Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[fr0d0]

That doesn't alter the fact.

[Kyuuketsuki]

That doesn't alter the fact.

You are a disingenuous [expletive deleted] because I SPECIFICALLY said I would start a new thread on the subject and DID!!!!

Done!

Kyu

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

But, and I think this is important to note, Frodo CANNOT comment on secular humanism because he knows sod all about it (not being one).

@Kyu.

Umm, I agree completely that our little Hobbit can't really comment on secular humanism because knows sod all about it. [or much of anything else really] But then,when has that ever stopped him?

However,I'm not entirely convinced that not being one has a lot to do with it.That doesn't stop say me forming a distinct distrust of and distaste for American Libertarians.Nor indeed from loathing extreme fundies such as Fred Phelps, having formed the rational conclusion he's a hateful lunatic..

Mate I'm not being deliberately difficult,I apologise if I've misunderstood.

[Ryft]

You replied that you need to have the wit of an advanced astrophysicist to understand the God concept in full.

No, I did not. This is your convoluted take on what I said—and restated, and clarified. I have persistently compared apples to apples. "An advanced course in X is needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of X," is what I said. (Notice the citing of a direct quote?) The wit of some advanced astrophysicist is rather irrelevant to theological subjects, in as much as the wit of some advanced mathematician is irrelevant to geopolitical subjects. Apples to apples. Your take continues to badly misunderstand and misrepresent what I have argued for.

Furthermore, it had nothing to do with either Dawkins or his criticism of religion. It was strictly in response to your statement about how "it seems that an advanced course in theology is needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of the Christian God" (Msg. #73), which is not any kind of a criticism, I said, "because such is the case for pretty much any subject"—biology, history, mathematics, literature, etc. As I said more recently, "to delve deeper into a thing requires advanced learning about that thing." In other words, it is self-evident that an advanced course in X (e.g., theology) is needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of X (e.g., the Christian God).

That was my response to your statement. When it comes to my criticism of Richard Dawkins, what I said is that (i) if Dawkins wishes to critically evaluate theological issues, (ii) while possessing self-admitted ignorance about theological issues, (iii) then in order to avoid quixotically battling Straw Man caricatures, (iv) he should interact responsibly and fairly with reputable sources recognized in the Christian community as propounding orthodox theology. This is the most fatal flaw of his entire book, as identified by philosophers, theologians, and even fellow scientists like H. Allen Orr who said, "Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I'm forced after reading his new book to conclude he's actually more an amateur. ... The most disappointing feature of The God Delusion is Dawkins's failure to engage religious thought in any serious way."

It would also make clear what vital parts Dawkins is missing or misinterpreting and help us understand where Dawkins got it completely wrong.

There are numerous resources available on this point. I would recommend the succinct yet thorough Why There Almost Certainly Is a God (2009; 160 pages) as a decent place to start, a critical response by Keith Ward wherein he lays that out precisely. (The title of the book strictly plays on the title of Dawkins' fourth chapter.)

To rely on the argument of authority ... in matters of extreme importance, such as in religious claims, is really a very bad advice for truth finding and shows the weakness of your position.

Now if only I had committed this fallacy. It is astounding the cavalier way that people allege fallacies without properly understanding what they are. There is a difference between, on the one hand, basing the truth value of a position upon the authoritative qualifications of a source, and on the other hand, basing the accuracy of a position upon the authoritative qualifications of a source. The former is this fallacy, while the latter—which is what I have been defending—is not fallacious at all. It is quite interesting to note that the Wikipedia article on Appeal to Authority states, "A person who is recognized as an expert authority often has greater experience and knowledge of their field than the average person, so their opinion is more likely than average to be correct" (link), for this is quite similar to what I had said: "Now, we cannot all take advanced courses in this or that field, but that is why we rely on those who have" (Msg. #64). When it comes Dawkins, he had neither qualifications appropriate to the field nor did he bother to interact responsibly with those who do—which is why reading Richard Dawkins on religion is like reading Ray Comfort on evolution.

Scientific claims, however, are open to direct investigation and empirical falsification, and that is where your analogy between Dawkins and Comfort becomes laughable.

That analogy was not based upon the nature of scientific claims. Nor was it based upon the nature of theological claims. It was based upon the fact that neither men have the qualifications appropriate to the field they are criticizing, nor do either of them bother to interact responsibly with those who do. In as much as Richard Dawkins criticizes theology without qualifications appropriate to the field of theology, so too does Ray Comfort criticize biological evolution without qualifications appropriate to the field of biological evolution.

This should stop immediately if our aim as parents is to give children a fair chance on an unbiased assessment of such important questions ...

There is no such thing as an "unbiased assessment." There are assessments that are free of bias toward this view or that view, but by the very nature of the case there is no such thing as assessments that are unbiased (i.e., free of any bias whatever). You happen to prefer one particular bias over another. Hopefully you don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back.

I have stated that [Christianity] tells us nothing about the reality that is observable to us.

It would be the case that "understanding reality" is a necessary prerequisite to assessing "the veracity of a God concept" if given your world view. It is not, however, given. Perhaps you could try to not question-beg on the issue; e.g., using the presupposed truth of your view as the criteria for evaluating the truth of a competing view.

Science does not claim final truth. Christianity does claim final truth. I'd be happy to hear you denounce that.

Yes, I imagine that you would. But I cannot fathom why it should be denounced. They are two categorically different fields of inquiry. Science deals in a posteriori knowledge that is subject to the reliability of what is known a priori, i.e., those preconditions necessary to engage in science in the first place (cf. Hume's problem of induction). It is those a priori issues, the preconditions which undergird knowledge, reason and science, that Christian philosophy deals in. Their conclusions are as different as the categories they do business in; Christianity defers to science on questions about natural phenomena because the a priori conclusions of the former enable the a posteriori conclusions of the latter.

When high intellect and education is needed to really grasp the full God concept, it is to be expected that higher education leads to better appreciation of the consistency, coherence and moral supremacy of the God concept and thus to higher rates of belief.

There does seem to be a correlation between higher education on subject X and higher rates of belief on subject X. It also seems to be the case that teaching about subject X is not the same as teaching about subject Y. Ergo, as I said, it is not suprising at all that "if someone is taught extensively about A, B, and C, but not a thing about D, they would exit their education affirming A, B, and C while demonstrating remarkable ignorance about D" (emphasis added). Apples to apples, sir.

And no, that is not the Special Pleading fallacy (another horribly misfired allegation), which is committed when "someone argues that a case is an exception to a rule based upon an irrelevant characteristic that does not define an exception." My statement neither pleaded for an exception to a rule nor implied some double standard. It simply follows that understanding or knowledge of X presupposes some level of education of X (i.e., if one is taught little or nothing about biology, he will demonstrate ignorance about biology). It also follows that teaching someone about X is not the same as teaching someone about Y (i.e., if one is taught about biology, she has not thereby been taught about history).

The really embarassing part is that you claim complexity of a concept that has no verifiable relation to reality. This is a classic case of the Emperor's New Clothes.

Err... no, I did not. I said "that delving deeper into X requires advanced learning about X." Here, try on these outfits: delving deeper into mathematics requires advanced learning about mathematics; delving deeper into history requires advanced learning about history; delving deeper into theology requires advanced learning about theology. These are not some kind of new clothes; it is a logical principle that holds across the board.

It also means that turning to the wise as you proposed is a rather selective process; we are not to turn to the wise in general but only to the wise that professionally claim knowledge of it. Looks like asking the butcher if we should eat meat. What if we asked Buddhist monks to read the Bible?

Yes, it is such a specious principle, this notion of looking to the wise astronomers to learn about astronomy or the wise historians to learn about history; i.e., turning to those qualified in subject X to learn more about subject X is just absolutely ridiculous. (For those who cannot tell, that is sarcasm.) And no, this is not asking the butcher whether or not we should eat meat; it is asking the butcher to explain how meat is properly butchered—as opposed to asking, say, the tax accountant.

I suggest you do away with emotional outbursts and think again.

Really? That's what you are going with?

After reading and debating several theologians, Dawkins concluded that the theological corpus has very little to offer that make sense ...

Right, as I said, "Dawkins not only admits ignorance about theology in his writing about theological issues, he is proud of said ignorance."

To say it in your words: my claim that theology does not constitute a single version of the truth stands unrefuted!

And yet, interestingly, such was not a claim that my response addressed. Your question to me implied that you are not aware of any "consistent and coherent God concept [that] can be found in this mess," and I said that I felt "no pressing need to disrupt that." You can revel in your ignorance if you like. There are countless volumes of scholarly material on this issue (the coherence of theism); it seems you have not read them, to the extent that you're completely unaware of orthodoxy. It is easy to hold a claim as unrefuted when you have chosen to ignore criticisms thereof from reputable sources, that is, sources with qualifications appropriate to the field in question (Christian philosophy; e.g., John Frame).

[Re: Dawkins' fallacies] It didn't impress here. You just stated that Dawkins' [description of the] biblical God ... "is not in any sense representative of what Christianity actually affirms." Well, that's an impressive argument! Christianity does not agree with Dawkins on the God concept and therefore Dawkins is wrong. This is a clear logical fallacy of begging the question.

Err... no, it does not beg the question. Another horrifically misfired allegation. To beg the question is to assume the truth of some conclusion within an argument for said conclusion, which is not even close to anything I did here. The truth value of some proposition is a different matter from what the content of the proposition actually asserts. When Dawkins attacks a position that is different from or weaker than what Christianity actually affirms, he engages in the Straw Man fallacy (link). Such fallacious tactics fail to impress.

[Dawkins] is not claiming proof for the non-existence of God ...

So Dawkins isn't claiming that belief in the existence of God is delusional? I think you are mistaken. As Dawkins himself concurs within the book, a delusion is a "persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence" (emphasis added). What would prove belief in the existence of God as a false belief? The presence of strong contradictory evidence that invalidates belief in the existence of God. The problem that Dawkins faces is two-fold, in so far as (for example) belief in 'the existence of God' is different from belief in 'the moral authority of God', such that a question-begging critique of the latter will have no bearing on the former. (Dawkins begs the question because he presupposes the truth of his view on morality within a critical evaluation of a competing view of morality.) You should review those three terms: delusion, false, and contradictory.

[Ryft]

[In response to fr0d0] In fact, when theology is done from the perspective of a believer, it is likely to have elements of bias in it; the perspective of the believer therefore is less likely to give unbiased results.

Less likely than what alternative? When theology is done from the perspective of a non-believer, it is likely to have elements of bias in it; ergo, the perspective of the non-believer is equally unlikely to give unbiased results. As I had said: "There is no such thing as an 'unbiased assessment'."

[Kyuuketsuki]

Mate I'm not being deliberately difficult,I apologise if I've misunderstood.

I think you have. I don't mean that at all (I believe anyone can comment on anything up to a point), I am only making the point because he has claimed we are unable to comment validly on aspects of theism ... he has subsequently retracted that but I am not holding my breath that he'll stick to it.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Mate I'm not being deliberately difficult,I apologise if I've misunderstood.

I think you have. I don't mean that at all (I believe anyone can comment on anything up to a point), I am only making the point because he has claimed we are unable to comment validly on aspects of theism ... he has subsequently retracted that but I am not holding my breath that he'll stick to it.

Kyu

You must be listening to the fairies in your head Kyu. If you refuse to prove that I said that then you must retract. That you interpreted something in your own mind is entirely your beef.

[Kyuuketsuki]

You must be listening to the fairies in your head Kyu. If you refuse to prove that I said that then you must retract. That you interpreted something in your own mind is entirely your beef.

Listen dimwit ... I didn't concede, I started another [expletive deleted] thread:

Kyu:
In fact, I'll tell you what ...let's drop this here and we'll start a new discussion.

[This was done]

Frodo:
So you retract then.

Kyu:
I said I'd start a new discussion you disingenuous [expletive deleted]!

Frodo:
That doesn't alter the fact.

Kyu:
You are a disingenuous [expletive deleted] because I SPECIFICALLY said I would start a new thread on the subject and DID!!!! Done!

Kyu (respnding to Padraic):
I think you have. I don't mean that at all (I believe anyone can comment on anything up to a point), I am only making the point because he has claimed we are unable to comment validly on aspects of theism ... he has subsequently retracted that but I am not holding my breath that he'll stick to it.

Kyu

Frodo:
You must be listening to the fairies in your head Kyu. If you refuse to prove that I said that then you must retract. That you interpreted something in your own mind is entirely your beef.

Or are you talking about something I'm, not?

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

[In response to fr0d0] In fact, when theology is done from the perspective of a believer, it is likely to have elements of bias in it; the perspective of the believer therefore is less likely to give unbiased results.

Less likely than what alternative? When theology is done from the perspective of a non-believer, it is likely to have elements of bias in it; ergo, the perspective of the non-believer is equally unlikely to give unbiased results. As I had said: "There is no such thing as an 'unbiased assessment'."

Less likely than a comparative methodological study such as religion studies (at least that's what it is called in my country) that does not assume a priori validity of religious dogma.

[fr0d0]

You must be listening to the fairies in your head Kyu. If you refuse to prove that I said that then you must retract. That you interpreted something in your own mind is entirely your beef.

Or are you talking about something I'm, not?

Kyu
[/quote]

It really is pointless talking to you about this isn't it Kyu?
1. You make an accusation and then fail to back it up when requested
2. You repeat the accusation
3. You take a reiteration of the view I have always held as a retraction!
4. You have therefore been dishonourable.