Dawkins on Christian Inconsistency...

[metis]

Without God, Dawkins would be out of a job, it is therefore churlish of him to call into question the existence of his employer.

That's quite an assumption.

 

[metis]

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 think 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 actually experts in the fields they pose themselves as, Ken Ham in evolution, or Richard Dawkins on religion. But those who "want to believe" find an "authority" in these gentlemen. Serious discussion is not to actually be had there however.

Again, let me repeat that I do believe Dawkins is too over-the-top with many of his statements, but that shouldn't detract from the fact that the basic of what he says appears to be true, namely that there simply is no objective evidence for a deity or deities, and I would add to that even the atheistic approach of claiming that there is/are no god/gods, which Dawkins does not say, btw. He does leave the door open for that possibility, but he does believe that today's religious teachings in general are mostly fabrications.

And Dawkins over-the-top approach to the subject is not without so many theists who do much the same. I couldn't even begin to tell you how many times many of us have been told that we're going to hell because we don't have the p.c. belief.

 

[Windwalker]

Again, let me repeat that I do believe Dawkins is too over-the-top with many of his statements, but that shouldn't detract from the fact that the basic of what he says appears to be true, namely that there simply is no objective evidence for a deity or deities, and I would add to that even the atheistic approach of claiming that there is/are no god/gods, which Dawkins does not say, btw.

What I see the value in this counter-argument against those in religion who are errantly claiming they can use science to prove God, is that such arguments are in fact bogus. Dawkins does a good job of smashing such an easy target as this. But rather than saying something like "those who believe God is a matter of scientific verification have a bad understanding of what religion teaches about God," (that would require understanding religion's perspectives on the nature of the divine), all that is said is that belief in God is therefore a delusion because it is not supported by science! That is just as ignorant an understanding of God as those who are believers in God and try to prove it by showing the earth is 6000 years old!

Yes, of course his arguments smash fundamentalist views. That's easy. That's like sending a 13 year old into the playground of 1st graders to kick sand in their faces and through their toy trucks into the bushes. What an accomplishment! And that's my point. This "victory" is viewed as a victory over "religion". You obviously should see the fallacy of this. I can scarcely knowing where to begin pulling this apart. If he wishes to be taken seriously, rather than taking rational science to attack mythic science (which is really all he is doing - not really even understanding what fundamentalist religion is either), he should use rational science to talk with rational religion. But of course, that wouldn't be very fun! No kids scrambling in terror at his overbearing presence in their playground.

So yes, he can disprove mythic science with rational science. That alone is the extent of what he has to say that has actual value.

He does leave the door open for that possibility, but he does believe that today's religious teachings in general are mostly fabrications.

As far as "leaving the door open", that is of course just a logic argument. It has as much value as me saying I leave the door open that Tinkerbell and Peter Pan actually exist, because I want to be consistent in logic arguments. Phooey.

As far as "today's religious teaching in general are mostly fabrications," that of course shows a broad brush stroke that flushes away all that it has to say because some hang what are in fact timeless human truths on mythological symbolisms. "Love your neighbor as yourself", is a fabrication???

I think this is the problem with Iconoclasts like Dawkins. They fail to understand the nature of mythologies. Dawkins does one thing and one thing only. He takes a mythic-literal view and shows it's not science. Period. All the rest is his misguided anti-religious sentiments using science as a weapon against it. I have very little respect for someone who is in essence doing exactly what the fundamentalist in religion is doing in trying to use their Holy Scriptures as an authority to crush all foes who believe differently from themselves. I see the flip-side of the same coin of religious fundamentalism.

And Dawkins over-the-top approach to the subject is not without so many theists who do much the same. I couldn't even begin to tell you how many times many of us have been told that we're going to hell because we don't have the p.c. belief.

Exactly! Dawkins is the same as they are! Flip side of the same coin.

 

[fiat lux]

Dawkins, it seems, holds the curious belief that religion may easily be dismissed by invoking science, but science and religion are not talking about similar things. As his crony Christopher Hitchens claimed in God Is Not Great "thanks to the telescope and the microscope religion no longer offers an explanation of anything important". Wow!
As Terry Eagleton has pointed out, religion was never meant to be an explanation of anything in the first place. It is rather like saying that thanks to the invention of the microwave oven we no longer need Beethoven.

 

[J Ciresoli]

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.

Barna Group did a study on this very topic by surveying Christians with questions that give insight into their actions and attitudes. The study found that only 14% of Christians resembled Jesus in attitudes and actions. Here is the link to the study: Christians: More Like Jesus or Pharisees? - Barna Group

 

[fiat lux]

Barna Group did a study on this very topic by surveying Christians with questions that give insight into their actions and attitudes. The study found that only 14% of Christians resembled Jesus in attitudes and actions. Here is the link to the study: Christians: More Like Jesus or Pharisees? - Barna Group

14%, as many as that! well there's a surprise.

 

[J Ciresoli]

I know right? I was shocked too, specially after 15 years of dealing with abusive Christians and evil churches. I grew up in Christianity and it raised me to be a self-hating, depressed teen and young adult with serious issues of cognitive dissonance. I am glad to be out of that filth, ya know?

 

[fiat lux]

So you jumped from the frying-pan of Christianity into the fire of Islam?

 

[LuisDantas]

Dawkins, it seems, holds the curious belief that religion may easily be dismissed by invoking science, but science and religion are not talking about similar things.

Dawkins fights not so much religion as the degenerated disciplines that have usurped much of its place. That it takes so much effort to realize that says a lot more about what passes itself as religion these days than about Dawkins, IMO.

 

[Koldo]

What I see the value in this counter-argument against those in religion who are errantly claiming they can use science to prove God, is that such arguments are in fact bogus. Dawkins does a good job of smashing such an easy target as this. But rather than saying something like "those who believe God is a matter of scientific verification have a bad understanding of what religion teaches about God," (that would require understanding religion's perspectives on the nature of the divine), all that is said is that belief in God is therefore a delusion because it is not supported by science!

That is just as ignorant an understanding of God as those who are believers in God and try to prove it by showing the earth is 6000 years old!

But he would be incorrect on that statement. Do not commit the same error you accuse him of. Don't pidgeonhole God.
God is a fluid concept which may or may not be a matter of scientific verification depending on how it is interpreted.

 

[Koldo]

Dawkins, it seems, holds the curious belief that religion may easily be dismissed by invoking science, but science and religion are not talking about similar things. As his crony Christopher Hitchens claimed in God Is Not Great "thanks to the telescope and the microscope religion no longer offers an explanation of anything important". Wow!
As Terry Eagleton has pointed out, religion was never meant to be an explanation of anything in the first place. It is rather like saying that thanks to the invention of the microwave oven we no longer need Beethoven.

I don't think anyone can claim what religion was meant to be. However, religion has been used to explain things regardless of that.
And these explanations are what makes religions rather unique.

 

[Pegg]

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?

it wouldnt surprise me at all that Dawkins is right on this one.

Some priests dont even believe in God let alone believe in the precepts of their religion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Some priests dont even believe in God let alone believe in the precepts of their religion.

I know a retired vicar who is an atheist. He won't say exactly when he became an atheist, but I'm pretty sure it was a long time ago, certainly while he was still a practising vicar and a "servant of God". Maybe it was just a secure job with nice conditions and he didn't know how to to anything else.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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?

When questioned by someone who is a non-believer but informed there are certain corners that theologins get backed into such as the idea of Hell. They know that hell as we visualize it isn't biblical but it doesn't sound that threatening to a congregation. You can't undo 700 years of brimstone imagery without looking like you've taken a step back. They tell the congregation what they need to hear in order to save their "souls". They aren't "lying" per-se as the fire isn't "literal" but "metaphorical"

 

[fiat lux]

I don't think anyone can claim what religion was meant to be. However, religion has been used to explain things regardless of that.
And these explanations are what makes religions rather unique.

Koldo; Could you please give an example of where religion "explains things" ?

 

[Koldo]

Koldo; Could you please give an example of where religion "explains things" ?

Let me see, it explains : how our world/universe came to be, the reason for our suffering, the source of morality, the nature of our existence ( consciousness included ), why miracles happen, paranormal phenomena, what happens after death...

These are the ones I can think of at this moment. I am fairly certain there are at least a few more...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Iconoclasts

I like that word. Somebody once called me an iconoclast, and I had to go and look it up to see if I should be offended or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Ah... the Courtier's Reply.

Courtier's Reply - RationalWiki

 

[fiat lux]

Let me see, it explains : how our world/universe came to be, the reason for our suffering, the source of morality, the nature of our existence ( consciousness included ), why miracles happen, paranormal phenomena, what happens after death...

These are the ones I can think of at this moment. I am fairly certain there are at least a few more...

I accept that Buddhism explains the reason for 'suffering' (though not using this word) but fail to see an explanation of how our world/universe came to be - in the sense of detailed facts which can be universally accepted. Genesis is metaphorical not an explanation, as is the remainder of the items you list, I think.

 

[J Ciresoli]

So you jumped from the frying-pan of Christianity into the fire of Islam?

I chose Islam because it was more calming, the people treated me with respect and dignity regardless of my beliefs at the time, and because it involves meditation.