metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I would suggest that you have highly underestimated Dawkins. Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he's theologically ignorant, which he's not.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dawkins on Christian Inconsistency...
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
He's not? Perhaps you know something I don't? I liken Dawkins' critiques of religion the same as Ken Ham's critiques of science.
Then you should reconsider. Or at least take the time to read some of his criticisms.
There is really no comparison.
There is really no comparison.
I have read Dawkins. It's the basis for my observation.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
It is spiritually discerned.. you know that. So he will not understand it FULLY, which is what I said, and he never will. So you need to think a little more not me.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
I'm sure when it comes to religion and religious history he could run rings round me with dates and figures. And I do know a lot of his words, I have listened to him. But it is spiritually discerned so anyone thinking he will understand is not even in the same ball park. Even the Church does not understand it all, so what chance he!
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Dawkins is a very deceptive man making millions out of this 'hobby' he has undertaken as a pensioner. Better than collecting stamps I guess. Shame he has no evidence for his claims.
I do not know that and it would greatly surprise me if I somehow learned that it is so.
I simply can't agree with that.
Not a word there I can take seriously, alas.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Detailed theological argument is often as far removed from person faith as dumbed down religion is.
You have to speak to people in the terms you both understand to make any sense at all.
I often think theological argument is a failed attempt at finding faith.
It often entails expanding and linking an unproven "Fact" into a whole train of beliefs by logical argument.
None of these beliefs can be shown to be any more correct than the unproven fact they stem from.
Unfortunately Logic works equally well with truths as it does with falsehoods.
You have to speak to people in the terms you both understand to make any sense at all.
I often think theological argument is a failed attempt at finding faith.
It often entails expanding and linking an unproven "Fact" into a whole train of beliefs by logical argument.
None of these beliefs can be shown to be any more correct than the unproven fact they stem from.
Unfortunately Logic works equally well with truths as it does with falsehoods.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
What strikes me about theological arguments is how convoluted they can be, as if they are deliberately designed to confuse the recipient, a sort of intellectual smoke screen to obscure logical fallacies.
This is beautifully put. I have a saying I came up with after listening for a long time to some highly sophisticated theology being put forward by a theologian friend of mine in his PhD program. As I continued to listen to him, never once hearing any inner realization coming forth from him, no thought coming from the heart I said, "Theology is the mind's last-ditch attempt to understand God before it fails, and does."
He didn't care for that too much, as theology is all he understood.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Oh dear, scraping the barrel there I see.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Dawkins is over-the-top at times, which I personally dislike about him, but if you've read enough of his comments dealing with religion, he certainly is very far from being a dummy.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well, let me just say that I have a problem with the concept of "spiritually discerned" as opposed to being objectively discerned. As humans, we often "see" what we want to see, and that we should be very careful of.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Tell me what part of that is wrong. I have seen a lot of his comments, and he is deceptive and has an agenda.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
We see what God gives us... it just appears to be other things. But you are right, we should be very careful about what we say and believe.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But this also can be applied to a great many theists and religious institutions in general. There simply is no objective evidence for a deity or deities, and yet so many make so much on what is mere speculation that they have come to swallow. Again, let me just say that I am not an atheist, but I simply have to respond to those who jump to conclusions and then blame others for doing the exact same thing.
fiat lux
Member
Without God, Dawkins would be out of a job, it is therefore churlish of him to call into question the existence of his employer.
I never said Dawkins, or even Ken Ham are dummies. Obviously Ken Ham can string together logical arguments in a cohesive way to make his points, just like Dawkins can. It's just that Ken Ham is speaking from positions of ignorance and speculations as to what science is and is not suggesting based on how he frames reality in his worldview system. It doesn't and apparently cannot enter into his mindspace. In other words, even though science is a valid system, it does not compute in how Mr. Ham's mind thinks. And so all the rest that comes out of his mouth is arguing from that mind that thinks differently than Mr. Dawkins' mind does.
And so it is the same with Richard Dawkins in his views of religion. The things I hear him say against religion at best may only apply in the simplest of ways only to the lowest-common denominator, the "low-hanging god of fundamentalism". As I've listened to him speak of things like philosophy and religion, I am immediately struck by someone whose arguments have the level of sophistication of that of a college sophomore. He's completely out of his depth, in the same way Ken Ham is out of his as a fundamentalist preacher playing science authority. Yet both are speaking as authorities to their respective fanbases from a position of relative ignorance.
Ken Ham has his place in speaking to those who wish to believe in a mythic-literal God and the myth of Biblical authority, just as Richard Dawkins has his place in speaking to those who believe such myths as religion is the cause of all evils in the world and is a form of delusion. But both are merely mouth-pieces to their fanbases, not actual experts in the fields they pose themselves as, Ken Ham on evolution, or Richard Dawkins on religion. But those who "want to believe" find an "authority"figure in these gentlemen to support their respective belief systems. Serious discussion is not to actually be had there however.
Last edited: