Dawkins & Religion

[Storm]

Time to kick the hornet's nest. :sorry1:

I have no respect for the opinions of Richard Dawkins when it comes to religion, and I am sick to death of certain atheists holding him up as an authority. I'd like to point out to those people that quoting Dawkins on matters of faith is about as impressive as quoting Answers In Genesis on evolution. He doesn't know what he's talking about, and he's proud of it:
Somebody who thinks the way I do doesn't think theology is a subject at all. So... [charging me with failing to read theology] is like someone saying they don't believe in fairies and then being asked how they know if they haven't studied fairy-ology

This single quote utterly destroyed any respect I might have for the man. He's a brilliant scientist, to be sure. As such, he should damn well know better than to argue from ignorance.

Theology isn't "a subject at all?" What hubris! What abject arrogance to denigrate the great minds fascinated by the topic, the magnificent treatises, the priceless pearls of wisdom millennia of fascination have produced. So it's not where his passion lies. That's fine. But to deny the passion of others is ludicrous.

Which brings us to the next quote:
If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.

More presumption, declaring himself the arbiter of other people's interests. Perhaps, if the subject is so utterly beneath him, he's the one who "should just shut up about it."

Now, do I think he should be silenced? Of course not. He is, like everyone else, entitled to his opinions and his voice. Just don't expect me to be impressed by him.

 

[Erebus]

Dawkins is one of those people who seems to have learned a lot about one or two belief systems and consequently thinks he's got it sussed. I have to admit, seeing him debate fundies always makes me smirk, but that said I don't see much in him.

He knows plenty about fundamentalist Christianity, but I think his knowledge of theism is rather limited outside of that.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm not impressed either. I arrived at those conclusions years ago, long before I even heard of Dawkins.

 

[Magic Man]

Why do you hate the freedom of speech so much, love?

 

[sojourner]

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. Why abuse it?

 

[Revoltingest]

Time to kick the hornet's nest. :sorry1:

I have no respect for the opinions of Richard Dawkins when it comes to religion, and I am sick to death of certain atheists holding him up as an authority. I'd like to point out to those people that quoting Dawkins on matters of faith is about as impressive as quoting Answers In Genesis on evolution. He doesn't know what he's talking about, and he's proud of it:
Somebody who thinks the way I do doesn't think theology is a subject at all. So... [charging me with failing to read theology] is like someone saying they don't believe in fairies and then being asked how they know if they haven't studied fairy-ology

This single quote utterly destroyed any respect I might have for the man. He's a brilliant scientist, to be sure. As such, he should damn well know better than to argue from ignorance.

Perhaps it would be better to substitute "argue from arrogance" rather than "argue from ignorance".
I think he does know what he's talking about, but familiarity with myths & dogma isn't necessary to argue
the points he makes. It's his blunt & inconsiderate approach which really should vex. Personally, I don't
see him as an authority on religion or atheism....he's just another guy with his opinions.

 

[Storm]

Perhaps it would be better to substitute "argue from arrogance" rather than "argue from ignorance".
I think he does know what he's talking about, but familiarity with myths & dogma isn't necessary to argue the points he makes. It's his blunt & inconsiderate approach which really should vex. Personally, I don't see him as an authority on religion or atheism....he's just another guy with his opinions.

Glad to hear it, but others do.

 

[Riverwolf]

Why do you hate the freedom of speech so much, love?

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. Why abuse it?

If you read the final part of Storm's post, you'd see that she doesn't think he should be silenced. He's free to spout whatever nonsense he wants, just as Fred Phelps is free to spout whatever nonsense he wants.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you read the final part of Storm's post, you'd see that she doesn't think he should be silenced. He's free to spout whatever nonsense he wants, just as Fred Phelps is free to spout whatever nonsense he wants.

I thought Sojo was referring to Dawkins, not Storm. Was I wrong?

 

[Storm]

I thought Sojo was referring to Dawkins, not Storm. Was I wrong?

That's what I thought, too. And I know mball was teasing.

 

[Riverwolf]

Ah. Sorry, guys. I've always had trouble telling humor from seriousness. :sorry1:

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah. Sorry, guys. I've always had trouble telling humor from seriousness. :sorry1:

Just blame Sojo....that's what I do.

Just kidding!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Time to kick the hornet's nest. :sorry1:

I have no respect for the opinions of Richard Dawkins when it comes to religion, and I am sick to death of certain atheists holding him up as an authority. I'd like to point out to those people that quoting Dawkins on matters of faith is about as impressive as quoting Answers In Genesis on evolution. He doesn't know what he's talking about, and he's proud of it:
Somebody who thinks the way I do doesn't think theology is a subject at all. So... [charging me with failing to read theology] is like someone saying they don't believe in fairies and then being asked how they know if they haven't studied fairy-ology

This single quote utterly destroyed any respect I might have for the man. He's a brilliant scientist, to be sure. As such, he should damn well know better than to argue from ignorance.

I don't think he's arguing from ignorance. I'm not sure I agree with his point, but it's not an argument from ignorance AFAICT.

Theology isn't "a subject at all?" What hubris! What abject arrogance to denigrate the great minds fascinated by the topic, the magnificent treatises, the priceless pearls of wisdom millennia of fascination have produced. So it's not where his passion lies. That's fine. But to deny the passion of others is ludicrous.

I don't think it "denies the passion of others". I agree that there are many works of theology that have quite a bit of value wisdom in them... but IMO, that value is based on their philosophical import. Why not categorize them within "philosophy", then?

And I'm not sure I see the problem with setting aside written works if we conclude that they're baseless. Newton put just as much effort into alchemy as he did into physics and mathematics; does it "deny the passion" of Newton for us to now decide that alchemy is not a valid subject of study?

Which brings us to the next quote:
If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.

More presumption, declaring himself the arbiter of other people's interests.

I don't think he's doing that. He's not trying to tell anyone what they should find interesting; he's talking about what he himself wants to hear.

Perhaps, if the subject is so utterly beneath him, he's the one who "should just shut up about it."

The subject of religion and its effect on society is different from the subject of God.

Now, do I think he should be silenced? Of course not. He is, like everyone else, entitled to his opinions and his voice. Just don't expect me to be impressed by him.

I'm not expecting you to be impressed by him, but I don't think all of your criticisms of him here are necessarily fair.

 

[Strata]

I've just seen a lot of nitpicking about some of Dawkin's word choice. What do you guys think of his general points? I agree with his point that religious inspired hatred exists in this world. Take the Israel vs Pakistan conflict for example.

 

[Smoke]

If Dawkins is to be criticized for criticizing religion without having made a thorough study of theology, the bare minimum required of his critics must be that they have made a thorough study of his writings, and not informed themselves in a casual manner from random quotes found on the internet.

 

[Nepenthe]

Time to kick the hornet's nest. :sorry1:

I have no respect for the opinions of Richard Dawkins when it comes to religion, and I am sick to death of certain atheists holding him up as an authority. I'd like to point out to those people that quoting Dawkins on matters of faith is about as impressive as quoting Answers In Genesis on evolution. He doesn't know what he's talking about, and he's proud of it:
Somebody who thinks the way I do doesn't think theology is a subject at all. So... [charging me with failing to read theology] is like someone saying they don't believe in fairies and then being asked how they know if they haven't studied fairy-ology

This single quote utterly destroyed any respect I might have for the man. He's a brilliant scientist, to be sure. As such, he should damn well know better than to argue from ignorance.

Theology isn't "a subject at all?" What hubris! What abject arrogance to denigrate the great minds fascinated by the topic, the magnificent treatises, the priceless pearls of wisdom millennia of fascination have produced. So it's not where his passion lies. That's fine. But to deny the passion of others is ludicrous.

I think his bluntly stated point is that theology hasn't offered much in the way of understanding how the world works- morality, origins, etc.- that hasn't been, or will be, eventually supplanted by science and philosophy. If the argument is that theology allows us to view the world from a different perspective in the same way that art can make the viewer perceive things differently, then fine, there is value there. But the idea that theology has offered anything not accessible by science or philosophy thus far is simply not the case. There is a sense that theology is obsolete despite its profound contributions- contributions that were often inaccurate and more intimately described by science and philosophy.
"What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot?"

Which brings us to the next quote:
If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.

More presumption, declaring himself the arbiter of other people's interests. Perhaps, if the subject is so utterly beneath him, he's the one who "should just shut up about it."

Now, do I think he should be silenced? Of course not. He is, like everyone else, entitled to his opinions and his voice. Just don't expect me to be impressed by him.

Though the quote certainly sounds Dawkinsesque, it's annoying that of all his controversial and contentious quotes this one is attributed to him on several sites yet none have an actual source. Assuming it is an accurate quote, it simply sounds like an off the cuff blunt opinion on he burden of proof issue. I don't see any insinuation that he's the arbiter of what is and what is not interesting, nor do I see him as stating the subject is beneath him. I mean given the amount of essays and lectures he has given on the subject(s) over the years it sounds like he loves discussing it.

I agree that Dawkins has an annoyingly cavalier and almost celebratory ignorance of religions. He seems to have only a rudimentary grasp of the philosophical arguments around the God(s) issue, but the Courtier's Reply is a valid response to these accusations imo. I think the difference is that atheists are not interested in rallying around a leader figure; even at the atheist forums I lurk at Dawkins is often savaged and critiqued. He's not an authority on atheism or religion, and the few who consistently hold him up as one seem to be annoyed theists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Time to kick the hornet's nest. :sorry1:

I have no respect for the opinions of Richard Dawkins when it comes to religion, and I am sick to death of certain atheists holding him up as an authority. I'd like to point out to those people that quoting Dawkins on matters of faith is about as impressive as quoting Answers In Genesis on evolution. He doesn't know what he's talking about, and he's proud of it:
Somebody who thinks the way I do doesn't think theology is a subject at all. So... [charging me with failing to read theology] is like someone saying they don't believe in fairies and then being asked how they know if they haven't studied fairy-ology

This single quote utterly destroyed any respect I might have for the man. He's a brilliant scientist, to be sure. As such, he should damn well know better than to argue from ignorance.

He doesn't.

In fact, Dawkins has made more effort than anybody else that springs to mind to actually go and talk to religious leaders, question them, and educate himself. He just never finds any of their arguments compelling. If Dawkins is making an argument from ignorance, then by definition all atheists are who haven't researched every religion on the planet. Dawkins' point is not that he isn't informed - he is - it's just that the argument that his opinion of religion is invalid purely on the basis that he has never devoted his life to the study of religion, or earned any degree in the field of religious studies, is weak at best because religion is not a science, it is a doctrine.

Theology isn't "a subject at all?" What hubris! What abject arrogance to denigrate the great minds fascinated by the topic, the magnificent treatises, the priceless pearls of wisdom millennia of fascination have produced. So it's not where his passion lies. That's fine. But to deny the passion of others is ludicrous.

Dawkins doesn't say anything nearly that sweeping. He simply states that "to someone who thinks like he does religion is not a subject", in other words it is not something which has facts or fields of study that, once you are educated in, you will accept. As said above, it is a doctrine.

Which brings us to the next quote:
If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.

More presumption, declaring himself the arbiter of other people's interests. Perhaps, if the subject is so utterly beneath him, he's the one who "should just shut up about it."

Could you provide the context, please?

One thing that really winds me up about people who object to Dawkins is that they very rarely quote him in context.

Now, do I think he should be silenced? Of course not. He is, like everyone else, entitled to his opinions and his voice. Just don't expect me to be impressed by him.

You don't have to be, just don't dismiss him based on a couple of out-of-context quotes.

 

[Autodidact]

I think his point is valid, and he makes it in the way he does precisely to engender controversy and discussion. What he's saying is, if God does not exist, then what does theology study?

To use another example, to discredit or discard astrology, is it necessary to study various astrological "systems"? Or alchemy? Or numerology? If they don't work, then there is no point in studying them. They are in effect the study of absolutely nothing.

 

[Riverwolf]

If Dawkins is to be criticized for criticizing religion without having made a thorough study of theology, the bare minimum required of his critics must be that they have made a thorough study of his writings, and not informed themselves in a casual manner from random quotes found on the internet.

Guess we're all hypocrites, then. ^_^

Militant atheists constantly quote Scriptures out of context, and critics of certain celebratory atheists constantly do the same.

Seems like context of something unfamiliar is a concept that hasn't yet swept the world population.

 

[Magic Man]

Guess we're all hypocrites, then. ^_^

Militant atheists constantly quote Scriptures out of context, and critics of certain celebratory atheists constantly do the same.

Seems like context of something unfamiliar is a concept that hasn't yet swept the world population.

People from all different perspectives criticize others for out-of-context quotes and all sorts of things. I'm unclear as to why this is important to the discussion at hand, though.