Surprising lack of knowledge among theists.

[Mister Emu]

I have learned to expect the response, but it reflects pretty badly on believers.

Just as supporting the ideas reflects badly on non-believer...

 

[Storm]

3) I wish it were possible to mention the name of Dawkins without believers' turning into blithering idiots and foaming at the mouth. Honestly, this is getting pretty old. It's impossible to mention the man's name without some believer or other turning the thread into an attack thread against Dawkins.

Look, I gave Dawkins every chance to earn my respect, I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and he blew it.

 

[Smoke]

Just as quoting Dawkins reflects badly on non-believer...

I don't think you needed to exemplify the kind of behavior I was talking about; there are plenty of examples on RF already. But honestly, Emu, if you feel so strongly that there are ideas and people we should never talk about and never quote, and that merely mentioning them reflects badly on the writer, just what the hell are you doing on the staff of a website that claims its "aim is to provide a civil environment, informative, respectful and welcoming where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate religion while engaging in fellowship with one another"?

 

[Mister Emu]

I edited what I said because I realized the improper wording...

However I will stand by that supporting calling faith a "mental virus" and other such ideas does reflect badly on the person doing the supporting...

 

[Scuba Pete]

Dude, The God Delusion is a book. The book is a primitive means of communication in which ink is used to print words on paper. Regrettably, the technology does not allow for hyperlinks.

I know it's been a while for you, but they are called "footnotes" and they contain information about how to verify the study. Thanks for the condescension though. It helps to fuel my indignation.

1) Ad hominem is ad hominem no matter how much you hate the person.

I don't hate Dawkins, but I resent how he seems to hate ME.

2) He wasn't saying what you think he was saying.

Then what WAS he saying? Use coherent statements so I can follow this.

3) I wish it were possible to mention the name of Dawkins without believers' turning into blithering idiots and foaming at the mouth.

We do that when we encounter bias and bigotry. I know you must LIKE bias and bigotry otherwise you would not have referred to ALL believers as "blithering idiots and foaming at the mouth". I know that makes ME feel special, and I am just so glad you took the time to call me a blithering idiot today. I don't know how I would make it through the day without foaming at the mouth. It's my favorite part about Christianity.

Honestly, this is getting pretty old. It's impossible to mention the man's name without some believer or other turning the thread into an attack thread against Dawkins.

Then I would suggest that you use someone who is not a bigot or at least try not painting us all as "blithering idiots".

 

[Smoke]

Just as supporting the ideas reflects badly on non-believer...

I think supporting the ideas of Roman Catholicism reflects badly on Catholics, but I don't go on a tirade every time somebody says "Pope." What's astonishing is the complete lack of proportion and civility.

Look, I gave Dawkins every chance to earn my respect, I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and he blew it.

I understand that. Believe me, everybody understands that. And that's fine. But I don't think it's doing anybody any good to make it the subject of every thread in which his name is mentioned.

I know it's been a while for you, but they are called "footnotes"

I know what they're called, Pete. I wasn't the one repeatedly demanding "links," was I?

Then what WAS he saying? Use coherent statements so I can follow this.

BalanceFX has tried twice to introduce that information into the thread. If you hadn't been blinded by your rage at the mention of Dawkins, you'd have no need to ask me what what he was saying.

I know you must LIKE bias and bigotry otherwise you would not have referred to ALL believers as "blithering idiots and foaming at the mouth". I know that makes ME feel special, and I am just so glad you took the time to call me a blithering idiot today. I don't know how I would make it through the day without foaming at the mouth. It's my favorite part about Christianity. Then I would suggest that you use someone who is not a bigot or at least try not painting us all as "blithering idiots".

Oh, no, I never said "all." And frankly, I don't think the believers who behave that way every time Dawkins is mentioned are really blithering idiots. I've seen way too much evidence to the contrary. But if all I had to go on was the posts about Dawkins, I'd never know that.

 

[crystalonyx]

I know it's been a while for you, but they are called "footnotes" and they contain information about how to verify the study. Thanks for the condescension though. It helps to fuel my indignation. I don't hate Dawkins, but I resent how he seems to hate ME. Then what WAS he saying? Use coherent statements so I can follow this. We do that when we encounter bias and bigotry. I know you must LIKE bias and bigotry otherwise you would not have referred to ALL believers as "blithering idiots and foaming at the mouth". I know that makes ME feel special, and I am just so glad you took the time to call me a blithering idiot today. I don't know how I would make it through the day without foaming at the mouth. It's my favorite part about Christianity. Then I would suggest that you use someone who is not a bigot or at least try not painting us all as "blithering idiots".

Thousands of anti-atheist books out there, and this guy is complaining about one of the very few books that dare does an honest analysis of religion. It is fortunate that atheists don't jump off a cliff every time a new "pro-god" book comes down the pike.

 

[Storm]

I understand that. Believe me, everybody understands that. And that's fine. But I don't think it's doing anybody any good to make it the subject of every thread in which his name is mentioned.

Oh, no, I never said "all." And frankly, I don't think the believers who behave that way every time Dawkins is mentioned are really blithering idiots. I've seen way too much evidence to the contrary. But if all I had to go on was the posts about Dawkins, I'd never know that.

Surely you see how your statement could be read as condemning us all, though.

 

[Storm]

Thousands of anti-atheist books out there, and this guy is complaining about one of the very few books that dare does an honest analysis of religion. It is fortunate that atheists don't jump off a cliff every time a new "pro-god" book comes down the pike.

I wouldn't call Dawkins' analysis "honest" so much as "ignorant". Unsurprising, given that he celebrates his ignorance of theology as a virtue.

 

[Sunstone]

Dawkins is not a demon.

 

[crystalonyx]

I wouldn't call Dawkins' analysis "honest" so much as "ignorant". Unsurprising, given that he celebrates his ignorance of theology as a virtue.

"Ignorant" could also be used as a representation of this post.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

In Dawkin's "The God Delusion", he quotes some statistics in studies about Christians in the U.S. as follows:

1. 75 percent of them could not name 1 old testament prophet.
2. 50 percent of them did not know who gave the Sermon on the Mount.
3. > 50 percent of them thought Moses was one of the disciples of Christ.

And this is in a religious country like the U.S. What conclusions can be drawn from such a woeful lack of knowledge about people's own religion?

Some more interesting thoughts:

• How many non-theists know what non-locality is?
• How many non-theists think chance has explanatory power?
• How many non-theists think chance is a causative effect?
• How many non-theists know what an unfalsifiable hypothisis is?
• How many non-theists think complexity arising unpredictably from a set of a few simple rules (origin unexplained) is the same thing as them arising from chaos?
• How many non-theists think "I don't know" is progressive in matters where answers are not forthcoming?
• How many non-theists understand that progress is made only by positing hypotheses and putting them to the test?
• How many non-theists recognize subjective experience as just as real as a stone?
• How many non-theists think all there is is all they see?
• How many non-theists think likening God to a FSM is an intelligent argument?
• How many non-theists think skepticism--the demand for objective evidence--is a discoverer of truth in morality and religious matters?
• How many non-theists constantly refer the admittedly "higher" back into admittedly "lower" in order to explain them?

 

[Storm]

In Dawkin's "The God Delusion", he quotes some statistics in studies about Christians in the U.S. as follows:

1. 75 percent of them could not name 1 old testament prophet.
2. 50 percent of them did not know who gave the Sermon on the Mount.
3. > 50 percent of them thought Moses was one of the disciples of Christ.

And this is in a religious country like the U.S. What conclusions can be drawn from such a woeful lack of knowledge about people's own religion?

Leaving the question of Dawkins' credibility aside....

Even if I accepted this at face value, which I don't, I wouldn't accept it as being reflective of actual Christians. That is to say, the majority of US "Christians" in my experience have never really given it much thought. They're not really believers, they're just going with what they were taught, because they don't really care one way or another. They call themselves Christian more out of habit than conviction.

Now, that could easily be taken the wrong way, so let me make it clear that it's not a value judgement. I'm not saying that they're "not True Christians" because they're theologically ignorant. I'm pointing out that most people, again imx, are apathetic. Not everyone has an interest in God, just we don't all have an interest in poetry, or music, or sports. And that's fine.

But unlike poetry, music, or sports, there is a cultural expectation of some theological label as part of one's identity. This leads the people who don't care to just accept the religious identity they were raised to, which is overwhelmingly Christian in the US.

Because most theologically apathetic people in the US accept the label of "Christian" polls such as the one cited will find disproportionate numbers of theologically ignorant "Christians."

 

[sandandfoam]

Dawkins is not a demon.

I agree he's not. I did find the God Delusion a very bad read but I have been told his other books are a lot better.
Regarding the op

In Dawkin's "The God Delusion", he quotes some statistics in studies about Christians in the U.S. as follows:

1. 75 percent of them could not name 1 old testament prophet.
2. 50 percent of them did not know who gave the Sermon on the Mount.
3. > 50 percent of them thought Moses was one of the disciples of Christ.

And this is in a religious country like the U.S. What conclusions can be drawn from such a woeful lack of knowledge about people's own religion?

I think the conclusion to be drawn is that the education system in the U.S. could be better. Regardless of whether one believes in it or not the Bible is a culturally important book and one would imagine that a rounded education would impart a basic knowledge of it.

 

[Sunstone]

Regardless of whether one believes in it or not the Bible is a culturally important book and one would imagine that a rounded education would impart a basic knowledge of it.

I agree. The eduction system here is sorely lacking in many ways.

 

[Storm]

"Ignorant" could also be used as a representation of this post.

When asked if he had studied theology, he replied, "No. I haven't studied fairyology, either."

I expect better of a man of science. Perhaps that's unreasonable, but I do. If you want to attack theology, fine, but study it first, otherwise your entire position is one big Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

I respect Dawkins' attacks on theology no more than YECers' attacks on evolution, and for the same reasons. They're all based on ignorance.

Your little ad hom doesn't change that.

 

[Storm]

I don't think of him as a demon. He's one atheist - out of a multitude, I must point out - for whom I've lost respect.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I wouldn't call Dawkins' analysis "honest" so much as "ignorant".

Frubals on your head! SP Yes indeed!

 

[Scuba Pete]

Dawkins is not a demon.

Nor does he present a balanced view. The man has an agenda that ANYONE can see if they only try.

 

[fantome profane]

When asked if he had studied theology, he replied, "No. I haven't studied fairyology, either."

I expect better of a man of science. Perhaps that's unreasonable, but I do. If you want to attack theology, fine, but study it first, otherwise your entire position is one big Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

I agree, but he has studied science, biology, evolution, zoology etc. When he speaks on these topics I have a great deal of respect for him. I have a great deal of respect for him in the work he has done promoting scientific education. The man is absolutely brilliant in his field. (the key phrase being in his field)

As Sunstone says he is not a demon, he is a human. And therefore has a wide range of strengths and weaknesses. I think it is very unfortunate that people can’t seem to understand that. I think that those who dismiss Dawkins out of hand are missing out on one of the greatest minds of our time.

But it also drives me crazy when other people will quote Dawkins not only as an authority on theology, but as the ultimate authority on theology. Some people will use “The God Delusion” as if it were sacred scripture (never recognizing the irony). Actually it is Dawkins’ fans the bother me much more than Dawkins himself does.

Dawkins brings out such extreme views. If I disagree with something that Dawkins says some of his fans will label me as an irrational fundamentalist Christian. If I agree with something Dawkins has said then some of his detractors will label me as an extreme antireligious bigot. Well in fact I agree with much of what Dawkins has said, and I disagree with much of what Dawkins has said.