Eagleton on Dawkins

[_Calculus Crusader]

Dawkins' treatment of classical theism in chapters 3-4 is pedestrian at best. I don't care if he knows the difference between Homoians and Pneumatomachians, for example, but I do expect him to apprehend the classical arguments for God if he intends to critique them.

[_Sethbag]

Dawkins' treatment of classical theism in chapters 3-4 is pedestrian at best. I don't care if he knows the difference between Homoians and Pneumatomachians, for example, but I do expect him to apprehend the classical arguments for God if he intends to critique them.

Whose classical arguments? The ancient Chinese peoples'? The various African tribal shamans? The Hindus'? Are you trying to imply that, say, the Aquinas arguments must be known and understood in order for the existence of God to be questioned, but forgetting that there have been many untold thousands of God believers, who believed in, and undoubtedly argued the existence of their own particular God, in various ways undoubtedly different from Aquinas, or any other European from the last thousand years?

Seriously, let's start a list here. Which arguments, from which theologians, must be understood by someone in order for them to reasonably question the basis for religious belief?

[_Runtu]

Dawkins' treatment of classical theism in chapters 3-4 is pedestrian at best. I don't care if he knows the difference between Homoians and Pneumatomachians, for example, but I do expect him to apprehend the classical arguments for God if he intends to critique them.

Whose classical arguments? The ancient Chinese peoples'? The various African tribal shamans? The Hindus'? Are you trying to imply that, say, the Aquinas arguments must be known and understood in order for the existence of God to be questioned, but forgetting that there have been many untold thousands of God believers, who believed in, and undoubtedly argued the existence of their own particular God, in various ways undoubtedly different from Aquinas, or any other European from the last thousand years?

Seriously, let's start a list here. Which arguments, from which theologians, must be understood by someone in order for them to reasonably question the basis for religious belief?

I think that's the problem. Religious thought and belief is so diverse and complex it's difficult to discuss theology broadly, and what you end up with are caricatures.

[_The Nehor]

In other words if you personally believe a belief is absurd you need to know little about it to critique it.

If there were a religion where people worshipped the eating of hard-boiled eggs, would you have to understand the nuanced argument for, for example, opening the egg from the big side versus from the little side, in order to criticize the religion?

Since there isn't any good evidence for a God even existing at all, all of theology, which discusses what people believe are God's attributes, plans and designs, desires, etc., becomes little more than the dispute between the big-endians and the little-endians.

And let me turn the tables on the believers.

How dare all the Christians proclaim that Jesus is the Christ, and that God, Jesus's Father, is in fact the one and only God? Have they not studied Hinduism? If they are not experts in Hinduism, how can they proclaim as true a belief system which automatically denies the truth of Hinduism? A God believer complains that Dawkins criticises belief in God without knowing enough about the various believers' beliefs, while at the same time, of these God believers, the Jesus believers hold to a belief system which automatically negates all other belief systems, whether they know anything at all about all these other belief systems or not.

How is this any different than what they complain Dawkins is doing?

I recognize the reviewer quoted in the OP isn't a God believer, but a lot of God believers have used the same kind of argument, and I'm approaching it from that point of view.

You don't have to be a theologian to not believe in God but if you want to write a book about God not existing you should probably read up a bit about what others say God is so that you can refute it intelligently and get the views of the most respected theologians so you can see what you are up against. Dawkin's book is not about the God most Christians believe in. It's about the parodied version of him. It's much like Talk Radio. If you're writing for people who are going to scream "Mega-dittos" at you all day you're fine. However the opposition can't listen to you for five minutes without laughing at the horribly inaccurate picture they have of you.

When any of the religions out there start offering up valid, verifiable evidence, from the real world in which we live (in other words, not "spiritual" evidence) that God actually exists at all, much less exists how these people imagine him to exist, then you'll have something like a point.

To be blunt about the egg religion, yes, I think you would. The argument over transubstantiation and consubstantiation is virtually the same. I would expect someone who wants to critique a religion to understand it and it's nuances.

If you just want to say there is no verifiable established evidence that there is a God you can do so. Still, again, you're not talking to believers at that point. Very few of them have claimed there is. At least the kind of evidence I think Dawkins wants.

Dawkins can claim he is an athiest without disproving God just as a Christian can claim he is a Christian without disproving Hinduism. If that was all Dawkins had to say he'd be fine. But he's not. If the Christian goes on to give a horrible caricatured sketch of Hinduism and then scream he doesn't believe in that because it is silly and stupid then he is uninformed and probably not worth listening to for any of his views on Hinduism.

If Dawkins were to say there is not a God based on science I could respect him. That's a modest goal and I could agree with him. He was ambitious and went beyond what he knew. Instead he caricatures religion and ascribes all manner of evils to it and how it is a huge threat to society when it is clear he has no idea what the actual believers think and believe. He seems as qualified to speak on this as I am to speak about the effects of Jainism (I've read a few short articles) on Asian culture.

[_guy sajer]

In the latest version of the book, Dawkins explicitly addressed this critique and, I believe, dealt with it adequately.

To me, the argument that one must understand complex theological arguments to critique religious belief is absurd. I don't give a rat's ass what Acquinas said. He knows no more about God than anyone else. (Which of course begs the question how you can know anything about a being that doesn't exist.) His speculations on God carry no more weight, ex ante, than my neighor down the street.

So, one must likewise emmerse himself in crystalology to critque belief in magic crystals?

In other words if you personally believe a belief is absurd you need to know little about it to critique it.

To quote McGuirk: "Here's a piece of advice Brendan. There's no such thing as psychology; it's all made-up crap. Yeah, they're all con-men. All of them, even the women. Just remember that when they're telling you how screwed-up you are. And let me tell you something else; Astronomy is BS too. All that star crap is ridiculous." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8npGu1Ud ... ed&search=

You don't have to be a theologian to not believe in God but if you want to write a book about God not existing you should probably read up a bit about what others say God is so that you can refute it intelligently and get the views of the most respected theologians so you can see what you are up against. Dawkin's book is not about the God most Christians believe in. It's about the parodied version of him. It's much like Talk Radio. If you're writing for people who are going to scream "Mega-dittos" at you all day you're fine. However the opposition can't listen to you for five minutes without laughing at the horribly inaccurate picture they have of you.

If you wanted to write a book on why crystalology is an incorrect science then yes, I would think you should immerse yourself in the lore of it all so you know what those who believe in magic crystals actually believe.

Uh, earth to Nehor, psychology is a science. Knowledge about the brain, human behavior, effects of environment on human behavior and psyche, etc. have a knowledge base in science and are understandable via the scientific method.

Belief in God has not a single one of those attributes; it is completely anti-thetical to the scientific method.

If I want to debate theologians on THEIR terms, indeed, I need to read their books and understand what they argue; but I don't grant their terms, ex ante, any disproportinate weight, as they have no greater knowledge or insight into a being that is inscrutable, unknowable, unmanifestable, and non-existent than anyone else. They can construct theories to explain the mystery of God, but there is no reason to believe that they are any more accurate than theories constructed by an unlearned man who is simply an astute observer of the human condition, which may be the dottering old man living in the ramshackle house on the corner.

And no, I do not have to read the deep, dark mysteries of crystalogy to know that it's a steaming, fetid, pile of anti-scientific bull shi**.

It is totally irrelevant what crystologists themselves believe.

[_Gadianton]

He seems as qualified to speak on this as I am to speak about the effects of Jainism (I've read a few short articles) on Asian culture.

How long have you lived in Asia? How long has Dawkins lived between Christians?

[_Gadianton]

.h

[_Calculus Crusader]

Dawkins' treatment of classical theism in chapters 3-4 is pedestrian at best. I don't care if he knows the difference between Homoians and Pneumatomachians, for example, but I do expect him to apprehend the classical arguments for God if he intends to critique them.

Whose classical arguments?

Those of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and the like.

[_The Nehor]

He seems as qualified to speak on this as I am to speak about the effects of Jainism (I've read a few short articles) on Asian culture.

How long have you lived in Asia? How long has Dawkins lived between Christians?

I have no idea. Do you?

[_The Nehor]

Uh, earth to Nehor, psychology is a science. Knowledge about the brain, human behavior, effects of environment on human behavior and psyche, etc. have a knowledge base in science and are understandable via the scientific method.

Belief in God has not a single one of those attributes; it is completely anti-thetical to the scientific method.

If I want to debate theologians on THEIR terms, indeed, I need to read their books and understand what they argue; but I don't grant their terms, ex ante, any disproportinate weight, as they have no greater knowledge or insight into a being that is inscrutable, unknowable, unmanifestable, and non-existent than anyone else. They can construct theories to explain the mystery of God, but there is no reason to believe that they are any more accurate than theories constructed by an unlearned man who is simply an astute observer of the human condition, which may be the dottering old man living in the ramshackle house on the corner.

And no, I do not have to read the deep, dark mysteries of crystalogy to know that it's a steaming, fetid, pile of anti-scientific bull shi**.

It is totally irrelevant what crystologists themselves believe.

But Dawkin's is not just claiming there is no God. That he can claim on the merits of what you say above if he wishes. Dawkins also spends a good portion of his book arguing that religion has a negative effect on society and rattles off a straw-man caricature of the believer and blames society's ills on that. He also takes theological beliefs and tells his readers of all the negative effects of them are.

If Dawkins wants to say there is no proof that there is a God, fine. He doesn't though. He wants to describe the effects of belief and of theological beliefs on society and make a judgment on them. Then he demonstrates that he does NOT understand what most Christians believe. To understand the effects a religion has on society the first thing a rational person does is find out everything they can about the religion and it's adherents. Dawkins fails on this point. He doesn't fail as an athiest, he fails on being an anthropologist.