Christians (funny how it only seems to be this one particular group).

Of course, the above post is being partly facetious, but there is some truth to it. There is no way, based on some personal encounters when speaking to some clergy or scholars, to say that there is some universal inconsistency when it comes to Christians. It's just yet another blanket statement from which does nothing but spread ignorance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Could you offer a concrete example referencing specific theologians?

 

[Windwalker]

I would say that any clergy will have to consider the level of the person they are speaking to. You don't give a slab of meat to an infant, but you have to grind it into pablum. Children don't know how to think in metaphors, and so they speak in terms their minds can understand. "God put the rainbow in the sky as a symbol of his love", for instance. Even so, the metaphor is useful, even if they are stuck taking it literally.

I doubt however that any minister who sees hell as a metaphor would then turn around an use it to terrorize their congregations! If they did, they shouldn't be a minister as they are cruel and dishonest. I think that is an overstatement to say they are doing this. Those that literally believe it are the ones who preach like that.

Now as far as him telling Dawkins they're metaphors, I tend to think that would be lost on Dawkins too. Dawkins sees religious symbols as literally wrong because they aren't scientific, which means he doesn't understand them either!

 

[Robert.Evans]

Somewhere in his writings, Richard Dawkins makes the interesting point that, when he is speaking directly with a member of the Christian clergy or a Christian theologian, that person will often enough give a relatively sophisticated and nuanced view of some issue or feature of Christianity.

However, when the same person is talking, not to Dawkins, but to the average believer, they all too frequently discard the sophisticated and nuanced view of an issue or feature in favor of promoting a cruder yet more traditional view.

For instance, the same minister as will tell Dawkins to ignore crude ideas about hell and that "Hell is merely a metaphor for being separated from God" will too often turn around and tell their congregation that a literal lake of fire awaits them if they do not have faith in Jesus.

So is Dawkins right about that? Does that sort of thing happen more or less frequently? And what do you make of it, if anything?

Dawkins is himself inconsistent. He also is an atheist and in no position to judge someone on that subject that he does fully understand and never will. Next question.

 

[Sunstone]

Could you offer a concrete example referencing specific theologians?

So far as I can recall, Dawkins doesn't reference specific theologians or clergy.

 

[Thana]

Somewhere in his writings, Richard Dawkins makes the interesting point that, when he is speaking directly with a member of the Christian clergy or a Christian theologian, that person will often enough give a relatively sophisticated and nuanced view of some issue or feature of Christianity.

However, when the same person is talking, not to Dawkins, but to the average believer, they all too frequently discard the sophisticated and nuanced view of an issue or feature in favor of promoting a cruder yet more traditional view.

For instance, the same minister as will tell Dawkins to ignore crude ideas about hell and that "Hell is merely a metaphor for being separated from God" will too often turn around and tell their congregation that a literal lake of fire awaits them if they do not have faith in Jesus.

So is Dawkins right about that? Does that sort of thing happen more or less frequently? And what do you make of it, if anything?

I don't think so. Your example isn't just being inconsistent it's doing a total 360 on one's beliefs.
Theists don't generally do that in the context you've provided.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So far as I can recall, Dawkins doesn't reference specific theologians or clergy.

That strikes me as worthy of concern. How does one deal with a claim about what theologians "will often enough do" when the claim is not substantiated and, in fact, may not even lend itself to substantiation?

And this, in turn, begs the question: What is the value of disseminating the claim?

 

[Sunstone]

And this, in turn, begs the question: What is the value of disseminating the claim?

Are you insinuating that dissemination is the equivalent of promotion?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Dawkins is himself inconsistent. He also is an atheist and in no position to judge someone on that subject that he does fully understand and never will. Next question.

true, that's the whole problem with framing one's belief negatively- a-theist

It's always far easier to scrutinize others' beliefs than your own

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you insinuating that dissemination is the equivalent of promotion?

No. I was asking and honest and, I believe, relevant question.

 

[thau]

Somewhere in his writings, Richard Dawkins makes the interesting point that, when he is speaking directly with a member of the Christian clergy or a Christian theologian, that person will often enough give a relatively sophisticated and nuanced view of some issue or feature of Christianity.

However, when the same person is talking, not to Dawkins, but to the average believer, they all too frequently discard the sophisticated and nuanced view of an issue or feature in favor of promoting a cruder yet more traditional view.

For instance, the same minister as will tell Dawkins to ignore crude ideas about hell and that "Hell is merely a metaphor for being separated from God" will too often turn around and tell their congregation that a literal lake of fire awaits them if they do not have faith in Jesus.

So is Dawkins right about that? Does that sort of thing happen more or less frequently? And what do you make of it, if anything?

There is no point in arguing claimed specifics about any Christian doctrine when Dawkins cannot even get his arms around a supreme being.

But for much of the congregation, they see what Dawkins cannot see. They have reason to believe. Hence, one can go deeper with a believer when basic premises are established.

 

[George-ananda]

I think Dawkins does the same thing. When conversing with his staunch atheist brethren he takes more of a mocking aggressive anti-theist position and stance as opposed to the position he would present when debating with let's say the Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Somewhere in his writings ...

I'm reminded just now of how important precision is.

... Richard Dawkins ...

How can you be sure it was Dawkins?

... makes the interesting point that, when he is speaking directly with a member of the Christian clergy or a Christian theologian, that person will often enough give a relatively sophisticated and nuanced view of some issue or feature of Christianity.

However, when the same person is talking, not to Dawkins, but to the average believer, they all too frequently discard the sophisticated and nuanced view of an issue or feature in favor of promoting a cruder yet more traditional view.

See: Audience, Know Your

So is Dawkins right about that? Does that sort of thing happen more or less frequently? And what do you make of it, if anything?

Adapting your message to suit your audience is fairly standard. Doesn't seem the least bit controversial to me.

 

[Jumi]

I've noticed the opposite sometimes happening. Some people will talk down to you and express everything in the crudest terms just because you are an outsider.

 

[Desert Snake]

Somewhere in his writings, Richard Dawkins makes the interesting point that, when he is speaking directly with a member of the Christian clergy or a Christian theologian, that person will often enough give a relatively sophisticated and nuanced view of some issue or feature of Christianity.

However, when the same person is talking, not to Dawkins, but to the average believer, they all too frequently discard the sophisticated and nuanced view of an issue or feature in favor of promoting a cruder yet more traditional view.

For instance, the same minister as will tell Dawkins to ignore crude ideas about hell and that "Hell is merely a metaphor for being separated from God" will too often turn around and tell their congregation that a literal lake of fire awaits them if they do not have faith in Jesus.

So is Dawkins right about that? Does that sort of thing happen more or less frequently? And what do you make of it, if anything?

You have conflated 'christians' with 'certain theologians'. I don't go to 'certain theologians' for answers, so ,pretty much irrelevant from my point of view.

 

[Desert Snake]

@Sunstone
If I were to base my opinions on atheism on conversations I've had with atheists, my opinion of the atheist stance would be far lower.

 

[nazz]

Somewhere in his writings, Richard Dawkins makes the interesting point that, when he is speaking directly with a member of the Christian clergy or a Christian theologian, that person will often enough give a relatively sophisticated and nuanced view of some issue or feature of Christianity.

However, when the same person is talking, not to Dawkins, but to the average believer, they all too frequently discard the sophisticated and nuanced view of an issue or feature in favor of promoting a cruder yet more traditional view.

For instance, the same minister as will tell Dawkins to ignore crude ideas about hell and that "Hell is merely a metaphor for being separated from God" will too often turn around and tell their congregation that a literal lake of fire awaits them if they do not have faith in Jesus.

So is Dawkins right about that? Does that sort of thing happen more or less frequently? And what do you make of it, if anything?

many people are content with simple answers and simple understandings

 

[LuisDantas]

So is Dawkins right about that? Does that sort of thing happen more or less frequently? And what do you make of it, if anything?

It happens, although I don't know how often.

My best guess is that one of the main reasons why it does is because most clergy feels somewhat tied to the expectations that come with their role. Their own flock would likely criticize them for deviating from the traditional forms of expression.

Another may be actual lack of regard for their own listeners. I have on occasion heard people claim that UCKG is not a honorable Church, but it may still be suitable for "lesser people". Perhaps some clerics do in fact believe, correctly or otherwise, that the people they are speaking to have to be lied to or at least have the teachings dumbed down to them in order for any effective teaching to take place.

In any case, I don't think it is a very respectful thing to do.

 

[LuisDantas]

Dawkins is himself inconsistent. He also is an atheist and in no position to judge someone on that subject that he does fully understand and never will. Next question.

Come on, you are not being serious. Try again.