Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[Kyuuketsuki]

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

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.

It really is pointless talking to you about this isn't it Frodo?

1. You make a claim then fail to back it up when requested
   
2. You repeat the claim even when it has been solidly debunked.
   
3. You take a reiteration of a view I have always held as a retraction!
   
4. You are therefore disingenuous!

Kyu

[fr0d0]

You're just being deliberately provocative now Kyu. Consider this thread(between you and I) ignored from now on.

1. I made no claim, you did - that I said that atheists were not allowed to comment on theology
2. What claim exactly? I asked you to produce evidence of it, you failed
3. What??
4. I believe you have no idea what disingenuous means, along with a few other concepts you bastardise on this forum.

[Purple Rabbit]

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.

Well maybe you can try to make this a lesson in semantics and english grammar but I think you are capable of grasping the point I made. It was not my version of your argument that knowledge of astrophysics itself, is a prerequisite for grasping the real subtleties of theology, but rather that you conteded that the wit, the intellect of an astrophysicist was needed for it. The wit/intellect is not the knowledge on a subject itself but an intelectual ability of a person.

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).

You are evading the rather straightforward question I asked you: what the minimum set of theological arguments is that must be evaluated to give an informed enough opinion on the veracity of theology. The enormous multitude of the world that beliefs in the christian god based on, from what you suggest a rather shallow form of information supplied in church, deserves a straight answer, don't you think? I do not deny that delving deeper into a topic leads to more knowledge about the topic itself, but I do deny that delving deeper into it leads to more knowledge of the reality we live in. You don't seem to make the difference. You and I know that it is not necessary to have expert knowledge about numerology or astrology to assess the claims. Theology makes a claim to have deep level knowledge of our reality but so far it hasn't produced any falsifiable statements about it. This seems a rather strange position to claim any deep level knowledge about the world from. This kind of claim is exactly the Emporer's-New-Clothes-kind of claim that can be found in numerology, astrology, i tching, reading bones, laying cards and much much more of the like. Tested to reality these claims have no substance. The relevant question is not if more study of theology leads to more knowledge of theology, but if more study of theology leads to any relevant knowledge of our reality at all. Further, I deny that you have shown that Dawkins hasn't delved enough in theology to reach the level where the alleged real substance of it is. For instance if prayer is not answered according to theology, one of the tenets Dawkins attacks with results from empirical investigation that meets scientific standards, please enlighten the masses and reveal what deeper level knowledge we're so excruciatingly and completely are missing on this. Or be fair about it and declare here that contrary to widespread belief among christians deep level knowledge of theology reveals that prayer does not promiss relief for human suffering on a personal basis at all.

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."

You've made me curious. Just share one such uniquely religious thought here and, if it is as good as you suggest, it will be regarded by me as an important argument speaking for the validity of theology. By the way I hold an academic degree in astrophysics and physics if that is of any assurance to you.

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.)

This will not do on a forum where you are asked to give arguments that substantiate your opinion. I can equally advice you to read the numerous resources that on behalf of christianity make the same claims that Dawkins scrutinizes. Present your arguments here or be silent about 'm.

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

Really?

Yeah, or would you like to bring your frustration as valid argumentation into this debate?

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).

Still, if you are unwilling to argument contrary my statement that a consistent and coherent God concept cannot be found in the mess that is called theology, it stands unrefuted. You may call that ignorance, a contentless argument as such, but you and I know what numerologists say about people who think numerology holds no single version of the truth.

[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.

A blatant diversion of the fact that your argument (that Dawkins' [description of the] biblical God ... "is not in any sense representative of what Christianity actually affirms.") had no substance at all. The phrase "what christianity actually affirms" can hold anything that is affirmed by christianity. It is not a specific argument. The most obvious however what christianity affirms is that it is right on the question of the god concept. So this statement of yours reads like this: 'Dawkins denies the validity of the god concept, but that cannot be right, because christianity affirms the god concept.' And this, my friend, is plain for everyone here to see a case of begging the question. If you intended some specific theologian tenets in the generic placeholder, as I have asked you to do many times now, then be more specific next time to avoid unintended indication of logical fallacies on your part. And btw, which specific tenets that christianity holds are you referring to? For in your answer again it is lacking. The argument therefore still has no substance.

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.

It seems very hard for you to understand, but Dawkins is attacking the properties that according to widespread religious viewpoint defines (among others) the christian god. By showing that these properties are horrendously inconsistent with reality and contradictory to empirical findings he shows the god concept that contains these properties is invalid and that further belief in that specific god concept is delusional. He does not show and he does not claim to show that whatever god you could define does not exist. The latter is plain to see and easy to read in the section where he comments on his place on the Dawkins scale.

I will comment on the rest of your posting in the near future.

[Ryft]

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

The methodology of such studies contains exactly such "elements of bias" being referred to. Religion Studies are not unbiased; rather, "it is likely to have elements of bias in it" which obviously favours the methodology being employed. It has to. And so the results are as biased as the epistemic structure that produces them. "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 ... free of any bias whatever." The only way to have an unbiased view is to have no view at all.

Well maybe you can try to make this a lesson in semantics and English grammar, but I think you are capable of grasping the point I made. It was not my version of your argument that knowledge of astrophysics itself is a prerequisite for grasping the real subtleties of theology, but rather that you contended that the wit, the intellect of an astrophysicist was needed for it. The wit/intellect is not the knowledge on a subject itself but an intellectual ability of a person.

At no time have I said—or even so much as implied—that the wit or intellect of an astrophysicist was needed in order to grasp the real subtleties of theology. Here was your opportunity to quote me directly, which I implicitly encouraged by pointing at the value, "Notice the citing of a direct quote?" Given your notably questionable failure to do so, I am now going to do precisely that, putting your convoluted misunderstanding and misrepresentation to bed once and for all.

1. You said (Msg. #50) that it seems "an advanced course in theology is needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of the Christian God," in other words, "to find the really, really, real Christian God."

2. I replied (Msg. #64) that this "is not any kind of criticism because such is the case for pretty much any subject." And now please pay close attention to the very next sentence, for it is where my 'astrophysicist' remark entered the conversation: "An advanced course in astrophysics is needed to deeply comprehend the structure and nature of the cosmos. Who do you think would have a more accurate understanding about the cosmos: (a) a high school dropout, or (b) an astrophysicist with an advanced degree? Now, we cannot all take advanced courses in this or that field, but that is why we rely on those who have" (emphasis added).

Where in my statement does it say, or even imply, that the wit or intellect of an astrophysicist is needed in order to grasp the real subtleties of theology? Absolutely nowhere, sir. It was (as I have said several times now) an apples to apples comparison: the astrophysics remark was related to the structure and nature of the cosmos. I did not relate it to theology or anything related thereto. So if I neither said nor even implied this thing you claim about me, then how did it enter into the conversation?

It was by you. Not me. You have flipped some comment of your own around and foolishly tried to insist it was a comment I made.

3. You said (Msg. #73) that in order "to appreciate the real God you need to have an IQ that matches someone doing advanced astrophysics. The God concept is unattainable for the uneducated and the intellectually restricted."

This is not a lesson in semantics, sir, or English grammar. Sorry. This is a lesson in proper attribution, this is a lesson in owning your own argument instead of foisting it onto someone else as if it is theirs, this is a lesson in citing your opponent by a direct quotation from him (which, had you bothered to attempt, might have led to you discovering I never made any such statements, or worse, that it was actually you who had made it).

4. I responded to this by trying to reassert once again an apples to apples comparison (Msg. #75), arguing that an advanced course in X is needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of X (with nothing said about wit or intellect); "Advanced courses in biochemistry are needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of life's building blocks. In precisely the same way, advanced courses in theology are needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of God. This was supposed to be practically self-evident: to delve deeper into a thing requires advanced learning about that thing" (emphasis added).

You are evading the rather straightforward question I asked you: what [is] the minimum set of theological arguments that must be evaluated to give an informed enough opinion on the veracity of theology?

When it comes to criticisms of Dawkins work, which is what I have been presenting, the veracity of theology is not the issue. It might be an issue for you, of course, but that is not relevant and I do not engage irrelevancies. There is something to be said about an argument that stays on point. I have argued—as have others, including his peers—that Dawkins commits the Straw Man fallacy in so far as he attacks a position that is different from or weaker than what Christianity actually affirms. Questions about the veracity of what "Christianity actually affirms" are separate from questions about the validity of critiques thereof; this fallacy is committed when one concocts the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition and refuting that.

When it comes to critically evaluating the God that "Christianity actually affirms," I argued that one has to either possess qualifications appropriate to the field in question (i.e., orthodox theology) or interact responsibly and fairly with those who do, that is, reputable sources recognized in the Christian community as propounding orthodox theology. We know, and Dawkins himself admits, that he does not have the former, and a review of the book's bibliography attests that he did not bother with the latter. When Dawkins purports that he is addressing what "Christianity actually affirms," we have to take his word for it—based on nothing that allows us to take his word for it.

You and I know that it is not necessary to have expert knowledge about numerology or astrology to assess the claims.

I grant you that "expert" knowledge is not necessary. But then again, no one here has claimed otherwise. However, you do have to either (i) possess qualifications appropriate to the field or (ii) interact responsibly and fairly with those who do. Why? In order to avert the risk of wasting everyone's time (including your own) on quixotic Straw Man battles that valiantly defeat beliefs that they don't even recognize in the first place; i.e., that your assessment engages their actual position accurately and in its best formation.

Theology makes a claim to have deep level knowledge of our reality but so far it hasn't produced any falsifiable statements about it.

In other words, "Some Christian epistemology is very different from the one I subscribe to." Indeed. Not to put too fine a point on it, but... so what? It is "a rather strange position" from which to claim "deep level knowledge about the world" only if given your view of epistemology (seemingly grounded in scientism)—which, of course, is not given when epistemology itself is at issue, lest you beg the question.

This kind of claim is exactly the Emporer's New Clothes kind of claim that can be found in numerology, astrology, I Ching, reading bones, laying cards and much, much more of the like.

Oh yes? So which Christian epistemologies have you studied specifically?

For instance, if prayer is not answered according to theology, one of the tenets Dawkins attacks with results from empirical investigation that meets scientific standards ...

So a given prayer experiment meets scientific standards. All right, and how did Dawkins determine whether or not it met Christian standards? Or do you think that God answers just any sort of prayer? If so, what source informed that idea? If not, why do you give any credence to the results of the experiment?

You've made me curious. Just share one such uniquely religious thought here and, if it is as good as you suggest, it will be regarded by me as an important argument speaking for the validity of theology.

Moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and expressed prescriptively by his commands.

(P.S. Validity is determined by logic, not uniqueness.)

This will not do on a forum where you are asked to give arguments that substantiate your opinion. ... Present your arguments here or be silent about them.

I was asked. And I presented them. And I defended certain of those arguments against critical questions about them from several people. And I am still continuing to do so on certain criticisms of yours. To suggest otherwise, which your demand seems to do, is contradicted by a very great deal of evidence. If someone wants more in-depth information (as you seemed to) and I know where it can be had, I am going to provide that person with pertinent recommendations. No one said you had to read the book, but don't pretend I haven't given and subsequently defended arguments that substantiate my opinion.

[Re: "emotional outbursts"] Yeah. Or would you like to bring your frustration as valid argumentation into this debate?

This logical fallacy is known as Loaded Question (e.g., "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"), such that the question presupposes that I had an "emotional outburst" and that I'm experiencing "frustration," which is both unwarranted and false. For one thing, you have not said anything that I could take personally even if I wanted to. For another thing (Msg. #1): "Most people do not respond very well to insulting tones and belittling remarks. But me, I don't respond at all. ... This goes back to my strong commitment to critical thinking. I have read a lot of material on logic and critical thinking; none of them show much regard for name-calling and such. You can use such techniques, of course; that's entirely your choice. And this is mine."

This statement of yours reads like this: "Dawkins denies the validity of the God concept. But that cannot be right, because Christianity affirms the God concept."

That would indeed be question-begging. It also grants that the God concept Dawkins attacks is not a Straw Man, which flies in the face of what I've argued. Ergo, my statement cannot read like that. My statement reads like this: "Dawkins denies the validity of God concept Y. This is the Straw Man fallacy, because Christianity affirms God concept X."

Which specific tenets that Christianity holds are you referring to?

As I have said more than once, "orthodox theology," that is, Christian orthodoxy on the matter of God (as opposed to heterodoxy, heresy, or schism). From the different sects of Catholicism to the different sects of Protestantism, they all agree across the board on the nature and attributes of God. From creeds to catechisms to confessions to theology proper in systematics, when it comes to the nature and attributes of God, all the sources say the same thing.

It seems very hard for you to understand, but Dawkins is attacking the properties that according to widespread religious viewpoint defines (among others) the Christian God.

No, it was very easy for me to understand—and identify its fallacious nature. No widespread Christian viewpoint defines God as racist, no widespread Christian viewpoint defines God as morally contemptible, no widespread Christian viewpoint defines God as complex, etc. Dawkins' descriptions are derived from his ethical evaluations of biblical statements, such that it is only so much biographical information about Dawkins, describing his take on the Judeo-Christian God. You may agree with his take, but that is only so much biographical information about you. The salient point is that Christian orthodoxy does not agree with his take, finding the God it affirms nowhere in Dawkins' treatment; "he attacks a position that is different from or weaker than what Christianity actually affirms ... concocts the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition and refuting that."