Dawkins and Theology

[Leela]

In another thread, someone brought Dawkins as a favorite punching bag around here. Today’s accusation was that he doesn’t know anything about theology.

In rebuttal to such accusations elsewhere, Dawkins asked, " If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?"

It is clear that Dawkins finds little value in theology.

Are there any important theologians that Dawkins or I should be aware of? What specific important contributions to the field of theology have specific theologians made?

Best,
Leela

 

[OchsFam]

I am not sure what the purpose of this thread is, but if you are looking for some of the best theological thinkers, you can look at Augustine and Thomas Aquinas for some of the most profound theological revelations in Christian history. You can look back at Theophilus who first used the term Trinity to discuss the three persons of God. Theological contributions are evident throughout history from a myriad of sources and theologians.

In regards to Dawkins, he does not put merit any anything you can not measure, so he would see philosophy in general as an ineffective “science” because it is not truly measurable. Theology affects philosophy profoundly as well as psychology not to mention that some of the most profound historical moments were based on theological grounds. So to say that theology has made no difference is simply ignorant of history and ignorant of what it means to “affect” something.

When a man is willing to create a weapon of mass destruction because his theology puts humans as expendable, theology has played a part in the development of the weapon. Also, how many of these scientists were also theologians? There was a time when most scientists were also religious thinkers and religion played a major role in their scientific endeavors. Theology is not mutually exclusive. To believe it is represents a theology of its own just as believe in Darwinian evolution and the big bang theory. While they may be proven scientifically at some point, they are currently so far from being proven that belief in them represents a religion of itself.

God Bless.

 

[Leela]

I am not sure what the purpose of this thread is, but if you are looking for some of the best theological thinkers, you can look at Augustine and Thomas Aquinas for some of the most profound theological revelations in Christian history. You can look back at Theophilus who first used the term Trinity to discuss the three persons of God. Theological contributions are evident throughout history from a myriad of sources and theologians.

In regards to Dawkins, he does not put merit any anything you can not measure, so he would see philosophy in general as an ineffective “science” because it is not truly measurable. Theology affects philosophy profoundly as well as psychology not to mention that some of the most profound historical moments were based on theological grounds. So to say that theology has made no difference is simply ignorant of history and ignorant of what it means to “affect” something.

When a man is willing to create a weapon of mass destruction because his theology puts humans as expendable, theology has played a part in the development of the weapon. Also, how many of these scientists were also theologians? There was a time when most scientists were also religious thinkers and religion played a major role in their scientific endeavors. Theology is not mutually exclusive. To believe it is represents a theology of its own just as believe in Darwinian evolution and the big bang theory. While they may be proven scientifically at some point, they are currently so far from being proven that belief in them represents a religion of itself.

God Bless.

Interesting.

So one contribution that a theolgian named Theophilus contributed to the field was the concept of the Trinity.

I ask because Dawkins has argued that theology is not a field of inquiry at all and should not be taught or have a department at Oxford where he teaches. He says:

“We who doubt that “theology” is a subject at all, or who compare it with the study of leprechauns, are eagerly hoping to be proved wrong. Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects. These academics would be welcomed into appropriate departments elsewhere in the university. But as for theology itself, defined as “the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God”, a positive case now needs to be made that it has any real content at all, and that it has any place in today’s universities.”

For Dawkins, being a theolgian is like being an expert in Dungeons and Dragons or Tolkein’s Middle Earth. It’s not that no brain power is really applied here, it’s just that a theologian knows a lot about somebody’s fictional world.

Personally, I’m not sure where I stand on the issue. I’ll have to give it some more thought.

Can you think of any other contrbutions to theology as an academic field made by specific theologians?

Best,
Leela

 

[mathematician]

Are there any important theologians that Dawkins or I should be aware of? What specific important contributions to the field of theology have specific theologians made?

The problem which Dawkins has, and which you may share, is that he has too much contempt for religion for him to reach the end of chapter 1 of an introductory text before throwing it aside with a contemptuous snort. However, if you are really interested, you could try:

amazon.co.uk/Christian-Theology-Introduction-Alister-McGrath/dp/0631225285

amazon.co.uk/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1847390927/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259174575&sr=1-1

The first author is a professional theologian, also trained as a molecular biophysicist.
The second author is a professional biologist, who also turns his hand as an amateur theologian.

 

[Ocarm]

You seem to be asking two rather different (and actually incompatible) questions here. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

It is clear that Dawkins finds little value in theology.

Are there any important theologians that Dawkins or I should be aware of?

This may or may not be your intent, but that question sounds paradoxical to me. Without prejudice to what you actually mean, it sounds rather like you (or Dawkins) is saying, ‘Theology is a valueless area of study. So I want to know something that theologians have said which has value.’ If the premise of the first statement is valid, the interplay with the second statement can only lead to a null answer.

That kind of question is one of the reasons why Dawkins is a punching bag, because in my experience of him, he doesn’t actually enter into a genuine debate: he’s reached his conclusions before the discussion has even begun. In that respect he’s not unlike a lot of religious people, of course.

Personally, I enjoy debate with anyone who’s willing to be polite and respectful of other people’s views, as I try to be, and hope that we will both avoid crass assumptions about the bad faith of one’s opponents. Dawkins doesn’t usually meet that minimal expectation, and neither does Christopher Hitchens. Its a shame, because I think a better–tempered discussion (the lack of which, I will qualify again, is as much the fault of theists as atheists) could be productive for both sides. And I’m not accusing you of such tactics, please believe me: I’m just saying that the phraseology of the question doesn’t give people anywhere to go.

What specific important contributions to the field of theology have specific theologians made?

That, on the other hand, is a very different question. Who are the specific individuals who have made significant contributions to theology as a discipline? Well, followers of other religions can speak for themselves, but in Christian terms that would include most of the patristic writers, the authors of the books of the bible, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Hildegard of Bingen, Duns Scotus, Bonaventure, Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Siena, Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar - well, I’m sure you get the point.

But somehow I don’t think Dawkins would agree that these people have contributed anything, because he doesn’t believe that theology has any value. To which I would answer, theology has made positive contributions to philosophy and its sub-disciplines of ethics and metaphysics; to political theory, anthropology, sociology, social psychology, literature, art, music, architecture, pedagogy, jurisprudence, and many other fields. And just like science, it has made simultaneous negative contributions to precisely the same fields of study.

Read a general book on the history of those disciplines - philosophy would be a good place to start - and you will see where theology and theologians have contributed to its development. Unless you are familar with, and interested in, a specific theology, its almost pointless to tell you which person came up with which doctrine. The list is endless, and wouldn’t really tell you anything concrete.

If you really are interested in that, find an annotated copy of the catechism of the Catholic Church, which would give you the sources of most of the doctrinal positions of the church. It won’t be exciting reading.

 

[Leela]

You seem to be asking two rather different (and actually incompatible) questions here. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

This may or may not be your intent, but that question sounds paradoxical to me. Without prejudice to what you actually mean, it sounds rather like you (or Dawkins) is saying, ‘Theology is a valueless area of study. So I want to know something that theologians have said which has value.’ If the premise of the first statement is valid, the interplay with the second statement can only lead to a null answer.

That kind of question is one of the reasons why Dawkins is a punching bag, because in my experience of him, he doesn’t actually enter into a genuine debate: he’s reached his conclusions before the discussion has even begun. In that respect he’s not unlike a lot of religious people, of course.

Personally, I enjoy debate with anyone who’s willing to be polite and respectful of other people’s views, as I try to be, and hope that we will both avoid crass assumptions about the bad faith of one’s opponents. Dawkins doesn’t usually meet that minimal expectation, and neither does Christopher Hitchens. Its a shame, because I think a better–tempered discussion (the lack of which, I will qualify again, is as much the fault of theists as atheists) could be productive for both sides. And I’m not accusing you of such tactics, please believe me: I’m just saying that the phraseology of the question doesn’t give people anywhere to go.

That, on the other hand, is a very different question. Who are the specific individuals who have made significant contributions to theology as a discipline? Well, followers of other religions can speak for themselves, but in Christian terms that would include most of the patristic writers, the authors of the books of the bible, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Hildegard of Bingen, Duns Scotus, Bonaventure, Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Siena, Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar - well, I’m sure you get the point.

But somehow I don’t think Dawkins would agree that these people have contributed anything, because he doesn’t believe that theology has any value. To which I would answer, theology has made positive contributions to philosophy and its sub-disciplines of ethics and metaphysics; to political theory, anthropology, sociology, social psychology, literature, art, music, architecture, pedagogy, jurisprudence, and many other fields. And just like science, it has made simultaneous negative contributions to precisely the same fields of study.

Read a general book on the history of those disciplines - philosophy would be a good place to start - and you will see where theology and theologians have contributed to its development. Unless you are familar with, and interested in, a specific theology, its almost pointless to tell you which person came up with which doctrine. The list is endless, and wouldn’t really tell you anything concrete.

If you really are interested in that, find an annotated copy of the catechism of the Catholic Church, which would give you the sources of most of the doctrinal positions of the church. It won’t be exciting reading.

Thanks, Mike

You’ve addressed my two questions and to some extent the underlying question I have which is why Dawkins is perceived to “just not get it” when it comes to religion. He is viewed not so much as making flawed arguments as not evening knowing what he is arguing about.

Based on you post, I can see that theologians make contributions to the field of theology to at least the extent that academics in philosphy make contrabutions to their field of inquiry…

Must someone be a Christian to be a good Christian theologian? Can theology be pursued as a purely academic endeavor?

Thanks,
Leela

 

[OchsFam]

Can you think of any other contrbutions to theology as an academic field made by specific theologians?

Off the top of my head, Thomas Aquinas provided the five proofs for the existance of God.

1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can’t be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn’t itself moved by another). This is God.

2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can’t be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn’t itself caused by another). This is God.

3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing – and so there would be nothing now – which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.

5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.

 

[kamalayka9]

In another thread, someone brought Dawkins as a favorite punching bag around here. Today’s accusation was that he doesn’t know anything about theology.

In rebuttal to such accusations elsewhere, Dawkins asked, " If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?"

It is clear that Dawkins finds little value in theology.

Are there any important theologians that Dawkins or I should be aware of? What specific important contributions to the field of theology have specific theologians made?

Best,
Leela

Different things have different value to different people. To Mr. Dawkins, theology has no value.
And to me, the number of hairs on the underside of a hippo’s *** has no value whatsoever.

To a heavy metal guitarist, Eddie Van Halen was one of the most innovative guitarists of the 20th century.
To someone who hates music, he was just someone who makes more annoying noise.

To someone who appreciates art, Tintoretto or Leonardo are geniuses.
To a blind man, it makes no difference.
Good thing Father Georges Lemaître came along and was able to prove Einstein wrong, that in fact the universe is expanding. ( )

People like Mr. Dawkins come and go, they have always been around, and will continue to be around until Christ returns. Nothing new under the sun.

 

[Ismael]

If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference?

Yes… human rights are grounded in theology, in particvular moral theology. Human rights did separate from theology separated in the last 150 years.

History tells us that Christianity was the main force under the destruction of slavery.

---

Even if there was little change in the ‘practical’ world, does this mean that theology is useless?

Then we can say the same about literature and art and music (except for no cd-player in your car)

I think Dawkings argument, like most of his arguments outside the field of biology, is strongly reductive and over-simplified, if not absurd.

The main point is also:
Science leads to technology which finds application in the practical world.
Theology applies to the spiritual.

So basically Dawkins “compares apples and oranges”.

Also there are indirect connections: Philosophy has no direct ‘practical’ use, but without filosophy we would not have logic and epistemology, which are actually building blocks of modern science.

Religion (unlike many people think) was often a motivator to analyze the physical world and understand it since understanding the world could mean understanding God.

Are there any important theologians that Dawkins or I should be aware of?

Thomas Aquinas… but Dawkins knows of him… he tried (and miserably failed) to counter Aquinas arguments for the existence of God.

Beside Aquinas: all Fathers of the Church, like St. Augustine.

Then: Erasmus, Duns Scotus, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Ignatius of Loyola.

In more modern times: John H. Newman, Joseph Ratzinger (aka Pope Benedict XVI), Pascal, Nicholas Wiseman

 

[mathematician]

Thanks, Mike
Must someone be a Christian to be a good Christian theologian? Can theology be pursued as a purely academic endeavor?

In theory yes, and you can even find some ex-Christians doing it, but I doubt if it would be the first career choice of many atheists.

Any book you read on theology is likely to have been written by a theist, and, unless he is consciously writing for a non-theist audience, he will probably assume that his readers share his theistic point of view.

One name you could try is Karen Armstrong.

 

[kamalayka9]

And yes, Mr. Dawkins, there IS a difference between God and your flying spaghetti monster, and that difference is this:

There never was a man 2,000 years ago healed people, did amazing things that defied logic, and rose from the dead, claiming to be from the flying spaghetti monster.

There **WAS **One who claimed to be from God.

And THAT is the difference.

 

[Ocarm]

You’ve addressed my two questions and to some extent the underlying question I have which is why Dawkins is perceived to “just not get it” when it comes to religion. He is viewed not so much as making flawed arguments as not evening knowing what he is arguing about.

I would phrase it somewhat differently, and say he doesn’t even think there’s anything to argue about. If you don’t believe in God, there can be no purpose to a discipline that studies God.

Based on you post, I can see that theologians make contributions to the field of theology to at least the extent that academics in philosphy make contrabutions to their field of inquiry…

Yes. Whether these contributions are good or bad is open to debate, obviously. (And gives other theologians something to talk about!).

Must someone be a Christian to be a good Christian theologian? Can theology be pursued as a purely academic endeavor?

I’m sure hardliners would say that only a Christian can offer Christian insights, but I’m reminded of a BBC TV series of a couple of years ago where a British muslim theologian descibed the public ministry of Jesus, and showed a remarkable understanding of the Christian theology involved and offered some very interesting commentary upon it. I’ve read a number of Jewish scholars who have also written with tremendous perception on Christian issues. I’ve known agnostic theologians as well. I suppose one could pursue theology as an atheist even if only to better understand the arguments involved, but it would seem a little futile.

I think in all those examples the key would be respect and good will, an acceptance of the sincerity of the ideas involved without necessarily agreeing with them. I enjoy discussions with atheists, and know some atheists whose personal ethics put mine to shame. I don’t think Dawkins believes that religious people are sincere: I don’t even think he believes they’re just misguided. Typically, I get the impression he just thinks they’re stupid. And I think its unacceptable and actually, rather unscientific, to dismiss so many people without having done better research than making judgements about a few ridiculous fundamentalists.

 

[Bluegoat]

Well, I think if Dawkins wants to throw out Augustine and Thomas, he must also throw out Plato and Aristotle.

That is, according to this view that anything “supernatural” is disallowed, all of philosophy must be disallowed, since it is essentially non-material.

Unfortunately for anyone who wishes to do that and retain some kind of scientific inquiry, science is also a sub-section of philosophy, and depends upon the same basic assumptions that philosophy does. If those assumptions are good enough to let us do science, we can’t arbitrarily exclude philosophy as well.

The thing I find so odd about this attempt to discredit religious thought with no real knowledge of theology - which Dawkins himself admits to readily - is that it would never be acceptable in any other field. If I went to a conference of physicists and said that I thought there was something fishy about entropy, and then they found out that I can’t even multiply fractions, they would laugh. Similarly if I gave out opinions on Chanel’s latest ready to wear collection, or bridge building.

It rather boggles me that anyone would think this makes sense in any field.

As for his comment on it not mattering - well, I think if you take any time to study the history of human thought you will see that it is important. Take Hegel, who was clearly influenced by Christian thought. And who was influenced by Hegel - Marx. Would you say things in the 20th century would have been no different without Marxism? Or Plato, who was the first philosopher (in the West anyway) to really concieve of the realm of immaterial thought. An idea which permeates our history and way of approaching life ever since.

And even if it did not have more physical direct effects, that is not the only thing we should consider. Would we care if Bach was wiped out of history, or would it be indifferent too? Are beauty and truth only valuable if they do something?

 

[punkforchrist]

Traditionally, science has always been grounded in the supposition that God exists. Newton, after all, believed that he could predict the motion of bodies because God had imbued the universe with order.

Leela, you may wish to listen to this lecture by Robert Koons, who gives both philosophical and historical reasons to conclude that modern science arose as a result of theology. veritas.org/media/talks/601

 

[hecd2]

Well, I think if Dawkins wants to throw out Augustine and Thomas, he must also throw out Plato and Aristotle.

That is, according to this view that anything “supernatural” is disallowed, all of philosophy must be disallowed, since it is essentially non-material.

I really don’t see how that can possibly be the case. Theology and philosophy are not synonymous. A situation in which philosophy thrived but theology was abandoned is quite easy to imagine. Nor is science a branch of philosophy - its methods are utterly different. Science does need a minimal metaphysical foundation but it doesn’t actually need very much. But surely the argument is flawed that if theology is not a proper subject for scholarship then so is all of philosophy, and science in philosophy’s train.

The thing I find so odd about this attempt to discredit religious thought with no real knowledge of theology - which Dawkins himself admits to readily - is that it would never be acceptable in any other field. If I went to a conference of physicists and said that I thought there was something fishy about entropy, and then they found out that I can’t even multiply fractions, they would laugh. Similarly if I gave out opinions on Chanel’s latest ready to wear collection, or bridge building.

It rather boggles me that anyone would think this makes sense in any field.

I assume that we are talking about serious scholarship which excludes opinions on fashions. I think that your argument does not stand up. Its fundamental claim is that one must be knowledgeable about an area of study in order to dismiss it as a proper discipline for scholarship. Seems reasonable at first sight, but not so on closer inspection. I would ask how you can be “knowledgeable” about a subject that does not admit of knowledge? Do you need to be “knowledgeable” about crystal healing, or astrology or the theology of Greek and Roman gods (except as a historical curiosity) or homeopathy to know that they have no place in the academy? Does one need a second level diploma in astrological studies to know that it is not a suitable academic discipline? I am not arguing here that theology should not be regarded as a proper discipline. What I am arguing is that your defence of it (or rather your criticism of Dawkins’s methods) is not logically correct - one does not necessarily have to be an expert in a subject to make the case that it is not suitable for academoic study. One needs to consider its object and its fundamentals.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Gift_from_God]

Wow, just wow. That’s quite a claim. First of, we’re talking about people who try to advances in technology vs people who study theology. Here’s an idea, take away all grocery clerks, would there have been a significant difference? What an absurd claim.

I know he was talking about theologians, but here’s extraordinary accomplishments made by adherents (not just Christians)

Big Bang Theory-Theorized by Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre

Genetic research-Gregor Mandel, a Catholic Monk, is considered the father of it. The discovery was probably inevitable, but nevertheless, he discovered it first.

Theory of gravity-Theorized by Issac Newton. Again, probably inevitable, but he was the first to theorize it.

Algebra-Created by Muslims

Heliocentric view of the universe-theorized by Galileo and Copernicus, a Catholic priest

Mathematics-Instrumental developments by Rene Descartes, a Catholic

Martin Luther King jr.-Do I really need to say anything?

Also, watch this video about the Church’s relationship with science
youtube.com/watch?v=672-YIixU74

 

[Abu]

Leela
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, 1990, identifies the role of the theologian as “to pursue in a particular way an ever deeper understanding of the Word of God found in the inspired Scriptures and handed on by the living Tradition of the Church. He does this in communion with the Magisterium [teaching authority] which has been charged with the responsibility of preserving the deposit of faith.”

Fr Enrique T Rueda has examined what theology means, and explains that natural theology is a philosophical discipline in which God is studied from what can be known of Him from His creation.
Supernatural theology uses the knowledge of God based on Revelation and relates this to understanding His creation.

Fr Rueda asserts that theology requires the integral possession of the Faith, and without that faith it becomes a theoretical formulation of ideas – an ideology. Faith admits no dissent for dissent in any part of the Revelation of Jesus Christ means the refusal to admit the entire Truth who is Jesus Christ in His Church.

Thus there is no theology, strictly, without Christ and His Church –
No theology of Karl Barth
No Protestant theology
No Buddhist or Hindu or Islamic theology

A “theologian” who refuses to submit his conclusions to the judgment of the living Magisterium is not a theologian but a charlatan. Theological science aids the People of God in fulfilling the command of Christ’s Vicar to give an account for their hope to those who ask for it. (cf.1 Pet 3:15)

Thus there are theologians who are faithful to Christ’s Church and there are dissenters. Catholics don’t follow theologians as such, they assent to the teaching of the Catholic Church which is what is really important.
Hope this helps.

 

[Bluegoat]

I really don’t see how that can possibly be the case. Theology and philosophy are not synonymous. A situation in which philosophy thrived but theology was abandoned is quite easy to imagine. Nor is science a branch of philosophy - its methods are utterly different. Science does need a minimal metaphysical foundation but it doesn’t actually need very much. But surely the argument is flawed that if theology is not a proper subject for scholarship then so is all of philosophy, and science in philosophy’s train.

To some extent I agree with you, but it would depend on what we consider to be theology or philosophy. For example, where does Aristotle’s Metaphysics fall? Most people would consider it a work of philosophy, but from Dawkin’s POV, it discusses the very things he does not admit are possible subjects. In fact, if we consider the history of philosophy and skip over all of those medievals who didn’t much separate them, we still see them contemplating things Dawkin’s calls “supernatural” as matters of first importance and the foundations of their philosophical systems. I cannot see him allowing Descartes any more than Augustine.

I disagree that science is not a sub-set of philosophy, but it probably is not terribly important. To my mind, they depend on the same premise, and if we could discount the possibilities of logic and human knowledge (philosophy) science would be bust too. Although it’s object is the material, it’s insights are about the immaterial.

I assume that we are talking about serious scholarship which excludes opinions on fashions. I think that your argument does not stand up. Its fundamental claim is that one must be knowledgeable about an area of study in order to dismiss it as a proper discipline for scholarship. Seems reasonable at first sight, but not so on closer inspection. I would ask how you can be “knowledgeable” about a subject that does not admit of knowledge? Do you need to be “knowledgeable” about crystal healing, or astrology or the theology of Greek and Roman gods (except as a historical curiosity) or homeopathy to know that they have no place in the academy? Does one need a second level diploma in astrological studies to know that it is not a suitable academic discipline? I am not arguing here that theology should not be regarded as a proper discipline. What I am arguing is that your defence of it (or rather your criticism of Dawkins’s methods) is not logically correct - one does not necessarily have to be an expert in a subject to make the case that it is not suitable for academoic study. One needs to consider its object and its fundamentals.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Not an expert, perhaps, but if someone rejects homeopathy without knowing the theories on how it is supposed to work - totally fantasy in my opinion - then yes, he should just keep his mouth shut. And theology and philosophy are not a small thing to reject summarily - they have been considered the most fundamental type of study, for thousands of years, by the greatest minds in history. If one wants to reject them as a possible subject of study one had better know something about them. It isn’t really like saying - I think homeopathy is bunk. It’s more like saying, I think mathematics is bunk.

And in Dawkin’s particular case, he often has pretty basic errors in his understanding of theological ideas, so that doesn’t bode well for his arguments against them.

 

[Sair]

As I understand it, Richard Dawkins’s argument against theology is twofold.

Firstly, theology contributes nothing to our understanding of the world or of human nature - simply put, it contributes nothing useful, unless we wish to understand religion.

Secondly, it can actually do harm to both our understanding of human nature and to our understanding of the world. By circumscribing human nature in terms of objective, prescribed morality, it stifles the potential of human endeavour; by assuming supernatural explanations for the physical universe, it stalls scientific inquiry.

So, Dawkins’s argument against theology and against religion in general, can be simply stated - it does no good, and may do harm.

 

[Ocarm]

As I understand it, Richard Dawkins’s argument against theology is twofold.

Sounds good.

Firstly, theology contributes nothing to our understanding of the world or of human nature -

A universal assertion, which statements are rarely justifiable. Evidence?

simply put, it contributes nothing useful,

Subjective. Usefulness is not determined by a single observer.

unless we wish to understand religion.

Illogical. Inasmuch as the vast majority of humankind assert a religious belief, surely that would make it worth understanding?

Secondly, it can actually do harm to both our understanding of human nature

Self-defeating. It was stated above that theology contributes nothing to our understanding and is thus illusory as a discipline, by which assertion it has no substance that could affect anything significantly.

and to our understanding of the world.

Fuzzy logic. Understanding the default viewpoint of most cultures in human history would have to increase our understanding of the world.

By circumscribing human nature

Erroneous. Human nature is a fundamental concern of theology.

in terms of objective, prescribed morality,

Contradictory terminology. Something that is objective (non-contingent on perception) need not be prescribed (contingent on the prescriber being perceived).

it stifles the potential of human endeavour;

Another universal assertion. Evidence?

by assuming supernatural explanations for the physical universe,

Reductionist. Most religious believers accept that science explains the nature of the physical universe. It does not, however, explain the creation event.

it stalls scientific inquiry.

Over-simplified and grossly historically inaccurate.

So, Dawkins’s argument against theology and against religion in general, can be simply stated

With respect to you - and I actually do mean with respect, despite what is probably sounding like a very sarcastic reply to your mail - the argument as presented here is anything but simple.

• it does no good,

Another unsupported assertion.

and may do harm.

I agree. (Praise be!). And in that respect, theology is like other human endeavours, because it shares in a limitation of all things human - that what is human is capable of producing great good and great evil.

Dawkins’ argument, as you present it, is a sorites, where one weak position builds on another until the result is nonsense. Which, interestingly enough, is what a lot of people say about theology.

And in my humble opinion, sometimes they’re right. It might be that most theological arguments could be deconstructed in the smart-aleck way that I’ve just deconstructed this argument, and as far as I’m concerned, they’re fair game for such treatment.

What irritates me about the Dawkinite approach - which I am not assuming that you share, and if you do, that’s obviously your privilege - is the completely unwarranted air of objectivity that he assumes, whereby his comments have the credibility of scientific rigour because he’s a scientist (and I believe, a very good one).

He is, to my eyes and ears, a very bad philosopher and a very bad exponent of debate, and is utterly lacking in objectivity with regard to his views on religion. That’s my subjective impression, anyways. I won’t claim it is definitely true, because unlike the professor I think a little humility goes a long way, and I don’t want to label a single individual, let alone billions of religious adherents, as being invincibly stupid.