Surprising lack of knowledge among theists.

[Quagmire]

Thank you. Unfortunately I have never heard of these chaps. However, surely their take on religion is purely a matter of their own personal take on it and therefore Dawkins is just as "qualified" to give his?

Could be. I don't know much about Dawkins except what I've heard here and what I've seen on South Park (and I've come to find that South Park is only mostly reliable as a reference for forming a world veiw).

Thing about Campbell and Watts is that religion (oriental religions in Watt's case)actually is their felid of expertise.

Maybe a good way to start would be to wiki these guys so you can get a basic idea of what to expect from their books.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

"The Selfish Gene" is a bit dated, but Dawkins definitely is a preeminent evolutionist, (although I've always enjoyed reading Gould a little more), but on the subject of theism and god's existence, "The God Delusion" is probably the best unbiased book ever written on the subject.

Case and point.

 

[CLantara]

Everyone has a right to their opinions and the free expression thereof. However, Dawkins' opinion is merely that, unsupported by any study of theology.

Does that make him "unqualified"? If "qualification" is defined as working knowledge, yes. If it means "he should shut up," no.

But even theology is a matter of the theologists own opinions and their interpretation of scripture?

 

[Storm]

But even theology is a matter of the theologists own opinions and their interpretation of scripture?

Yes, it is. It's a question of whether or not the opinion is informed.

Dawkins has ever right to comment on his understanding of theology, but one should bear in mind that that opinion is uninformed. It's the same situation as Kent Hovind commenting on his understanding of evolution. He has the right to his opinion. He has the right to shout it from the rooftops. That doesn't mean it should be taken as authoritative.

 

[CLantara]

Yes, it is. It's a question of whether or not the opinion is informed.

Dawkins has ever right to comment on his understanding of theology, but one should bear in mind that that opinion is uninformed. It's the same situation as Kent Hovind commenting on his understanding of evolution. He has the right to his opinion. He has the right to shout it from the rooftops. That doesn't mean it should be taken as authoritative.

I dont want to appear overly ignorant but what is informed theology?

 

[fantome profane]

But even theology is a matter of the theologists own opinions and their interpretation of scripture?

Dawkins has as much right to his opinion as anyone else, and he does make some interesting valid point on the subject of religion and “God”. But his opinions on this topic are no more authoritative than anyone else’s. Which is why it makes no sense for someone to for someone to post on a board like this and tell me what Dawkins thinks. It would make much more sense for that person to just simply tell me what they think.

And welcome to the board.

 

[Storm]

I dont want to appear overly ignorant but what is informed theology?

I think you misunderstood me. I meant "informed opinion".

 

[CLantara]

I think you misunderstood me. I meant "informed opinion".

Sorry. Then what is informed opinion? Who is informed enough about scripture to give an informed opinion without having direct access to the divine author of scripture for guidance?

 

[Azakel]

Dawkins is not a demon.

No he's an Archfiend ^_^

 

[Storm]

Sorry. Then what is informed opinion? Who is informed enough about scripture to give an informed opinion without having direct access to the divine author of scripture for guidance?

Anyone who has read scripture can form an informed opinion on scripture. However, someone who has studied the historical context in which that scripture was written is more informed.

ETA: However, the study of scripture is only a very tiny portion of theology.

 

[Wandered Off]

Who is informed enough about scripture to give an informed opinion without having direct access to the divine author of scripture for guidance?

We're in the same boat for any other book whose authors are dead. We can't access them for guidance either. At best, we can study about them and what others have said about them.

 

[CLantara]

Anyone who has read scripture can form an informed opinion on scripture. However, someone who has studied the historical context in which that scripture was written is more informed.

ETA: However, the study of scripture is only a very tiny portion of theology.

Ok...I think!

 

[Storm]

Ok...I think!

 

[Magic Man]

I'm a little late to the thread, and I'm sure it's now on the downswing, but a couple of things:

Welcome to the board, Clantara.

I have not yet read the God Delusion, but I do find it funny the emotion that is brought out just by mentioning Dawkins's name. He may have some uninformed opinions on matters of thelology, but he also has some valid, reasonable points regarding the subject, too. I think it's sad that the valid points he brings up are thrown out immediately by many believers because of his persona and some of the more uninformed points.

With that said, I am sometimes amused at how little many Christians in this country actually kow about their religion. You don't have to know everything about it to practice it, but it's the people who think just by going to church most Sundays and knowing Jesus's name is enough, and never bother to delve any deeper or put any thought into it, but are the first to be offended when someone appears to attack their religion, or the first to stand up and say that they're a good Christian, who amuse me.

The fact is that a great many people, at least in this country, don't put any thought into religion at all. They are raised Christian, and so they continue to go to church throughout their lives, or don't, but continue to consider themselves Christian anyway. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Not everyone needs to place any value on religion, but it amuses me when I know more about the Bible or Christianity in general than some self-proclaimed Christians.

 

[Valjean]

I don't think Dawkin's 'ignorance of the inner workings' of religion is entirely relevant. Dawkins questions the Major Premises of theology, especially the actual existence of God. His dismissal of theological conclusions and minutiae are corollaries of his dismissal of the reality of God. His comment on "fairyology" reflects this.

Dawkins does not believe in God. Asking him his opinion on the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead is like asking for his opinion on Atlantean politics or the traffic regulations in Lilliput.

 

[Quiddity]

I don't think Dawkin's 'ignorance of the inner workings' of religion is entirely relevant. Dawkins questions the Major Premises of theology, especially the actual existence of God. His dismissal of theological conclusions and minutiae are corollaries of his dismissal of the reality of God. His comment on "fairyology" reflects this.

Dawkins does not believe in God. Asking him his opinion on the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead is like asking for his opinion on Atlantean politics or the traffic regulations in Lilliput.

It is if his objections revolve around the angels and pinhead. So yes, it is relevant.

He's not just saying "God doesn't exist", he's engaging in the very things he calls delusions and attaching his own premises and presuppositions to them.

 

[Sunstone]

I disagree with Dawkins on some things, but he does make some good points at times.

 

[logician]

Case and point.

I don't think you understand Dawkins. His books aren't about theology, they are about science. "The God Delusion" is a scientific approach to the subject of god's existence. To say he is "ignorant" of theology misses the point entirely. HIs approach is scientific, which is why it stands alone and above all of the baised "we believe in belief" books on theology.

 

[logician]

I'm a little late to the thread, and I'm sure it's now on the downswing, but a couple of things:

Welcome to the board, Clantara.

I have not yet read the God Delusion, but I do find it funny the emotion that is brought out just by mentioning Dawkins's name. He may have some uninformed opinions on matters of thelology, but he also has some valid, reasonable points regarding the subject, too. I think it's sad that the valid points he brings up are thrown out immediately by many believers because of his persona and some of the more uninformed points.

With that said, I am sometimes amused at how little many Christians in this country actually kow about their religion. You don't have to know everything about it to practice it, but it's the people who think just by going to church most Sundays and knowing Jesus's name is enough, and never bother to delve any deeper or put any thought into it, but are the first to be offended when someone appears to attack their religion, or the first to stand up and say that they're a good Christian, who amuse me.

The fact is that a great many people, at least in this country, don't put any thought into religion at all. They are raised Christian, and so they continue to go to church throughout their lives, or don't, but continue to consider themselves Christian anyway. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Not everyone needs to place any value on religion, but it amuses me when I know more about the Bible or Christianity in general than some self-proclaimed Christians.

Not just some, but most.

 

[Sunstone]

Not just some, but most.

So what? A lot more people probably know what works for them, than know what's in the Bible.