Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

[gnomon]

Scholars, historians, professors, etc. To say nothing of the actual teachers of various religions.

A teacher of a specific sect of Buddhism might be an expert on that specific sect but that does not make them an expert on religion. I doubt there are many, if any, historians with published scholarly works that could be considered experts. Even a professor of religion and philosophy has expounded on the notion that religion has little to do with God and more to do with culture. Which leaves little room for the importance of theology.

I don't know of any experts on religion. Too many religions. Too varied. There are professors of religion who argue that religion is not about god which sort of sets aside the importance of theology. Theology appears to be at best narrow fields of thought argued by scholars practiced in those narrow fields that have little application to understanding the varieties of religion and even less so the culture that practices a specific religion.

 

[Riverwolf]

A teacher of a specific sect of Buddhism might be an expert on that specific sect but that does not make them an expert on religion. I doubt there are many, if any, historians with published scholarly works that could be considered experts. Even a professor of religion and philosophy has expounded on the notion that religion has little to do with God and more to do with culture. Which leaves little room for the importance of theology.

I don't know of any experts on religion. Too many religions. Too varied. There are professors of religion who argue that religion is not about god which sort of sets aside the importance of theology. Theology appears to be at best narrow fields of thought argued by scholars practiced in those narrow fields that have little application to understanding the varieties of religion and even less so the culture that practices a specific religion.

Experts disagree all the time. People can be exposed to the same facts but draw different conclusions from them based on opinion and experience based bias.

Your general idea is correct, that there are too many religions that have far too many variations for any one person to be an expert in all of them. But one can be an expert in general religion from studying culture, psychology, anthropology, history, etc. because these fields can help hypothesize various origins and evolutions of religions, how they relate to the cultures they belonged to, how they related to foreign cultures, how they relate to each other, etc.

But to be such an expert, it most likely is dependent on focusing on the major religions, and not the various modern religions, pseudo-religions, and offshoot religions that are popping up everywhere.

And even if you still say that nobody can be an expert in religion, it's most definitely possible to be an expert in the various aspects of them. Joseph Campbell, for example, was an expert in mythology and how it related to what he knew of history, psychology, and anthropology. Of course, some of his ideas may be considered faulty now, since he was basing many of his ideas on Freudian psychology, which from what I understand is not really taken seriously by psychologists anymore, but that doesn't change the fact that he knew his mythology.

And even still, if you still say that there can't be an expert in religion, then how about I word it this way: Dawkins presents himself as having comparatively little knowledge on the workings of religion, since his statements on it are so focused on surface presentations of Abrahamic religions. Understandable, yes, but it's logically fallacious to make blanket statements on religion based solely on a few of them, no matter how many followers they have.

 

[gnomon]

Experts disagree all the time. People can be exposed to the same facts but draw different conclusions from them based on opinion and experience based bias.

Your general idea is correct, that there are too many religions that have far too many variations for any one person to be an expert in all of them. But one can be an expert in general religion from studying culture, psychology, anthropology, history, etc. because these fields can help hypothesize various origins and evolutions of religions, how they relate to the cultures they belonged to, how they related to foreign cultures, how they relate to each other, etc.

But to be such an expert, it most likely is dependent on focusing on the major religions, and not the various modern religions, pseudo-religions, and offshoot religions that are popping up everywhere.

And even if you still say that nobody can be an expert in religion, it's most definitely possible to be an expert in the various aspects of them. Joseph Campbell, for example, was an expert in mythology and how it related to what he knew of history, psychology, and anthropology. Of course, some of his ideas may be considered faulty now, since he was basing many of his ideas on Freudian psychology, which from what I understand is not really taken seriously by psychologists anymore, but that doesn't change the fact that he knew his mythology.

And even still, if you still say that there can't be an expert in religion, then how about I word it this way: Dawkins presents himself as having comparatively little knowledge on the workings of religion, since his statements on it are so focused on surface presentations of Abrahamic religions. Understandable, yes, but it's logically fallacious to make blanket statements on religion based solely on a few of them, no matter how many followers they have.

I don't think most of his arguments involve blanket statements on religion and those that do may actually apply in general. Just because an argument is general in nature doesn't mean it's right or wrong.

For example, is it right or wrong to declare children, who lack the sophisticated intellectual capacity of an adult, a member of a religion? Dawkins has gone so far as to call it child abuse in that it limits through indoctrination, in much of the world, the child's education and ability to make decisions of that nature for themselves. This argument doesn't need to single out any specific religion or class of religions. The basis of the argument applies to all.

Is religion a force for good in the world? That's another argument that can be debated on general terms and has little to do with the theology of any religion. However, historical knowledge is required for this argument to debate it on either side. But the argument would focus primarily on a sociological perspective and most points for or against would rely on observations of religion and it's institutions as it applies today. Also, given that the mass of humanity practice religions fall under what we call Abrahamic religions or other sophisticated religious beliefs which share much in common in how they relate to civil issues the generalization of this argument is not a fallacy.

The arguments over methodology, scientific v. revelation(religion), are going to be general in nature as well regarding the mass of religious belief.

My point is that I fail to see the argument in stating that Dawkins supposedly lacks either knowledge or a sophistication when it comes to theology.

Theological questions are often of the variety such as these:
1) What is the Trinity?
2) Is Kolob a planet or a star?
3) Do angels exist and if so are they messengers of God?

Who needs to know, as if such a thing is possible, these things when arguing over the role religion plays in society. I would argue that the mass of religious believers barely concern themselves much with theology.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't think most of his arguments involve blanket statements on religion and those that do may actually apply in general. Just because an argument is general in nature doesn't mean it's right or wrong.

For example, is it right or wrong to declare children, who lack the sophisticated intellectual capacity of an adult, a member of a religion? Dawkins has gone so far as to call it child abuse in that it limits through indoctrination, in much of the world, the child's education and ability to make decisions of that nature for themselves. This argument doesn't need to single out any specific religion or class of religions. The basis of the argument applies to all.

All, as in, much farther than religion. It also applies to culture, politics, opinions, habits...

So I guess we're all child abusers. :sarcastic

Is religion a force for good in the world? That's another argument that can be debated on general terms and has little to do with the theology of any religion. However, historical knowledge is required for this argument to debate it on either side. But the argument would focus primarily on a sociological perspective and most points for or against would rely on observations of religion and it's institutions as it applies today. Also, given that the mass of humanity practice religions fall under what we call Abrahamic religions or other sophisticated religious beliefs which share much in common in how they relate to civil issues the generalization of this argument is not a fallacy.

It absolutely is. Is religion the cause of the problems of the world, or the driving force for good? Let's not forget that recorded history doesn't go back much farther than Abrahamic influence on most cultures, so we don't have much in the way of comparison. We need to clearly see alternatives, first, which we don't really have enough of. But I would argue that, so far, religion alone doesn't seem to be the direct cause of either good or evil; it's just the currently existing motivation/excuse to do things that would be done either way. That's not to say that specific events weren't directly motivated by religion (witch-hunts, for example... which bear a striking resemblance to the "Christian-hunts" that took place in early Christianity, BTW), just that it seems that individual natures tend to act in certain ways regardless of the specific motivations.

The arguments over methodology, scientific v. revelation(religion), are going to be general in nature as well regarding the mass of religious belief.

My point is that I fail to see the argument in stating that Dawkins supposedly lacks either knowledge or a sophistication when it comes to theology.

Theological questions are often of the variety such as these:
1) What is the Trinity?
2) Is Kolob a planet or a star?
3) Do angels exist and if so are they messengers of God?

These questions only apply to Christianity. And angels have to be messengers of someone, since the word "angel" means "messenger."

Who needs to know, as if such a thing is possible, these things when arguing over the role religion plays in society. I would argue that the mass of religious believers barely concern themselves much with theology.

Notice how I didn't bring up theology as one of my criteria for being an expert in general religion, since there is no such thing as a "general theology": even among sects of the same religion we find conflicting theologies, to say nothing of different religions.

We're arguing that Dawkins doesn't know much about religion in general, but we're not saying anything about his knowledge of a specific theology, or group of theologies, in which he may be very knowledgeable. But knowing of a certain religion's theology isn't enough to fully understand that religion, because, as you argue, most people don't care much about theology.

 

[gnomon]

All, as in, much farther than religion. It also applies to culture, politics, opinions, habits...

So I guess we're all child abusers. :sarcastic

But that is not what I stated. I'm merely pointing out that it is a statement that is an argument that can be applied generally and debated as a general argument.

It absolutely is. Is religion the cause of the problems of the world, or the driving force for good? Let's not forget that recorded history doesn't go back much farther than Abrahamic influence on most cultures, so we don't have much in the way of comparison. We need to clearly see alternatives, first, which we don't really have enough of. But I would argue that, so far, religion alone doesn't seem to be the direct cause of either good or evil; it's just the currently existing motivation/excuse to do things that would be done either way. That's not to say that specific events weren't directly motivated by religion (witch-hunts, for example... which bear a striking resemblance to the "Christian-hunts" that took place in early Christianity, BTW), just that it seems that individual natures tend to act in certain ways regardless of the specific motivations.

I do agree that religion alone is not a sole cause of problems we find in societies but if we accept that religion is a primary vehicle by which we transmit cultural mores than it's relative value in that capacity can be debated. And this argument applies to all religions. I bring this up to highlight the argument of scientific methodologies as opposed to various religious methodologies. You can see this question in debates between Hitchens and Wolpe with Wolpe pointing out the Jewish intellectual tradition that allows a lot of room for naturalistic methodology while retaining a strong tradition but Hitchens rightly points out that particular religion is representative of only a small portion of the world's religious believers.

These questions only apply to Christianity. And angels have to be messengers of someone, since the word "angel" means "messenger."

Actually the concept of angels appears in many religious traditions with different variations. The nature of these beings are theological questions in those religions. Questions of an apocalyptic nature are also theological in nature and can be find in a multitude of religions from Christianity to Buddhism to even lesser known traditions. The point is that these questions do not have much value in debating the role these religious traditions play in day to day life.

Notice how I didn't bring up theology as one of my criteria for being an expert in general religion, since there is no such thing as a "general theology": even among sects of the same religion we find conflicting theologies, to say nothing of different religions.

We're arguing that Dawkins doesn't know much about religion in general, but we're not saying anything about his knowledge of a specific theology, or group of theologies, in which he may be very knowledgeable. But knowing of a certain religion's theology isn't enough to fully understand that religion, because, as you argue, most people don't care much about theology.

You may not have brought it up specifically but the claim that Dawkins knowledge of theology or his level of sophistication in his overall knowledge of religion is an oft repeated claim. Yet as often as I see this claim raised I do not see the evidence supporting it. It appears to me that the primary reason it is raised is so that someone can dismiss the entirety of Dawkins arguments which is disingenuous because many of his arguments do not require what could be called an expert or sophisticated knowledge of religion.

Yet, I'm sure there are arguments Dawkins makes in which it is reasonable to assert that he lacks the requisite knowledge of a particular religion or he is overreaching with his claim and attributing incorrect attributes to religion as a whole. For example, I've heard Dawkins make mention of wars in history and attributes them to religion where it is more appropriate to point out the ethnic or national differences that were the cause of conflict. Actually, I think that mistake is often brought up when it comes to discussions of military history and religion.

 

[Iti oj]

Guys we all know Dawkins is a secular anti prophet. He is infallible.


hail satan

lol

but seriously right or wrong he is an amazing writer. Such good style. his books make science enjoyable and exciting to the general public. I love his books on Evolution my favorite is the Blind Watch Maker the bat sonar example was superb. . The Ancestors Tale is a close second. I found the selfish gene harder to work through but very enlightening the paradigm change from understand evolution in the individual/species to think about the gene. a must read for any one trying to understand evolution.

Evolutionary Biology is this mans carer
the rest is just his hobby.

idk what ever.

 

[Riverwolf]

But that is not what I stated. I'm merely pointing out that it is a statement that is an argument that can be applied generally and debated as a general argument.

Except for the fact that it can't be debated at all, because it's so easily shot down.

I do agree that religion alone is not a sole cause of problems we find in societies but if we accept that religion is a primary vehicle by which we transmit cultural mores than it's relative value in that capacity can be debated. And this argument applies to all religions. I bring this up to highlight the argument of scientific methodologies as opposed to various religious methodologies. You can see this question in debates between Hitchens and Wolpe with Wolpe pointing out the Jewish intellectual tradition that allows a lot of room for naturalistic methodology while retaining a strong tradition but Hitchens rightly points out that particular religion is representative of only a small portion of the world's religious believers.

Are we talking about the believers of religion, or religion itself? Seems Dawkins, in the quotes I always see, talks about religion, and not the followers of religion.

If we're talking about followers, then yes, we can talk generally, since the vast majority of religious people are either Christian in some form, or Muslim in some form. But in terms of religion itself, these are only two religions of several.

Actually the concept of angels appears in many religious traditions with different variations.

But they're only called "angels" in Abrahamic traditions, specifically their Christian/Muslim forms, because they're considered messengers. In the case of other religions, they have different names: in Indian religion, they're several names for the various types, with the most prominent being Deva. The difference between Christian/Muslim angels and Indian Devas: the Devas are considered Gods, and are often worshiped as such.

The nature of these beings are theological questions in those religions. Questions of an apocalyptic nature are also theological in nature and can be find in a multitude of religions from Christianity to Buddhism to even lesser known traditions. The point is that these questions do not have much value in debating the role these religious traditions play in day to day life.

...so why'd you bring it up?

You may not have brought it up specifically but the claim that Dawkins knowledge of theology or his level of sophistication in his overall knowledge of religion is an oft repeated claim. Yet as often as I see this claim raised I do not see the evidence supporting it. It appears to me that the primary reason it is raised is so that someone can dismiss the entirety of Dawkins arguments which is disingenuous because many of his arguments do not require what could be called an expert or sophisticated knowledge of religion.

Yet, I'm sure there are arguments Dawkins makes in which it is reasonable to assert that he lacks the requisite knowledge of a particular religion or he is overreaching with his claim and attributing incorrect attributes to religion as a whole. For example, I've heard Dawkins make mention of wars in history and attributes them to religion where it is more appropriate to point out the ethnic or national differences that were the cause of conflict. Actually, I think that mistake is often brought up when it comes to discussions of military history and religion.

The thing is, I don't claim that he doesn't understand specific theologies. All I'm saying is that often when I see him talking about religion, he betrays that he has not studied religion in general; only a specific type of religion. His absolute statements are certainly not well thought-out.

 

[Riverwolf]

Guys we all know Dawkins is a secular anti prophet. He is infallible.


hail satan

lol

but seriously right or wrong he is an amazing writer. Such good style. his books make science enjoyable and exciting to the general public. I love his books on Evolution my favorite is the Blind Watch Maker the bat sonar example was superb. . The Ancestors Tale is a close second. I found the selfish gene harder to work through but very enlightening the paradigm change from understand evolution in the individual/species to think about the gene. a must read for any one trying to understand evolution.

Evolutionary Biology is this mans carer
the rest is just his hobby.

idk what ever.

I have every intention of reading his books on evolution. :yes: I, for one, don't doubt the man's intelligence or knowledge regarding his specific field of expertise.

 

[Photonic]

I have every intention of reading his books on evolution. :yes: I, for one, don't doubt the man's intelligence or knowledge regarding his specific field of expertise.

Beyond the anti-religious tones of many of his writings, he is still one of the worlds leading evolutionary biologists. I don't think it would be fair to downplay his professional writing.

 

[Riverwolf]

Beyond the anti-religious tones of many of his writings, he is still one of the worlds leading evolutionary biologists. I don't think it would be fair to downplay his professional writing.

I don't generally downplay his books themselves, since I haven't read them. I just downplay the various quotes I see of him. And even then, who knows? Maybe they're inaccurate to what he actually said. I don't know.

 

[crystalonyx]

I don't think many people like it when Dawkins brings logic to the discourse about the existence of some god.

 

[Willamena]

I don't think many people like it when Dawkins brings logic to the discourse about the existence of some god.

I like it less when he brings irreverence of logic to a discussion.

 

[Photonic]

I like it less when he brings irreverence of logic to a discussion.

Good thing he's never done that.

 

[gnomon]

I like it less when he brings irreverence of logic to a discussion.

This would be similar to those people who argue that Dawkins doesn't do enough to learn about religion or theology while at the same time admitting that they have never read or listened to Dawkins arguments they base their criticism.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I don't think many people like it when Dawkins brings logic to the discourse about the existence of some god.

He also brings a smug attitude to the discourse, that's what puts people off

 

[Apex]

He also brings a smug attitude to the discourse, that's what puts people off

I just can't take a person seriously when they use the term "faith-heads" to describe believers. It just makes me think of a elementary school bully on a school playground.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I just can't take a person seriously when they use the term "faith-heads" to describe believers. It just makes me think of a elementary school bully on a school playground.

You're not the only one


[youtube]Dxff0k_TEzI[/youtube]
Neil Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins;-) - YouTube

 

[Kerr]

I just can't take a person seriously when they use the term "faith-heads" to describe believers. It just makes me think of a elementary school bully on a school playground.

Wait, what? He used "faith-heads" :areyoucra? Thats a rather silly term to say the least, lol.

 

[Apex]

Wait, what? He used "faith-heads" :areyoucra? Thats a rather silly term to say the least, lol.

On Faith Panelists Blog: Haiti and the hypocrisy of Christian theology - Richard Dawkins

Third paragraph. I think he has also used it in other places such as The God Delusion.

 

[Kerr]

On Faith Panelists Blog: Haiti and the hypocrisy of Christian theology - Richard Dawkins

Third paragraph. I think he has also used it in other places such as The God Delusion.

Lol! I am not sure what he actually means by it... Is he trying to be condescending? Sounds like he is to me, but I am too tired right now to think straight .