Stump the Christian?

[Crossless2.0]

Here is a link to Dawkins' entire speech that the Wiki quote poorly referenced:
https://ladydifadden.wordpress.com/2012/...ally-2012/

For those interested I think you'll find Dawkins' comments a bit different than previously characterized, particularly this bit:


Here is the 'mocking' comment with a bit more context:


So when somebody makes a claim that transubstantiation is real, but offers no support for the claim, why shouldn't it be mocked? It's patently ridiculous. The defense given is that I should ignore it for the sake of entertaining the entire worldview, which despite being burdened with absurdities, somehow becomes reasonable from a broad perspective. What Dawkins understands, that is being tiptoed around here, is that people that have no problem believing they're eating a piece of Jesus every weekend cannot be expected to be persuaded through rational debate. You have said as much yourself in that some may reevaluate specific points, but should never be expected to give up the ghost.

The context doesn't change my point much. The final sentence you pasted still calls for "ridiculed with contempt" "if necessary. What does that mean? Is there a line where things like transubstantiation crosses but belief in God or heaven does not so no ridicule required or is everything to be ridiculed because it starts with the absurd notion that God exists? 

BTW, I don't believe the Catholic church's teaching on that either (which was internally developed and not from the Bible). It is obviously symbolic. 

You're constantly arguing the god of the gaps argument without even knowing it. It's as old as humanity and therefore fails to impress. In the olden days, folks looked up to the sky and saw the sun. They didn't know what it was and so the called it a god. They saw the moon and didn't know what it was and called it a god. They saw lightning and didn't know what it was, so it had to be an enraged god.

Today we know a whole lot more. The fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean there's a god required. It only means, we don't know - yet.

I'm familiar with the "god-of-the-gaps" objection, and since you guys have "done it all before", I'm sure you're equally familiar with the "science-of-the-gaps" fallacy.

Interestingly, though, just a few posts earlier, JennyA. opined that there are questions which science will never answer.

But that doesn't seem to stop some from assuming that or behaving as if it will eventually.

They've simply placed their faith in a different god.

Oh, bullshit.  Opining that science may (or perhaps never will) answer every question is not the same as embracing a god.  Far from it: it's called agnosticism.  And good luck finding anyone who will seriously argue that science can resolve all questions.  Once you're done stroking that straw man, you might want to find out what people really think about the question.