What do you think about Dawkins?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hi again

You!

That would be absolutely spot on, except that we actually experience love. Hence, ignoring it because it's not something that is measurable or can be analysed scientifically isn't exactly getting us anywhere either. Since it is very relevant to the human experience, human beings need to engage it as a subject.

So why can't we talk about it and why does talking about it have to be meaningless?

It seems to me that Dawkins is wont to regard anything out of the realm of scientific truth as irrelevant or not worth discussing. I suppose he's far from the first to do so.

Because science not being able to explain everything (love in this instant) is no proof for God's existence and would therefore not be a part in that particular debate. Nothing wrong with discussing it with regard to other subjects of course.

 

[Flying Pig]

Just found this:

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yep, I found that yesterday as well

I am your father!
Noooooooooooo!

 

[Perfection]

wHO'S ON THE lEFT?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Emma Watson

Don't know that an Emma Watson is though.

 

[aelf]

What he means, I think, is that saying things like this is trying to explain it, which he doesn't think is possible

I don't think poets et al, for example, are trying to explain love that way. They explore our experience of it, and I think that's a worthy enough endeavour. You don't have to shut up because you can't explain it, which is what he seems to be saying.

Because science not being able to explain everything (love in this instant) is no proof for God's existence and would therefore not be a part in that particular debate. Nothing wrong with discussing it with regard to other subjects of course.

Well, it does help to show that, as I said, the science doesn't deal with certain questions. But I don't think there's any proof of God's existence, so naturally I don't think it proves anything in that regard.

I can understand the point you're making, but Dawkins seems to be implying a few extra things there that I don't think are right.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Theology is based on a presumption that God (no matter how you call this entity) exists.

You're delusional. (You are holding a false belief in spite of evidence to the contrary.)

This is a shortened analogy to a discussion between Dawkins-like atheist and a believer. Allow me some creative licence

believer AFEP. (American Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant)

Or just "strawman" if you prefer.

 

[Munch]

Bear in mind that theology isn't the sole preserve of believers (see the 'Ask a theologian' thread, for example), and there's a lot more to it than the ethereal nonsense you mention. Religion has been so integral a part of human life for so long now, and has taxed the minds of so many great thinkers, that it's plainly ridiculous to think that you can blast it away with a few high-school-philosophy-class arguments. And that is precisely Dawkins' problem.

I agree completely. But that does not describe the kind of serious theological arguments that Dawkins shies away from engaging (ie. the ones that are actually worth discussing).

I've seen the thread. I am all for acknowledging the integral part of human history that religion has been, as you put it, and like Hitchens (think it was him) I appreciate that to understand a lot of culture you need some understanding of religion. But still, theology doesn't help us determine whether a god exists, as Winner mentioned. It is based on an assumption, and works logically from that position. As such it is entirely irrelevant in this context.

Spoiler :

At the heart of religion is the proposition that some supernatural being, outside the universe as we know it, created physical reality. When a theologist can propose an experimental test which is capable of falsifying the hypothesis then his subject might start to contribute something useful to our understanding. There is no evidence that any such creator exists. To my mind, whatever the sophistication of theology as an academic subject, it has the same relation to science as astrology has to astronomy.

EDIT: Wiki just reminded me that the 2007 version of the book I possess contains an introductory section addressing some of the criticism Dawkins has received. It might be interesting to see what he himself says about the lack of rigourous theological thingies.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't think poets et al, for example, are trying to explain love that way. They explore our experience of it, and I think that's a worthy enough endeavour. You don't have to shut up because you can't explain it, which is what he seems to be saying.

That's different because they are artists, which is not the same thing.

 

[Yared]

You're delusional. (You are holding a false belief in spite of evidence to the contrary.)

Or just "strawman" if you prefer.

He's talking about a Theologian in the former sense - not the sort of Theologian who studies older Theologians.

 

[aelf]

That's different because they are artists, which is not the same thing.

Huh?

Basically, what Dawkins seems to be saying is "We can't really explain love, so talking about it is just pointless playing with words!" (sounds familiar?).

I say that there is a point in talking about it even if we cannot explain it in certain terms.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Basically, what Dawkins seems to be saying is "We can't really explain love, so talking about it is just pointless playing with words!" (sounds familiar?).

That's unfair to Dawkins. He's not even implying such a thing. He is saying: I can't explain love, and you use words like uneffable which really doesn't explain anything either.

And keep the topic of the interview in mind.

 

[Flying Pig]

Ziggy has put it, as usual, far better than me.

 

[aelf]

That's unfair to Dawkins. He's not even implying such a thing. He is saying: I can't explain love, and you use words like uneffable which really doesn't explain anything either.

I guess you would see it that way, but all this taken together is really what's troubling:

But it's entirely believable that although we cannot explain it, we cannot explain the details, nevertheless there is nothing beyond that. But you've done nothing by calling it ineffable and transcending, you're just using words. We're not getting anywhere by doing that. I'm not getting anywhere either, but I'm admitting it.

He could merely be saying that calling it those two words aren't particularly helpful, but at the same time he seems to be suggesting that there really is no point because we can't explain the details.

Honestly, it's not a stretch to take him as a Positivist.

 

[Munch]

To expand upon my comment about Dawkins' 2007 preface:

You can’t criticise religion without detailed study of learned books on theology.

If, as one self-consciously intellectual critic wished, I had expounded the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope (as he vainly hoped I would), my book would have been more than a surprise bestseller, it would have been a miracle. I would happily have forgone bestsellerdom had there been the slightest hope of Duns Scotus illuminating my central question: does God exist? But I need engage only those few theologians who at least acknowledge the question, rather than blithely assuming God as a premise. For the rest, I cannot better the “Courtier’s Reply” on P. Z. Myers’s splendid Pharyngula website, where he takes me to task for outing the Emperor’s nudity while ignoring learned tomes on ruffled pantaloons and silken underwear. Most Christians happily disavow Baal and the Flying Spaghetti Monster without reference to monographs of Baalian exegesis or Pastafarian theology.

@ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1779771.ece

 

[Winner]

You're delusional. (You are holding a false belief in spite of evidence to the contrary.)

I should make it clear that there are basically two meanings of “theologian”. The first is someone who thinks or speculates about God etc and writes what they think. Such a person is actually religious and tries to describe God (or whatever) as they think he really is. It was in this sense that Evagrius Ponticus, a fourth-century theologian, commented that theologians pray truly and that, if you pray truly, you are a theologian.

The second meaning of “theologian” is the academic sense and it basically means someone who studies theologians in the former sense. For example, my old tutor is an expert in Duns Scotus, which means he studies Scotus, writes about him, and tries to establish what he believed and why – exactly as a historical philosopher might study Plato or Descartes. But that doesn’t mean he actually agrees with Scotus on anything. Theology in this sense has considerable overlap with history, literary criticism, anthropology, and so on, especially since the people or groups under consideration could be contemporary as well as historical. Clearly you don’t need to have any religious faith at all to do this, any more than you have to be French to study Balzac. In fact I think that modern academic theologians probably divide roughly equally between those who are religious and those who are not. Perhaps there are more of the former than of the latter, but it would probably depend to a great extent on where you are.

How is this relevant to the matter at hand eludes me.

Again - "evidence" from within the subject of discussion is not admissible. Or perhaps I am ignorant here, but you can help me by pointing me to the post where Plotinus (I believe he's a non-believer) proved the existence of God. If he didn't actually do it, then the thread and all the posts it contains are quite irrelevant because this is what Dawkins want believers to give him.

If they can't, then theology is absolutely irrelevant to him and the things he's saying.

believer AFEP. (American Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant)

Or just "strawman" if you prefer.

Nnnnnno. Most believers do that, in america, in europe and eslewhere. Of course I compressed all this into one short dialogue, but it always comes down to

a) atheists demanding rational justification/evidence of believers' claims;
b) believers evading the question in any way they can or failing to provide such rational justification/evidence.

 

[Bei1052]

To expand upon my comment about Dawkins' 2007 preface:



@ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1779771.ece

Apparently, you can criticize religion without detailed study of learned books on theology, as Dawkins does it all the time.

 

[Munch]

Apparently, you can criticize religion without detailed study of learned books on theology, as Dawkins does it all the time.

I think you've missed the point.

EDIT: that is, the bolded "You can’t criticise religion without detailed study of learned books on theology." is only bolded because that is the criticism he is responding to - and because it was bolded on the Times website for the same reason.

 

[Bei1052]

I think you've missed the point.

EDIT: that is, the bolded "You can’t criticise religion without detailed study of learned books on theology." is only bolded because that is the criticism he is responding to - and because it was bolded on the Times website for the same reason.

Ohhh.... Okay. I gotcha'.

Anyway, one of the biggest criticisms against Dawkins is that he starts from his version of a theological principle and then proceeds to construct as argument against said principle as it suits him, while ignoring the fact that he's arguing against his version of, say, Christianity instead of Christianity (Or any religion for that fact).

So, yes, I'd agree that you don't have to be a theologian to discuss theology, but you do have to have some understanding of theology to discuss theology, and Dawkins quite literally has none.

 

[Winner]

Apparently, you can criticize religion without detailed study of learned books on theology, as Dawkins does it all the time.

...

So, yes, I'd agree that you don't have to be a theologian to discuss theology, but you do have to have some understanding of theology to discuss theology, and Dawkins quite literally has none.

A quote from wiki:

Oxford theologian Alister McGrath (author of The Dawkins Delusion) maintains that Dawkins is "ignorant" of Christian theology, and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently.[88] In reply, Dawkins asks "do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?",[89] and − in the paperback edition of The God Delusion − he refers to the American biologist PZ Myers, who has satirised this line of argument as "The Courtier's Reply".

The Courtier's Reply

Myers has voiced the position that many of the responses to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion are what he calls "Courtier's Replies". Replying to critics who felt that Dawkins ignored sophisticated versions of modern theology, Myers compared them to courtiers fawning on the legendary emperor who had no clothes:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.​

Gotcha