Eagleton on Dawkins

[_Sethbag]

What Dawkins knows all too well is that Christians, and all other God believers, not only believe in things for which there is absolutely no evidence, but also teach to their children, and hence perpetuate in our society, that belief in things for which there is no proof is actually a good thing. Not only that, but some folks, fundementalists, teach that belief in things (such as the Flood, 6000 year old earth, etc.) for which there is actually plenty of counter-proof (ie: proof that it didn't happen), is a good thing. He doesn't need to know exactly what every type of Christian believes to know that there isn't a shred of evidence that God even exists, let alone had a son named Jesus Christ who died for all our sins.

I agree with Dawkins that, for whatever other good some religions may do, the teaching that it's a good thing to believe in things for which there is no evidence, is not a good thing at all. I believe that the justifications and mental gymnastics required to support religious belief subvert rational thought, and build in people patterns of thought which can, in their extreme forms, actively harm society.

[_The Dude]

Meh, it's like Dawkins and Gould having a difference of opinion about evolution. Neither of them doubted evolution, but there was a drawn out debate and some well known contention between the two and their respective camps. Christian creationists disingenuously portrayed this as a rift in the basic fact of common descent, and they still do quote Gould out of context with frequency -- it's desperately sad to see. Eagleton and Dawkins are both atheists. They both think Mormons believe in a fantasy. Now lets watch the believers try to use Eagleton vs. Dawkins as some kind of apologetic crowbar.

[_guy sajer]

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.

I disagree that Dawkins manifests a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christians believe. (I am curious what most Christians believe; do you mean Mormon, J-Dub, Evangelical, Coptic, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, 7th Day Adventist, Christian Scientist, or what?)

He does take jabs here and there at belief in general, but, as I read him, most of his critiques are aimed at more fundamentalist/dogmatic beliefs, and it does not take an anthropologist to get a reasonably good understanding of the tenents of dogmatic Christianity. Any number of us can get a good sense of this by reading and observing the multide of data sources out there. It does not take an anthropologist to do this.

By the way, you're not a religious anthropologist are you? If not, then how can you understand or claim to know what "most" Christians believe? So let me get this right, one must be a trained anthropologist to critique religion, but one need not be a trained anthropologist to defend it? How can you defend what, given your lack of academic credientials, your could not possibly understand?

That said, however, I am glad to see that you've retreated from an argument that one must be a trained theologican and read all the great works of theology to have standing to critique religious belief.

[_The Nehor]

I disagree that Dawkins manifests a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christians believe. (I am curious what most Christians believe; do you mean Mormon, J-Dub, Evangelical, Coptic, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, 7th Day Adventist, Christian Scientist, or what?)

He does take jabs here and there at belief in general, but, as I read him, most of his critiques are aimed at more fundamentalist/dogmatic beliefs, and it does not take an anthropologist to get a reasonably good understanding of the tenents of dogmatic Christianity. Any number of us can get a good sense of this by reading and observing the multide of data sources out there. It does not take an anthropologist to do this.

By the way, you're not a religious anthropologist are you? If not, then how can you understand or claim to know what "most" Christians believe? So let me get this right, one must be a trained anthropologist to critique religion, but one need not be a trained anthropologist to defend it? How can you defend what, given your lack of academic credientials, your could not possibly understand?

That said, however, I am glad to see that you've retreated from an argument that one must be a trained theologican and read all the great works of theology to have standing to critique religious belief.

I'm not a religious anthropologist and I know that so I would never presume to write such a book without extensive research. With the number of things Dawkins got wrong I can say that he doesn't know much and I would hazard a guess that I know more. As for the LDS faith I think I know enough to analyze and defend it. I have lived within it my whole life. I have brushed shoulders with many of it's leaders and been privy to the minds of some of them. I have studied it's doctrines and histories for about an hour a day pretty much every day for the last 14 years. I adhere to my religious duties and have communed with my God. I think I'm qualified to speak about the LDS faith. There are some Christian faiths that I know something about their inner life(mostly the ones my friends adhere to) and more that I believe I have a basic understanding of but it mostly comes from books. Living among them for a time would probably shoot half of what I suppose out of the water.

I didn't retreat from anything. I stated from the beginning that you can take a stand and argue whether there is or is not a God without a theological background. What you should not do is then investigate the effects of religion on society (especially if you're calling them all impediments to progress) unless you know exactly what those people actually believe and what they are taught.

What is dogmatic Christianity? I've met dogmatic Christians (and Muslims and Athiests) of all stripes and they're dogmatic about different things.

[_guy sajer]

I disagree that Dawkins manifests a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christians believe. (I am curious what most Christians believe; do you mean Mormon, J-Dub, Evangelical, Coptic, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, 7th Day Adventist, Christian Scientist, or what?)

He does take jabs here and there at belief in general, but, as I read him, most of his critiques are aimed at more fundamentalist/dogmatic beliefs, and it does not take an anthropologist to get a reasonably good understanding of the tenents of dogmatic Christianity. Any number of us can get a good sense of this by reading and observing the multide of data sources out there. It does not take an anthropologist to do this.

By the way, you're not a religious anthropologist are you? If not, then how can you understand or claim to know what "most" Christians believe? So let me get this right, one must be a trained anthropologist to critique religion, but one need not be a trained anthropologist to defend it? How can you defend what, given your lack of academic credientials, your could not possibly understand?

That said, however, I am glad to see that you've retreated from an argument that one must be a trained theologican and read all the great works of theology to have standing to critique religious belief.

I'm not a religious anthropologist and I know that so I would never presume to write such a book without extensive research. With the number of things Dawkins got wrong I can say that he doesn't know much and I would hazard a guess that I know more. As for the LDS faith I think I know enough to analyze and defend it. I have lived within it my whole life. I have brushed shoulders with many of it's leaders and been privy to the minds of some of them. I have studied it's doctrines and histories for about an hour a day pretty much every day for the last 14 years. I adhere to my religious duties and have communed with my God. I think I'm qualified to speak about the LDS faith. There are some Christian faiths that I know something about their inner life(mostly the ones my friends adhere to) and more that I believe I have a basic understanding of but it mostly comes from books. Living among them for a time would probably shoot half of what I suppose out of the water.

I didn't retreat from anything. I stated from the beginning that you can take a stand and argue whether there is or is not a God without a theological background. What you should not do is then investigate the effects of religion on society (especially if you're calling them all impediments to progress) unless you know exactly what those people actually believe and what they are taught.

What is dogmatic Christianity? I've met dogmatic Christians (and Muslims and Athiests) of all stripes and they're dogmatic about different things.

I disagree that Dawkins got it fundamentally wrong. Whether you understand Mormons is irrelevant, as it was not a main, or even minor, topic of Dawkins' book. I have more time in LDS Inc. than you do, and I understand it as well; suffice it to say, however, that we have learned different things and internalized the experience differently.

You claim to know what "most Christians" believe, or something to that effect. I was merely asking what your frame of reference is for "most Christians."

I would hazard a guess that you probably don't know more about Christian beliefs in general than Dawkins, but then this is simply a guess, but your many posts to this board demonstrate a very narrow way of thinking that makes me skeptical that your insight is a significant as you suggest it to be.

[_Calculus Crusader]

I have more time in LDS Inc. than you do...

And you were subjected to BYU for several years.

[_The Nehor]

I disagree that Dawkins got it fundamentally wrong. Whether you understand Mormons is irrelevant, as it was not a main, or even minor, topic of Dawkins' book. I have more time in LDS Inc. than you do, and I understand it as well; suffice it to say, however, that we have learned different things and internalized the experience differently.

You claim to know what "most Christians" believe, or something to that effect. I was merely asking what your frame of reference is for "most Christians."

I would hazard a guess that you probably don't know more about Christian beliefs in general than Dawkins, but then this is simply a guess, but your many posts to this board demonstrate a very narrow way of thinking that makes me skeptical that your insight is a significant as you suggest it to be.

I think your guess would be wrong. My frame of reference: I've read Augustine and several other Church Fathers. I've read much of what the Reformers have written. Many of my friends are Christians and I've had in-depth late into the night discussions with most of them regarding their doctrinal beliefs. I have a good handle on most of the paradigms of what Christ means, how it has altered over time, and what it means to people day. Dawkins just declares it absurd and then tells us how these people are constipating society's gradual rise to utopia.

I didn't claim what I know about Mormons is relevant except in the context of this board. That you call it LDS Inc. makes me wonder what you were doing in the Church though.

[_guy sajer]

I disagree that Dawkins got it fundamentally wrong. Whether you understand Mormons is irrelevant, as it was not a main, or even minor, topic of Dawkins' book. I have more time in LDS Inc. than you do, and I understand it as well; suffice it to say, however, that we have learned different things and internalized the experience differently.

You claim to know what "most Christians" believe, or something to that effect. I was merely asking what your frame of reference is for "most Christians."

I would hazard a guess that you probably don't know more about Christian beliefs in general than Dawkins, but then this is simply a guess, but your many posts to this board demonstrate a very narrow way of thinking that makes me skeptical that your insight is a significant as you suggest it to be.

I think your guess would be wrong. My frame of reference: I've read Augustine and several other Church Fathers. I've read much of what the Reformers have written. Many of my friends are Christians and I've had in-depth late into the night discussions with most of them regarding their doctrinal beliefs. I have a good handle on most of the paradigms of what Christ means, how it has altered over time, and what it means to people day. Dawkins just declares it absurd and then tells us how these people are constipating society's gradual rise to utopia.

I didn't claim what I know about Mormons is relevant except in the context of this board. That you call it LDS Inc. makes me wonder what you were doing in the Church though.

And how do you know what Dawkins has read, who he's talked with, etc? Your assuming you've studied more than him, but you don't know that. I have no problem with making assumptions like this; only at least be honest that's what you're doing.

I dare say that your posts don't reflect such an eclectic knowledge base or frame of refrence. You come across often as if you're reading directly from the Mormon Talking Points handbook.

What was I doing in the Church? Two answers: (1) I was born into it, and (2) decades of indoctrination. It just took me a while to break free of my programming.

[_The Nehor]

And how do you know what Dawkins has read, who he's talked with, etc? Your assuming you've studied more than him, but you don't know that. I have no problem with making assumptions like this; only at least be honest that's what you're doing.

I dare say that your posts don't reflect such an eclectic knowledge base or frame of refrence. You come across often as if you're reading directly from the Mormon Talking Points handbook.

What was I doing in the Church? Two answers: (1) I was born into it, and (2) decades of indoctrination. It just took me a while to break free of my programming.

I don't know what Dawkins has read. He did seem ignorant in his book of the arguments as to who and what God is and how people worship him.

We have a talking points handbook? I didn't get my copy. I assure you I'm making it up as I go along if that makes you feel better. It is weird to have what I say be called typical Mormon response. I usually tend to be relegated to a fringe of Mormonism as an eccentric. I'm not sure whether to be offended or complimented. I'll be safe and be both. :)

[_Tarski]

And how do you know what Dawkins has read, who he's talked with, etc? Your assuming you've studied more than him, but you don't know that. I have no problem with making assumptions like this; only at least be honest that's what you're doing.

I dare say that your posts don't reflect such an eclectic knowledge base or frame of refrence. You come across often as if you're reading directly from the Mormon Talking Points handbook.

What was I doing in the Church? Two answers: (1) I was born into it, and (2) decades of indoctrination. It just took me a while to break free of my programming.

I don't know what Dawkins has read. He did seem ignorant in his book of the arguments as to who and what God is and how people worship him.
)

Give one example of an argument about who and what God is that is both mainstream and of which you think Dawkins is unaware.

One thing is for sure; very few people are holding up the Mormon idea of a bearded white male God as something which Dawkins shouldn't have overlooked. They would say that this Mormon idea of a God is even less sophisticated and more unlikely than the God which they think Dawkins denies.