tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post74485100483125063..comments2024-03-17T11:05:22.464+00:00Comments on The Life And Opinions of Andrew Rilstone: Everything You Never Wanted To Know About Dawkins But Have Been Forced To Find OutUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-31533021456777397192007-09-27T13:46:00.000+01:002007-09-27T13:46:00.000+01:00Reply much too long. New thread started.Reply much too long. New thread started.Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16934052271846235431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1654406055950906822007-09-25T20:26:00.000+01:002007-09-25T20:26:00.000+01:00Yes, you can (and may) ask that, and the answer is...Yes, you can (and may) ask that, and the answer is yes. I thought some of your comments were right on the mark, and others less so.<BR/><BR/>You make a good case that he's sometimes slapdash, that he exaggerates for rhetorical effect, and that he's always inclined to interpret everything in the way most unfavourable to the religious. Those are real faults. They're also almost universal in polemical works, which is one reason why I generally prefer to read other things. (It wouldn't be difficult to find examples in your generally excellent critique where you have been slapdash, exaggerated for rhetorical effect, or interpreted Dawkins in the most unfavourable way. Film at 11.)<BR/><BR/>I don't think anything in your critique gives much support to the argument "Richard Dawkins doesn't have an accurate idea of what real Christians believe; therefore what he says in his book about God is beside the point." (Which I take it is what you're saying here; correct me if I'm wrong.) Your main complaint along those lines, if I understood correctly, is that Dawkins takes "God" to mean "a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us", and that four books of apologetics found on your shelves don't use the Argument from Design and lots of Christians agree that the way in which God made the universe involved a certain amount of Letting It Do Its Own Thing and in fact no one but no one apart from a few loonies believes in "a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us".<BR/><BR/>At which point I'm afraid I call foul. Lots and lots of Christians, including sophisticated Anglican ones, believe that God (the same one they actually believe in) did just that. They would say that God created the-universe-and-everything-in-it-including-us in a cleverly indirect way; they would be reluctant to claim that God intended the universe to be exactly the way it is now, and mumble about free will and the elegance of a naturally ordered universe; but, none the less, they believe in a God who created the universe, who knew just what sort of universe he was creating when he did, of whom one can say things like "For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my<BR/>mother's womb" without being laughably wrong, and all the rest of it.<BR/><BR/>So far as I can tell, nothing in Dawkins's argument (such as it is, and I agree that it has plenty of holes) depends on interpreting "a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us" in a way that makes the majority of Christians not believe it.Gareth McCaughanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05377158305586280009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-8006732463759658142007-09-25T18:21:00.000+01:002007-09-25T18:21:00.000+01:00GarethCan I ask non-rhetorically whether you've re...Gareth<BR/><BR/>Can I ask non-rhetorically whether you've read the earlier sections of my critique of the "God Delusion"? I talk about the weaknesses of Dawkins critic of Christian beliefs at some length there, and it's probably not worth repeating myself.<BR/><BR/>I agree that the analogy between Dawkins and my imaginary anti-book campaigner is inexact. If I had wanted it to be exact, I would have written: "I know that librarians in this borough have been sexually molesting children but, horrible as that no doubt is, it arguably causes less damage than bringing the child up to read books in the first place." (God Delusion, p 317)<BR/><BR/>Will respond to your other points properly later.Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16934052271846235431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-4988407140496247152007-09-25T18:19:00.000+01:002007-09-25T18:19:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16934052271846235431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-24522493581753985762007-09-25T15:26:00.000+01:002007-09-25T15:26:00.000+01:00I think it's accepted on all sides that Dawkins kn...I think it's accepted on all sides that Dawkins knows very little theology in the what-theologians-study sense; I'm not sure it's so widely accepted, or so clearly true, that he doesn't know what real religious people (more specifically: real Christians) think. As you rightly observe, there's a difference.<BR/><BR/>I haven't read Cornwell's book, but the particular point at issue is one you asy is also "the substance of Terry Eagleton's critique". Well, Eagleton's review complains, up front and very explicitly, about Dawkins's lack of expertise in what-theologians-study: Eriugena, Duns Scotus, and all that. And his account of the sort of thinking that Dawkins doesn't engage with seems to me (1) to consist mostly of fog and (2) not particularly akin to what most actual Christians think about God.<BR/><BR/>I don't think the ideas Dawkins criticizes are so desperately distant from those of actual theists as to make his book irrelevant to them. <BR/><BR/>You gave a couple of examples -- Dawkins, apparently, is confused about the Trinity (unlike Christians, of course, whose ideas on that point are perfectly clear and lucid) and absurdly takes Jesus's description of gentiles as "dogs" as indicating some sort of racial bias on his part. Well, fair enough; but are those confusions particularly relevant to the question of whether there is, in fact, any being much like the ones believed in by Christians, Jews and Muslims, or to the question of whether in practice religions like Christianity do more good or harm?<BR/><BR/>It seems pretty clear to me that the answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second is less clear, and I think "Dawkins doesn't understand real religious people, other than crazed extremists, well enough; so we shouldn't take much notice of what he says about the benefits and harms of religion" is a reasonable argument. (I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's worth taking seriously.)<BR/><BR/>But I'd be more impressed with the latter argument if the people making it didn't consistently treat Dawkins just as uncharitably as he treats religious people. "Librarians are no better than child molesters", forsooth!Gareth McCaughanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05377158305586280009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-32078721480751610622007-09-25T12:05:00.000+01:002007-09-25T12:05:00.000+01:00I think that is a debating point. The substantive ...I think that is a debating point. The substantive accusation is "Dawkins knows very little theology". This has been accepted by all sides: the question under discussion is therefore "Yes, but does this matter." <BR/><BR/>If Dawkins had said "Yes, of course I have read Bultman: I just didn't but him on the reading list because I didn't think he was relevant" then we'd be having a different argument, wouldn't we?Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16934052271846235431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-23325201368104149192007-09-25T11:59:00.000+01:002007-09-25T11:59:00.000+01:00I think what atheists need to imagine is how they ...I think what atheists need to imagine is how they would feel if Christians were primarily going to C.S Lewis or Josh McDowell <I>to find out about science</I>Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16934052271846235431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-4958321049128826842007-09-25T11:08:00.000+01:002007-09-25T11:08:00.000+01:00Incidentally, "Mere Christianity" has no bibliogra...Incidentally, "Mere Christianity" has no bibliography at all. But why anyone would think it makes sense to measure an author's knowledge by his bibliography, I've no idea.Gareth McCaughanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05377158305586280009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-16091981543322534542007-09-25T10:59:00.000+01:002007-09-25T10:59:00.000+01:00Dawkins is very much more reasonable than bin Lade...Dawkins is very much more reasonable than bin Laden or Falwell. He's also not such an outlier among atheists as bin Laden is among theists. (Falwell? Dunno; there's quite a lot of roughly his sort of theology in the US.)<BR/><BR/>The analogy with Josh McDowell is much more apt. C S Lewis ("Mere Christianity") would be more so. (I think I think Dawkins is better than McDowell and worse than Lewis.)Gareth McCaughanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05377158305586280009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-53051947847135997692007-09-24T22:49:00.000+01:002007-09-24T22:49:00.000+01:00Hey, Doug --Relex. We do that Richard Dawkins is ...Hey, Doug --<BR/><BR/>Relex. We <I>do</I> that Richard Dawkins is not representative of mainstream atheism. I won't tar you with the Dawkins brush if you'll not tar me with Fallwell's :-)<BR/><BR/>The problem is not that Dawkins is the most representative, but that he's the loudest. It's a shame for the cause of atheism that its best-known face is so, well, you can fill in that blank as well as I can :-)Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-28869606462475644942007-09-24T21:22:00.000+01:002007-09-24T21:22:00.000+01:00You know how we moderate atheists are entirely pre...You know how we moderate atheists are entirely prepared to acknowledge that the likes of Messrs Falwell and Bin Laden are far outliers and do not remotely represent the considered opinion of the general majority of believers?<BR/><BR/>Well, having recently had to read The God Delusion, I'd really appreciate some reciprocity. Imagine how you'd feel if Evidence That Demands A Verdict were the only decent-selling book of Christian apologetics.Doug Clowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13655458952220004027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-69855727152072505262007-09-24T17:50:00.000+01:002007-09-24T17:50:00.000+01:00If someone – a Muslim perhaps -- said "You claim t...If someone – a Muslim perhaps -- said "You claim that Jesus was the Son of God, don't you? But that logically implies that there must have been a Mrs. God -- unless you are saying that Jesus was a bastard. Har-har, caught you out, Christians are silly"<BR/><BR/><BR/>We got that from Muslim when he saw us reading Bible on tube...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881871713340292442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-71308056826578143902007-09-24T16:32:00.000+01:002007-09-24T16:32:00.000+01:00Yes. I should have typed "Differed from some other...Yes. <BR/><BR/>I should have typed "Differed from some other named denomination; Catholic, for example, if the speaker was a protestant." Note that I had narrowed my focus from "Christian" to "Anglican" by my references to "parishes" and "vicars" in the previous paragraph.<BR/><BR/>Glad we got that sorted out.Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05786623930392936889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-44449245228715818832007-09-24T15:38:00.000+01:002007-09-24T15:38:00.000+01:00A small point, but I think that most Christians wo...A small point, but I think that most Christians would be a bit surprised if you asked them how they differed from Catholics, what with most Christians being Catholics an' all.Cupbearerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17850502753467856800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-4583090214245788282007-09-24T04:41:00.000+01:002007-09-24T04:41:00.000+01:00Just a quick note about your word choice. I consi...Just a quick note about your word choice. I consider myself an atheist. I suspect you would call me an agnostic because I am not a proselytizing atheist. I am quite happy to let other people believe in God and have been ever since I argued theology with my mother and she confessed to me that she believed in God mostly because it comforted her. Like Dawkins, I prefer the truth over comfort, but unlike Dawkins I am perfectly willing to let other people make the opposite choice.<BR/><BR/>Atheism simply means "a lack of theistic belief." Infants are implicit atheists (probably). Agnosticism is "an absence of knowledge" and, very likely, any claim of knowledge. The problem with calling anybody who does not assert that God is <I>impossible</I> (and I do not so assert) agnostics is that it makes atheism a rather meaningless word. There wouldn't be an awful lot of them (and Dawkins isn't one of them) and all of them would be wrong. I can no more <I>prove</I> that a god or gods does not exist (especially if the definition is sufficiently nebulous) than I can prove that leprechauns do not exist. Only certain logically impossible definitions of God can be proven to be false. If we define atheism the way the Greek roots would imply, then theism and atheism are both mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. You must be one or the other. There is no room for agnosticism.<BR/><BR/>The other problem is that agnostic is a perfectly good word in its own right. And it's quite possible to be both an agnostic and a theist. If we use agnosticism as the belief that the existence of God is unknown or inherently unknowable, there have been a great many agnostic theists over the centuries. Pascal, in his famous wager, was attempting to create agnostic theists. "You can't know whether God exists, but you should believe in him anyway." The word agnostic has also been used to describe theists who do not doubt the existence of God, but consider his nature and character to be unknowable, though I think that usage is rather confusing.<BR/><BR/>The belief that there cannot exist a god or gods is usually referred to as "strong atheism." People who refer to themselves as agnostics are almost invariably "weak atheists" (aside from those theists who know enough to call themselves agnostic theists). So I do consider you an afaeryist, a weak-form afaeryist if you like.<BR/><BR/>The other advantage of these definitions is that they make logical sense. If we weren't talking about such an emotionally charged subject as religion, the subject would never come up. Nobody thinks we need a third category to describe people who don't believe in faeries, but concede that the existence of faeries isn't logically impossible. The reason it did come up, by the way, was so theists could claim that atheism is a rival belief system with positive claims and thus evade the burden of proof. "We may not be able to prove our point, but they certainly can't prove theirs, so you might as well stick with us." Atheism isn't a rival belief system any more than afaeryism is.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.com