Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[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.