Should books on religious topics give due to atheist arguments against religion?

Then why do non-atheists think Richard Dawkins owes Christian or Jewish theology their "due," whatever that might be?

(See for example this infuriating piece of fluff that was in the Times yesterday by Peter Steinfels, who clearly hasn't read a word of the book he so cutely decided to attack. Example: "Naturally, critics so fussy as to imagine that serious thought about religion exists, making esoteric references to Aquinas and Wittgenstein, inevitably gripe about Mr. Harris’s and Mr. Dawkins’s equation of religion with fundamentalism and of all faith with unquestioning faith." )

In Mr. Orr’s view, “No decent person can fail to be repulsed by the sins committed in the name of religion,” but atheism has to be held to the same standard: “Dawkins has a difficult time facing up to the dual fact that (1) the 20th century was an experiment in secularism; and (2) the result was secular evil, an evil that, if anything, was more spectacularly virulent than that which came before.”


Here the age old mistake is made in equating secular with atheistic, and trying to blame the evils of a particular age/event on secularism/atheism.

If books on religious topics are responding to atheist arguments against religion or arguing against any atheist claim, they better talk about these arguments or claim.

Depends on what the goal of the book is. If I were to write a book about the superiority of my religious beliefs, I'd probably feel the need to discuss arguments against it from all comers, be they theist or atheist. However, if I merely wanted to write a book about a particular doctrine, only seeking to convince people who already shared some of the same beliefs, I would start from those shared beliefs.

Similarly, if I were to write a book on political philosophy, I would only feel the need to summarize Rawls if I was trying to talk to everyone, rather than just liberals who've already adopted a Rawlsian perspective.

It's all about your target audience. So, if Dawkins was writing for atheists, no, there would be no need to acknowledge or discuss theist philosophy. However, if he wants to convince anyone, he needs to start with axioms that his audience shares. Thus, if he is writing for the wider public (predominantly theist), he needs to start from more fundamental principles.

"It seems that these critics hold several odd ideas, the first being that anyone attacking theology should actually know some."

But in fact you can say all there is to know about god in one sentence:

There is no such thing as god.

Creating a set of ideas about a non-existent god doesn't make those ideas relevant.

So I guess we can challenge theists to discuss the theology of Zeus. :)

"...should actually know some"

The United States is the most religious nation in the developed world, if religiosity is measured by belief in all things supernatural -- from God and the Virgin Birth to the humbler workings of angels and demons. Americans are also the most religiously ignorant people in the Western world. Fewer than half of us can identify Genesis as the first book of the Bible, and only one third know that Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount.

...

Approximately 75 percent of adults, according to polls cited by Prothero, mistakenly believe the Bible teaches that "God helps those who help themselves." More than 10 percent think that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc. Only half can name even one of the four Gospels, and -- a finding that will surprise many -- evangelical Christians are only slightly more knowledgeable than their non-evangelical counterparts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030102073.html

Mote, log, eye, and all that...

I remember when Stephen Colbert was interviewing this Congressman who wanted the Ten Commandments up in the House of Representatives. So, Colbert asks the guy if he can name the 10 commandments and he can't even name them.

I am an agnostic, and I can name them, admittedly not in "order."

I have heard that in Europe they know the bible from an academic standpoint. Americans who claim to be more religious and closer to God really don't know the bible that well.

I do think if you are going to "attack" theology you should know it so you can better hone your debate. When some one asks why you don't believe in God or why you don't believe the bible is relevant, you should be able to point out what you see as inconsistencies.

But I don't like this position of "attacking" it anyway. There are many good people of faith and I have no desire to "convert" them to agnosticism or atheism. If they want to believe in God and worship - FINE. Just please don't expect me to do the same.

Joan of Arc?

Holy crap...

is just an extension of our general dumbness. I have a poignantly depressing memory of seeing one of Jay Leno's idiot-in-the-street bits from the late nineties. He put a poster of Al Gore's image on an easel and asked passers-by to identify him. Holy macaroni, the answers he got! I couldn't stop thinking about that later, when I saw how easily "Al who?" was sold to the public as credit-hogging earth-tones Lying Ozone Man.

the jaywalking thing I mean... it's too depressing a possibility... I insist on believing that those people just want to get on teevee, so they're trying to appear as stupid as possible. I'm sure that's not always the case, though, so... ugh. I so wish Idiocracy wasn't so damned close to reality. *sigh*

who seemed to discover that Sunnis and Shiites were meaningfully different only after he blew up their country. Imagine if you would've believed that could happen 10 years ago. The way we're going, Idiocracy might look mildly quaint compared to where we are in a decade.

Yes, I would argue about the validity of the election, but... the fact that it was even close is bad enough. :(

:eyes:

So, how many gods do you reject without knowing all of their theology? One? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? How many?

If you're going to constantly accuse people of engaging in the only logical fallacy you seem to have heard about, you should probably learn what it means.

For instance, Steinfels says



But the basic belief of all Christians is indeed that God was “a complex physical inhabitant of the natural world.” If you don't believe that, you're not a Christian. You're a deist, theist, Jew or Muslim. Jesus was, indeed, a chap, to all Christians.

So when the critics say "Dawkins doesn't address the theology", they ought to be pointing out that neither do the services that go on in thousands of Christian churches around the world every week. It seems it's acceptable for 'Christian theologians' to talk to Christians as if they believe Jesus was the son of God; but Harris et al. are expected to ignore that, and address some theoretical argument about 'God' being a non-personal, timeless entity that we shouldn't actually expect to find any evidence for anyway. :shrug:

:applause:

it makes sense to actually understand what you're talking about.

Likewise, if you're going to disparage atheism (something I haven't seen much of here, but others seem to think is quite common here?) you ought to have a pretty good understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of that.

Belief really can't be summed up by picking the most obnoxious, fundamentalist Christian viewpoint and using it to describe all belief. Nor can it really be properly summed up as a statement of someone else's atheism: "it's stupid because there is no God". That never moves the conversation anywhere useful.

Likewise, I've found the discussions of atheism that are more in-depth and not about religion-bashing quite interesting. I'd never heard the phrases "strong atheist" or "weak atheist" before. It was good to learn more. But if I simply reduced atheists to "God-less unbelievers" that wouldn't do much to further conversation, would it?

My reading of Dawkins' excerpts doesn't inspire me to read more. What I've read seems lacking in depth or seriousness. However, I really can't discuss him well, simply because *I haven't read him extensively*.

You really do have to understand your subject matter. If you're writing a compare/contrast sort of piece, then yes, atheism would have to be included.

He wrote an excellent, fascinating introduction to the concept of the common ancestry of all life, "The Ancestor's Tale," which he presents as a walk backward through time with pauses at each of the presumed branches where relatives split off to form new species or classes or kingdoms. It's the best biology book I've ever read. If you're interested in that subject, please don't let however you feel about his very public atheism dissuade you from reading his other works. He's an excellent explcator of complicated technical material.

The God Delusion is his first and so-far only book on the subject of his atheism, though he has never been shy about it and has written many essays and columns on the subject. I'm enjoying it tremendously because I enjoy the style of his writing and find a lot to agree with and learn from. But I am not yet at a point where I can say it's a book for everyone, because clearly he's offended a whole lot of theists who haven't read it.

I AM offended by the idea that fundmentalist, hateful Christianity is somehow THE Christianity, and that I'm therefore sort of insufficient any way you look at it. I think that's plain silly.

I have no problem in the world with people not agreeing with me. Perhaps more of that liberal Christian insufficiency?

I think my list of things I ought to read is getting out of control, though!

Yes, the bits I did read from Dawkins on the subject of religion came across quite badly to this theist. He seemed to set up the most obnoxious, hateful, fundamentalist version of Christianity as the template, then both knocked that down (easily done) and knocked more liberal religious belief because it didn't meet his standard for Christianity! Didn't leave me wanting more, I have to say.

that I think might cause some noses to get out of joint:

He attended a conference sponsored by the Templeton Foundation at Cambridge sometime last year as the token atheist and he asked one of the Christian panelists (an academic whose field I don't remember, but I think it was history--not science <I could be wrong,though>) if he believed in this or that miraculous fact in the Nicene creed. The historian rolled his eyes and said, "That's so ninetheenth century."

Dawkins took this put-down to mean, (I paraphrase) "It may have been valid and even courageous to question the specific points of a Christian's beliefs in the nineteenth century when Darwinism had freed unbelievers from the shame and stigma of unbelief; but in this century, when belief and unbelief are more on par, it is bad form for disbelievers to challenge the faith of anyone."

To Dawkins, this attitude reflects an evasion of responsibility for belief in the unbelievable, and this is especially galling to him when the subject is faith and reason, which he had ostensibly been invited to discuss and debate.

So the historian's remark to him was meant to say that *questioning* belief -- or parts of it -- was so 19th century? I didn't read it that way the first couple of times I read your post.

If that's so, then I'd also reject his premise, as it were. It's perfectly legitimate to question. In fact, that's what often gets liberal Christians in trouble with our co-religionists. We question a lot. Sometimes, everything. We're often accused of disbelief by conservative Christians. (A perfect example is the situation in the Anglican Communion right now over the place that GLBT ought to have in our churches. My church's decision to be inclusive has been roundly attacked by others as being against scripture, against basic belief. I'd say if that basic belief leads you toward hateful action, then there's obviously something wrong with your interpretation of basic belief!)

So that makes me more confused about what seems to be his opinion of more progressive Christians -- that they're neither true Christians (defined, it seems, by conservative, fundamentalist Christians) nor enlightened enough to be atheists.

mainstream Christians themselves broke away from Biblical literalism in the nineteenth century. (Fundamentalism was a reaction to that trend.)

So I suspect that the presumably Anglican scholar's reaction was a shorthand way of saying, "We've been reading the Bible allegorically since the 19th century. Why are you acting as if we're all fundamentalists?"

and to dismiss something said by everyone at every Communion in the Church of England (and, I suspect, other Anglican churches, the Roman Catholic church, and possibly others) as "19th century" seems a little disingenuous. Why should someone saying "I believe ..." be taken allegorically?

IS taken allegorically by a good number of Christians. And one of the things about the Anglican tradition in particular is the breadth of thought on all matters of things theological.

That people would stand up in church and say that they believe something that they don't really believe. Next you may tell me that they don't act the way that they say they should act. (mild sarcasm)

There has always been a gap between what religious people think and what they say, as well as a gap between what they say and what they do. These incongruities make easy targets for critics. And they make it doubly hard for religious people to defend their beliefs, words, and actions when they don't square up.

It has to do with interpretation and meaning.

For instance: "For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:"

More conservative Christians read this as suiting their belief in substitutionary atonement. Others of us see this more broadly -- not that God required any sacrifice, or that salvation comes ONLY through claiming a belief in Christ, but that God's demonstration of love for humankind - shown through taking on human form and suffering human suffering, and defeating death is a gift to ALL people, Christian or not, believer or not.

You'd get quite an argument on that from more conservative Christians; you'd have an intersting discussion on it from others.

I take it that questions such as those were the ones at issue.

Like Dawkins, you seem to think that strict, literal reading of the creed is the standard. I don't think so, at all.

If you don't believe it literally, why don't you say what you literally believe instead of saying something that you don't literally believe?

This isn't as simple as saying that the sun will rise tomorrow, when the sun doesn't literally rise. This is a statement of belief that is supposed to have a large impact on your life. Why can't you get it right? Or at least a little closer to right?

You managed to explain it pretty well in your previous post. So why not ditch the antiquated creed and go with your more accurate statement of belief?

creed -- even if it doesn't conform to others' understanding.

I do change the God the father part, as God does not have a gender.

since you don't use the creed to tell your belief to others without an explanation and reciting the creed is not exactly telling god what you believe. So I guess I' OK with it if you are.

what does this really mean, that "God demonstrated his love by taking on human form" (etc.)? Does this mean that God put himself inside the already existing body of a man whom Mary bore of Joseph and whom they named Jesus? Or is Jesus the man identical to Jesus the God--in other words, did God choose Mary's body as the portal through which to enter the physical world so he could be God in the world in the form of a man? Or are these too literal readings for you? Are we talking about something more symbolic or allegorical? Is the god in Jesus like the god that could be in anyone--in which case, why would the instantiation of God in Jesus be any more celebrated or special than the instatiation of God in anyone?

See, from an atheist's standpoint, there is something about all Christianity that views Jesus as a special case that makes it all incomprehensible, no matter who holds the belief. The idea of God inhabitating a human body, let alone being identical to it, is literally unbelievable. Even before we get to the questions of what the point of such an exercise would be, I'm defeated by what seems to me to be the nonsensical notion that the infinite/omniscient/omnipotent would single out one human form to send this message through. Why not just communicate distinctly in everyone's head? Why not evolve a divine message receiver in human physiology so everyone gets the message? Why reserve the message for people who believe in some form of Christianity?

I think it's about God choosing to assume a fully human form. That probably means the whole thing -- from infancy on, completely feeling what it is to be human, and frail, and fearful.

I totally understand that the idea of God as human, and from there the whole Christian idea of a trinity is hard to fathom, and indeed, can sound pretty weird. I understand why Jews and Muslims might look at Christians a bit skeptically because of it. Believe me, having attempted to explain it to my kids, I get that it's a tough one. It pretty much comes down to God being infinite and omnipotent, can be both fully human and fully divine. Of course, that's purely a matter of faith, not something that could be "proven".

Is it real or allegorical? Was Jesus real, a real human, historical figure? I tend to believe yes, although I understand there's little historical record in existence to confirm that. But honestly, the teachings we have, attributed to Jesus, are enough in themselves for me. The "facts" are less important than the message. Personally I'm also perfectly willing to believe that other teachers in other times and places have also been inspired to leave us the same lesson. I do NOT believe that the message is reserved for Christians or those who profess in a certain way. This might put me out of the mainstream in some respects. Doesn't particularly bother me!

As to God in us, vs. God as human... good question. I do believe we are all children of God. But the message *I* think we're to take from the resurrection could really only be given by God -- sort of look you silly people, I'll show you. I don't think that mental communications would have the same power as living through the human fear and pain of death -- sort of the difference between real life and a movie, you know?

Don't know if this answers anything satisfactorily. Honestly, one constant for me is change. I can't guarantee you that next year I'd give the same answers, exactly!

Not really one of us humans, when you get right down to it. That really is what I think separates Christians, since the Nicean council at least, from the rest of us. Some non Christians may believe there really was a Jesus (I don't), but very few, if any of us, believe that if he existed he was uniquely God made flesh or that he provides the unique path to eternal life. From a rational atheistic viewpoint, those beliefs are very hard to swallow. They seem as likely to me, at least, as the story of the Minotaur. I have to say that I don't really understand how anyone can believe in a God who picks such a poor means of communicating to the world a message that he supposedly regards as urgent for his creation's salvation. It doesn't seem like that God is very omniscient, or he'd already know what it meant to be flesh, or omnipotent, or he'd make it perfectly clear what he thought we needed to know.

I hope you're not offended. I'm just trying to be honest about my reaction to the ideas inherent in the religion.

explaining your own -- which is just fine.

I certainly understand how it's hard to swallow, and you do know that I'm not asking you to swallow anything, right?

For me, it's a pretty great way of communicating - walking in another's shoes, as it were. But that's probably why it's meaningful to me, and isn't to you!

I think the message that was urgent to salvation wasn't about God being man though... I think it was a message that had existed before, and continues to be brought to us: love one another.

We're obviously having a hard time with that one as a species, though. Just my 2 cents, of course.

It still seems to me that using Jesus's life to communicate "love one another" is an odd choice if the object was to communicate clearly. It's odd to think of a worship-worthy god even *making* a choice--any choice at all. If it is omniscient, it knows the effect Jesus's life will have on the world, which is to segregate it into Christians and non-Christians. If it is omnipotent, why not communicate directly through some internal, biological apparatus?

It seems to me that the logical conclusion to draw is that if there is a god it is so remote from our daily lives that it may as well not exist; the net effect on our lives is no different, in other words, from what it would be if there were no god. Human religions seem more about inventing a cosmic place for us in a universe that is basically indifferent to whether we live or die. It's comforting to believe "God so loved the world," but love, as far as we can possibly understand it, is a human emotion. How could we possibly know why this god character would do anything, unless this god character were basically a human of some kind? How could we be so naive to think language is precise or powerful enough to say anything meaningful about a god's nature, let alone motives, unless "god" is not the big deal religions make it out to be?

It's questions like these that led me to atheism. I'm just not impressed by any god most religious people believe in. (Except maybe Spinoza's god.)

God's image -- thus where we get the conclusion that God is capable of understanding human emotion. As to omniscience, yes, but that's got to be weighed against free will -- so while the segregating effect you describe is certainly a possibility, our choices make it possible that other effects can happen as well. If the choice were removed, and the *proper* end result just put in place, humans would be nothing more than robots at God's beck and call.

I'm not sure the segregation is necessarily related to the development of Christianity. I think that's probably something inherent in our humanity. We really seem to be drawn to creating "us" and "them" so that we can feel sure we're the "us". I'm sure that tendency pre-dates Christianity.

To me, it's a little like raising children to think for themselves -- part of it is letting them learn from mistakes, even when you *know* they're making mistakes. And part of it is the risk that, thinking for themselves, they think differently than you do.

Learning by doing is more effective by far than learning by hearing. Perhaps the idea is that we have to learn to put into actual practice the lessons. Just knowing they're right isn't enough -- the trick is in the doing.

but I still don't understand the concept of a worship-worthy god who cares all that much about human beings, given the vastness of the universe, in all its dimensions, that it would have dominion over.

Why would this god--assuming it knows how humans will handle its visit to this earth in Jesus's body in Judea during the reign of the Caesars; how they will write about it and argue over it and fragment over it if they even believe it <which most won't>; how so many of those who do believe in it will eventually become the enemies of *reason* in Jesus's name even after discovery of the real size and age of the universe and of the real origin of species, including the human one--why would this god bother with us, knowing how hopeless we are to deal with this divine information intelligently? Unless maybe not enough time has gone by for the tide to turn and Christians (or all humans) to begin to be worthy themselves of the message? But then this god would know that so many generations after his appearance on earth would be expended before the message got through: are all those generations worth less to this god than the ultimate ones ostensibly lucky enough to be born in the age of understanding? And what about the nonverbal residents of this earth? What was this god's visit supposed to mean for them?

Just more problems I see with the whole god as man thing...

And eternal hopefulness?

I'm a believer in universal salvation, so I don't really struggle with questions of what about those who been born in the right time. I think eventually, all those who wish it will be reunited with God.

I don't know. For me, I suppose understanding the divine will always at some point or another hit up against mystery -- I'm attempting to understand something just so far beyond my ability to understand.

I think humanity has always struggled to understand God (in whatever way any particular people understood the divine), but I think human attempts to make God that understandable will always fail -- it's boxing God in, and that doesn't work.

I think, bottom line, Burtworm, is that belief is a *choice*. More easily made for some of us, for sure. I can't really *justify* my beliefs intellectually. When it comes down to it, I have to base it all on a sense, a feeling, a sureness that there is something more, something beyond. And of course, that's not something that can be easily brought to show and tell, you know?

and the earlier post was about Dawkins asking about 'miraculous facts'. So it's things like "he was born of a virgin" and "he rose again" that I'm saying you can't say "I believe ..." about, without it being a claim that they are true. I can't see that you can 'interpret' those claims of events as allegories, and claim you 'believe them'.

Is Christianity really Christianity without a belief in the miracles? I think there was a very early form of Christianity that resembled a Pythagorean mystery cult in which the "life" of Jesus was understood mythically rather than literally. But I don't think most modern Christians would accept such a reading as Christianity, given how hard-fought-over and hard-won the literal reading was, and how central it is to every Christian church I know of.

history of Christianity (I'm guessing that's who you are referring to?) Although, with discoveries such as the gospel of Thomas, there are now gnostic Christians about. It was an early dichotomy between a rather elitest take on Christianity (only for those with the ability to understand the mysteries) and a populist one. But the gnostics have some really interesting ideas, from the few I've met.

I don't think that it's necessary to discard the possibility of miracles in order to hold a more liberal view of Christianity. I think miracles do and have happened, and are quite possible. Of course, again, that's an issue of faith -- there's no "proving" such things: one either believes them or doesn't. Sometimes it comes down to one choosing to believe them. And that's ok, too. But it's possible to understand their *meaning* beyond the actual physical acts that are said to have happened. That's where I might find myself diverging from conservative, literalist Christians. For many of them, the Bible says it happened, so it did -- just as they read, exactly. I don't require such exactitude for the miracle to be possible, and meaningful.

I want to be very clear, though: I can't, and definitely don't, claim to speak for anyone but myself here. The views I put forward are my own. I know others share them, but I imagine my own take is likely my own. The cool thing for me is that my church welcomes such individual interpretation. We worship together, but we don't have to walk in lock-step theologically to do so.

If they know they're going to lie, it seems a perverse thing to do. This seems to back up the contention that the 'true' Christians are the 'extreme' type - if they believe what they say, that seems more 'true' than those who pay lip service to something they don't believe in.

It's a difference in interpretation and understanding. There's a great deal more breadth to Christian belief and theology than what appears on the surface.

It is absolutely NOT necessary to take something at face value in order to believe it. There are layers and layers of possible interpretation and meaning available to explore.

'Believe' can now mean "don't think it's true, but ..."?

OK, maybe discussion in R/T is useless, if 'believe' means opposite things to different people. So we all believe in Santa Claus, do we? I guess we believe in a 6 day creation too? At the same time, of course, we believe in the Hindu creation myths. And the ancient Greek ones. And ... :banghead:

And I'm not going to be able to help you understand so long as you cling to true/not true. There's plenty of room for different interpretations. Mine is true for me, but may not be for others. Theirs is true for them, but may not be for me.

Much of the world is not understood in stark binary terms. This is one of those things.

It seems that Dawkins took it differently?

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the entire exchange?

effective than you might be otherwise.

Many atheists in this forum have complained (rightly) that theists stereotype them as having no morals. That stereotyping is obviously a sign of ignorance. In fact, very few atheists are nihilists; the vast majority have moral principles, which they formulate from sources other than religion.

If a theist writes a book attacking atheists for having no morals (I'm sure such books exist, especially in the catalogues of religious publishers), then atheists cry foul--and rightfully so. The writer is obviously ignorant and should have done his homework before sitting down at the computer. My guess is that atheists would find such a writer both offensive and non-credible.

The writers who are criticizing Dawkins for his lack of knowledge of theology are taking the same stance in reverse. If you're going to condemn something, you'd better understand exactly what it is you're condemning instead of relying on preconceptions and stereotyping.

I wrote my doctoral dissertation on a topic in the history of the Japanese language. It was one in which previous scholars had offered a variety of theories, most of which shared a few questionable assumptions.

I had my own ideas, but in line with standard academic procedure, I had to do a literature review before I could expound my own ideas. That is, I had to know and understand what others had written about my topic.

Only then could I criticize them. I couldn't criticize Professor X just because I'd seen him on a TV talk show in Japan and he seemed like a pompous idiot. I couldn't criticize Professor Y just because another American student had had bad experiences with him. I couldn't criticize Professor Z, who had written about my topic in the 1950s, just because he was obviously senile in the 1970s.

I had to go to their writings, understand what their underlying assumptions were, see if their methodology was sound, and then figure out if their theories matched the data. (Despite his current senility, Professor Z had actually made a lot of sense in the 1950s.)

After I'd taken apart other people's work, then I was able to expound my own theory (which was not the one I had started out with, by the way).

In order to expound my theory intelligently, I had to acquire an extensive background not only in modern and classical Japanese, but also in pre-modern Japanese literature, Japanese political and social history, Buddhism, and folklore.

That's the kind of thing you have to do if you're going to be persuasive.

There is no doubt that the Japanese language is real. There is no doubt that its predecessors are real. There is no doubt that the language evolved.

The Japanese language is not and just an idea with questionable credibility.

The point is making an intelligent critique of a topic by understanding how the people on the other side actually see it, as opposed to how you think they see it or what your personal opinion of them is.

The first approach is the scholarly one, the respectful one, and the one more likely to win people over. The second is feel-good polemic for people who already agree with you.

You don't have to agree with the other side. Just make sure that what you say about them is true, not just hearsay or true of only a small percentage of the other side.

I've seen how atheists get upset when religious people describe their worldview inaccurately. Why shouldn't atheists hold themselves to the same standard of describing religious worldviews accurately?

It is merely laziness, willful ignorance or purposefully manipulative rhetoric to use other definitions that are broader in scope.

For the most part theology revels in being obtuse and fuzzy, fast and loose with words, concepts and terminology. Precision exposes the flaws. One does not need to bother pulling apart all the proofs if the axioms are unsound - showing that the axioms are unsound is adequate.

You seem to be saying that I can't adequately reject leprechauns without an in-depth study of how the Irish understand leprechauns.

Isn't that like saying you have to understand creationism before you can believe evolution. The facts supporting evolution are clear and indisputable. Nothing creationism says can change that.

Dawkins contends (as I understand the excerpts that I have read) that the facts supporting atheism (or agnosticism) are clear and indisputable. Nothing theology says can change those facts. So why study theology?

where they're coming from, not just make snide remarks about them.

And actually, yes, if you were trying to persuade an old-fashioned rural Irish person that leprechauns don't exist, you'd be most effective if you knew how Irish people understand them. If you just went around laughing at the concept of leprechauns making cereal with marshmallow bits in it, you'd just irritate them, because they don't believe that leprechauns make cereal.

As I said, if you want to affirm your own position for like-minded people, then take Dawkins' approach. If you actually want to persuade religious people, then you have to know how they understand their own faith.

What is Dawkin's intention? Since I've never read the book in question, I will refrain from speculation.

So I think we agree on this answer to the OP. If Dawkins was trying to persuade, he needs to address theology with some understanding. If he is trying to affirm and reinforce the beliefs of those who ALREADY believe him, theology is just a burden that he need not bear.

That pretty much sums up why I never bothered to read Dawkins. I don't need to have my atheism reinforced or affirmed, and I can't be persuaded to be more of an atheist. Dawkins and Harris have no appeal to me.

I don't see it. I don't see Dawkins doing it.

Is it too hard to address the arguments as they come rather than blather on for hours about the minutiae of whether or not one set of wording is going to cause offence or not? I read a lot about how offended people are by Dawkins et al and precious little explanation of what it is precisely they find so offensive.

They're offended he hasn't gone in depth into some heavy theological thinking? Well guess what? Most theists haven't either! What on Earth is the point of Dawkins attacking some obscure theological intricacies of Catholic (or whomever) dogma if most Catholics aren't thinking more sophisticatedly on god than, "that man in the sky?"

read of him (and as I've said elsewhere, that's just excerpts). He sets up strict, literalist, fundamentalist Christianity as the norm -- no more than norm, as the *definition* of true Christianity. Then he knocks down that strawman (easy enough) and attacks liberal Christianity because it doesn't meet the standard he'd set (fundamentalist). In his world, believers are either ill-educated bigots without the curiousity to explore what they believe, or they're namby-pamby barely-believers without the conviction to actually have any real faith.

I think that's just plain silly, honestly. And it doesn't demonstrate to me that he's serious at all in his look at faith. As Lydia has said, he's using faith to preach to his own choir. It's offensive and dismissive. Which is fine for his intended audience, I suppose. But he's not likely to be taken very seriously with those arguments among people of faith.

I'm in the middle of it, as I say, and I don't find him arguing that ill-educated bigotry is the standard for Christianity--although he does point out that it's more and more the prevailing form in the US, which is pretty hard to argue against. He doesn't paint all non-bigot Christians as "namby-pamby barely believers." But he wants to know why obviously intelligent and sophisticated and nonbigoted people can value belief in such irrational and obviously impossible ideas as the range of Christian miracles represents. What does it mean to value belief in such things as virgin births, raising the dead, ascending to heaven, etc?

haven't lead me to want to read more, to be honest. They're all I have to go on, so I shouldn't be commenting, except that I was asked about it.

No he doesn't. I keep hearing this from people, and I wonder if I've read the same thing as they have. Its absolutely not true.

On edit: And even if he has, which he hasn't, it probably IS the norm. While I don't have any hard numbers (and its 3 AM so I'm not looking for any), based on my travels in the Americas (north and south), fundie-ness (or non-sophisticated, god is a being, the bible is correct) is the norm.

has been very different.

Catholics tend not to be biblical literalists. Orthodox either. Mainline Protestants don't usually (some do) tend that way.

Fundamentalist religion, including Biblical inerrancy, is more of a recent development -- last couple of hundred years.

My history is R. Catholic and Episcopalian, with Jewish family by marriage. So the tendency to read the Bible literally is quite foreign to me.

The only difference is how much literalism is imbued into your version.

Believing that Jesus rose from the dead - which probably 99.99% of Christians believe - is itself a literalist belief with no evidence to support it whatsoever.

The definition of Christian includes believing this.

do it in either their own manuscript or in an anthology of disparate views.

What's the big deal? Let the consumer make the determination of what they want to read and the philosophy they are willing to accept.

Guess any thinking does matter!

Be bless!