Dawkins Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

What a pile of tosh. Dawkins is arguing in the realm of the philosophy of religion. Eagleton upbraids Dawkins for not discussing the intricacies of medieval theologians. It’s not Aquinas and Karl Rahner that informs the faith of the average believer. In a book aimed at a popular audience, it is neither the time nor place to discuss these intricate - irrelevant, even - theologians.

In the debate over religion, modern theology serves only one purpose - to create large dust-clouds as a distraction. Should the skeptic then spend his time fighting the dust-cloud without disturbing the consciousness of the every-day believer? I think not. It’s a distraction from the important question - what evidence is there that religious claims are true?

The reason we’ve seen so many breathy responses to Dawkins is that he’s written a book which breaks with the prefatory politeness and gets to the actual point. Dawkins has side-stepped the theological dust-cloud and taken his message to the populace. This is a good thing. Academic theology has become lifeless and mind-numbing (and I say that as someone who is just about to finish a degree studying philosophy, theology and related subjects). Greater public oversight - whether from the perspective of belief or unbelief - has to be a good thing.

Dawkins puts it this way: “Theology is a respectable discipline when it studies such subjects as moral philosophy, the psychology of religious belief and, above all, biblical history and literature…. But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine”.

Dawkins is a biologist and that is what he does best. I read the God Delusion and while he certainly does address some philosophy of religion (argument from cause, Bayesian possibilities) it is true that there is much else he could, in more depth.

I much prefer Dennett for that rigor, but he is a philosopher, which is the difference between them. Too, Dawkins main point is “consciousness-raising”, so although I think he does tilt at straw men, so to speak, there is a point at which his project is to get people asking questions that typically seem “impolite.”

Tom, I agree to an extent that it is good that Dawkins is raising some popular topics to the realm of direct discussion however impolite it may be. However because Dawkins is lacking in ability to talk about core Christian doctrine that has been shaped by medieval theologians he is “pissing in the wind.” In churches people are still shaped by medieval theologians because many of our worship practices stem from that time period. So to claim that Dawkins doesn’t need to know something about worship theology and practices that are still in use today doesn’t make any sense.

My personal opinion is that Dawkins needs to stick to biology and stay out of theology. If he wants to raise these questions than do it with his friends. The broad brush is not necessary nor valuable. I know more people who just role their eyes at Dawkins than pay him the least bit of attention. In the end for me Dawkins is more comic relief from theology than a serious theologian in any sort of the word. I don’t make claims about biology because I took a high school biology class or read a couple of books, so he shouldn’t try to make claims on things that he doesn’t know. I think he is just doing it to make money and not to accomplish anything. Lets face it people by his books because of what he says.

Richard Dawkins is indeed an evangelical fundamentalist atheist as I have already said elsewhere on the internet.