Surprising lack of knowledge among theists.

[Scuba Pete]

Well, it's been my experience. Both on the net and IRL, I have informed devout Christians

There's the problem. Christianity is a REVEALED faith. We don't need no steenkeeng book, and we don't need a bunch of non-Christians to tell us what they think we SHOULD believe and WHY. We look past the ignorance of men to the wisdom of God, in what ever way HE decides to give it to us. It appears that your entire concept of the basis of Christianity is just a sham. No wonder you're so confused.

 

[lilithu]

Are we talking about the same man, the holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the popular understanding of science at Oxford University? Author of nine books, from The Selfish Gene to The God Delusion? The same guy who was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Westminster, Durham University,[110] and the University of Hull, and an honorary doctorate from the Open University and from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.[12] He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001.[12] In 1987, Dawkins received a Royal Society of Literature award, and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the same year, he received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year, for the BBC Horizon episode entitled The Blind Watchmaker.[12]
His other awards have included the Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), and the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002).[12] [wiki] You're calling him ignorant? Of what? Just what is it that you think Dr. Dawkins needs to know that he doesn't?

This is ridiculous. Ignorance means lacking knowledge. Are you claiming that just because a man is smart and highly knowledgeable in one field that means that he is automatically knowledgeable about other fields? Highly illogical. :sarcastic

 

[Storm]

1. So you can't criticize astrology without studying theology?

You can criticize anything. You cannot criticize anything effectively from a position of ignorance.

2. I completely agree with him. If God doesn't exist, why would you study theology?

To form an effective argument against it, if one is so inclined.

btw, are you familiar with Muslim theology? If not, why not?

Not intimately, because I haven't gotten to it yet. BTW, when I'm ready to return to school, I plan on picking up a bachelors degree in Islamic Studies.

He doesn't attack theology; he attacks the existence of God.

1) He does so poorly, from an ignorant perspective.
2) How is the existence of God a question of anything but theology?

Finally, because God does not exist

Prove it.

and therefore cannot be studied, "theology" is an incoherent inconsistent tissue of contradictions. No two theologists agree on anything. There are theologists out there who deny the existence of God and divinity of Jesus. Why would you study that?

Because it interests me. BTW, your characterizations of theology are almost as unfounded as they are pointless. I see no reason to insult an entire field of study except for the desire to be purposely inflammatory, much like Dawkins himself.

I understand you haven't reviewed the entire thread, Auto, so let me take a moment to nutshell my postition for you:
I am NOT saying that Dawkins has no right to express his opinions on religion, only that, due to his self-proclaimed ignorance, those opinions should not be taken as authoritative.

 

[lilithu]

I admit I haven't reviewed the entire thread. Exactly what is it you think he's ignorant of? My guess is that he, like most atheists, knows more about Christianity than the average Christian.

No, what you know is factoids from the bible. That doesn't mean that you know more of Christianity. And the fact that you think it does mean the show a fundamental lack of understanding of the Christian faith.

On a regular basis on RF we get people who try to prove their point in a secular argument by quoting from the bible. You and I and most everyone else understands how ridiculous that is, in that the person is requiring that things and people outside of his own tradition be judged by the criteria within his tradition. Yet the person can't see why this is a problem. Well that's what Dawkins and you are doing here. Holding up one set of criteria - knowledge of factoids - and imposing it upon Christians. Sorry, but it's equally uncompelling.

 

[Yerda]

I'm a Scotsman without having a complete knowledge of our history, our myths and the words of our 'prophets'. I was a Christian as a child, who had never even opened a Bible.

 

[Sunstone]

factoids

Just curious, but what do you mean by "factoids". CNN, which invented the term some years ago, defined it as something having the appearance of being a fact, but which might or might not be a fact. Is that how you're using the term?

 

[Sententia]

Asking someone to prove god doesn't exist is not an argument. I don't have to prove that fairies, leprechauns, minotuars, fey creatures, dark elves, elves, Drizzit Dourden, Ender Wiggin, Little Bean, Fiendish deamons and unicorns don't exist either... As a small set of examples.

You can believe and have faith in a god but you can not prove its existance or its interactions with our world. With no proof you have nothing to disprove.

To have a more constructive argument I would pose your form the question with some purpose or why we need this theory of god.

IE. God exists because without him the big bang could not have occurred and elaborate along those lines.

Just saying prove god doesn't exist is just not really a valid challenge.

What god? Zeus? YHWH? Krishna? An allmighty, all knowing entity? What? God is a very general term.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm a Scotsman without having a complete knowledge of our history, our myths and the words of our 'prophets'. I was a Christian as a child, who had never even opened a Bible.

But wouldn't you feel like less of a Scotsman if you didn't know who Robert the Bruce was, or what the battle of Culloden was? I'm not saying you wouldn't be a Scotsman, but when people ask me simple questions about American history, and I don't know the answers, I feel like less of an American, although that doesn't make me less of a person.

 

[Storm]

Asking someone to prove god doesn't exist is not an argument. I don't have to prove that fairies, leprechauns, minotuars, fey creatures, dark elves, elves, Drizzit Dourden, Ender Wiggin, Little Bean, Fiendish deamons and unicorns don't exist either... As a small set of examples.

You can believe and have faith in a god but you can not prove its existance or its interactions with our world. With no proof you have nothing to disprove.

To have a more constructive argument I would pose your form the question with some purpose or why we need this theory of god.

IE. God exists because without him the big bang could not have occurred and elaborate along those lines.

Just saying prove god doesn't exist is just not really a valid challenge.

What god? Zeus? YHWH? Krishna? An allmighty, all knowing entity? What? God is a very general term.

No, it isn't. In my case, it's an expression of annoyance with those who take God's nonexistence as an obvious fact. It's a reminder that your opinion has no more supportig evidence than mine.

 

[DallasApple]

I would pose your form the question with some purpose or why we need this theory of god.

I for one would never "pose" this question to you..or (we) whoever that is in your world...

Its funny you use that word "we".."We" would indicate there is "we" and there are others not in your "we" circle and those are the ones you want answers from...Or questions ...

Why...arent "we" content?

Love

Dallas

 

[lilithu]

Just curious, but what do you mean by "factoids". CNN, which invented the term some years ago, defined it as something having the appearance of being a fact, but which might or might not be a fact. Is that how you're using the term?

Yes. I do not know whether it is a fact that Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount. I believe that he did, but do not know it as a fact. Therefore, I felt it would have been inappropriate for me to refer to these pieces of information that Dawkins and Auto et al are claiming Christians should know as "facts." They are, however, things that may or may not be true.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes. I do not know whether it is a fact that Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount. I believe that he did, but do not know it as a fact. Therefore, I felt it would have been inappropriate for me to refer to these pieces of information that Dawkins and Auto et al are claiming Christians should know as "facts." They are, however, things that may or may not be true.

Thanks. That's how I thought you were using the word, but I wanted to make sure I understood you.

 

[lilithu]

But wouldn't you feel like less of a Scotsman if you didn't know who Robert the Bruce was, or what the battle of Culloden was? I'm not saying you wouldn't be a Scotsman, but when people ask me simple questions about American history, and I don't know the answers, I feel like less of an American, although that doesn't make me less of a person.

All it makes you is less knowledgeable an American, and certainly no expert on American history. But in what way can it possibly make you "less American"?

 

[fantome profane]

I'm a Scotsman without having a complete knowledge of our history, our myths and the words of our 'prophets'. I was a Christian as a child, who had never even opened a Bible.

But what does it mean to say a child is a Christian? Especially if that child is too young to understand what it means? Were you really a Christian child or were you just the child of Christians?

I think this is the essence of Dawkins point. I don’t disagree that he has decided to make it in the most offensive way that he could, but it is still an interesting point. At what age does a child have enough understanding to decide that they believe in the doctrines of a certain religion? It makes no more sense to refer to a child of 5 or 6 years of age as a Christian then it does to refer to them as a neo-conservative republican. They are simply not capable of it.

 

[Autodidact]

There's the problem. Christianity is a REVEALED faith. We don't need no steenkeeng book, and we don't need a bunch of non-Christians to tell us what they think we SHOULD believe and WHY. We look past the ignorance of men to the wisdom of God, in what ever way HE decides to give it to us. It appears that your entire concept of the basis of Christianity is just a sham. No wonder you're so confused.

Sez you. The next Christian down the line says the opposite. There is no one Christianity or one basis for Christianity, which is why no two Christians can agree on what it is. What makes you think I'm confused?

 

[Autodidact]

No, what you know is factoids from the bible. That doesn't mean that you know more of Christianity. And the fact that you think it does mean the show a fundamental lack of understanding of the Christian faith.

On a regular basis on RF we get people who try to prove their point in a secular argument by quoting from the bible. You and I and most everyone else understands how ridiculous that is, in that the person is requiring that things and people outside of his own tradition be judged by the criteria within his tradition. Yet the person can't see why this is a problem. Well that's what Dawkins and you are doing here. Holding up one set of criteria - knowledge of factoids - and imposing it upon Christians. Sorry, but it's equally uncompelling.

I agree. The very idea of expecting people to live by their own holy book, the one they say they base their entire belief system on. Why don't you go tell some Christians that their Bible is just a bunch of factoids?

 

[Valjean]

A small child is innocent of reason or logic. It is unable to evaluate data, thus, all sorts of strange and unsupported ideas can easily be installed in it's callow brain. Once there, they're difficult to dislodge.
Even at a later age, when the young man or woman has developed data filters that would have quickly excluded the ideas in question, the questionable concepts are not dislodged.
The filters can only deal with incoming data. Once past them and even the most bizarre and unsupported ideas are installed as ROM.

I think a case can be made for restricting a child's exposure to ambiguous, unsupported or contoversial ideas till s/he has the mental ability to wrestle with them.

 

[lilithu]

But what does it mean to say a child is a Christian? Especially if that child is too young to understand what it means? Were you really a Christian child or were you just the child of Christians?

The same way that a child is a Scott, or an American, or an Indian.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The same way that a child is a Scott, or an American, or an Indian.

When did Christianity first start being thought of as a nationality?

 

[fantome profane]

The same way that a child is a Scott, or an American, or an Indian.

Anyone born in America is an American. But being a neo-conservative for example has to do with what one believes, a child of neo-conservatives is not a neo-conservative unless and until that child is capable of understanding what it means and agrees.

If being a Christian is like the former not the latter then it is no more than an accident of birth. And if it is nothing more than an accident of birth then it being a Christian has nothing to do with beliefs, ideas or spirituality. This doesn’t seem right to me.

But if it is like the latter then how can you call a child a Christian until that child is capable of understanding and choosing to be a Christian?