Vatican reaches out to atheists – but not you, Richard Dawkins

[rwoehmke]

In the worlds of science and literature, they’re somebodies.

Then why don’t they “stick to their last” and argue about things where they have expertise. Science and literature hardly qualify therm to be philosophers or theologians. They are attempting to be experts outside their qualifications which causes them to fall into great error.

 

[reggieM]

But I would like to see Hawkins or Hitchens go toe-to-toe with Fr. Robert Spitzer SJ Phd. Fr. Spitzer’s new book New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. His talk with Father Pacwa on the Big Bang theory and Intelligent Design last night on EWTN kept me up! It should be on the site video library soon or you might catch it on a rerun on the station.

Thanks for mentioning this. I will look for Fr. Spitzer’s new book and his EWTN interview. From what I’ve read from him before, he’s a brilliant thinker and expert in science, philosophy and theology (15 years of studies to become a Jesuit will do that for you. )

just found it on YouTube…

youtube.com/watch?v=QI1QBj3aFfg

 

[j1akey]

rwoehmke:

Then why don’t they “stick to their last” and argue about things where they have expertise. Science and literature hardly qualify therm to be philosophers or theologians. They are attempting to be experts outside their qualifications which causes them to fall into great error.

I generally agree with you here but at the same time not being an expert on something hasn’t really stopped some people in the religious right from telling scientists that their theories are wrong has it?

 

[rwoehmke]

I generally agree with you here but at the same time not being an expert on something hasn’t really stopped some people in the religious right from telling scientists that their theories are wrong has it?

OK , theologians and philosophers have no business being “experts” on the facts/laws of science either. The matter of ethics for human behavior and the application of these discoveries of science to human life is quite another matter. The facts of science are not in dispute, only the utility. Dawkins attempts to use science to answer questions for which science really has no answers. His science may be perfectly wrought, but he misapplies it.

 

[Darryl1958]

In the worlds of science and literature, they’re somebodies.

People always make the assumption that if someone is good at something, that means they will be good at everything.
It is generally wrong. That is why we don’t go to brilliant trial lawyers for heart transplants. Philosophers likewise may not know how to fix that leaky toilet like a plumber will.

The theological knowledge of a Dawkins is inferior to that of even anyone who spends a few hours a day on a religious website. It is mainly second hand and third rate.

A doctor in theology might as well be arguing his case against a fifth grader.
Heck, a fifth grader may even win the debate, if the audience is made up of fifth graders. It is a peanut gallery.

Otherwise, it will all pretty much go over their heads. They are just not ready for those kind of depths.

That is pretty much the case of anyone who is impressed by a Dawkins debate on theology. he ought ot have stuck with the scientific field he was trained in.

 

[Kaninchen]

Hm

Why would atheists/agnostics want to be bothered anyway? Do they get a free glass of wine and tasty snack or something?