I pit Richard Dawkins, Victor Davis Hanson and people like them

[AK84]

Why do people think that persons who are experts in one field are somehow experts in all other fields? The two below are just for illustration.

Richard Dawkins may be (for all I know) an excellent biological scientist, first rate even, but when he is placed as some sort of expert on religion and mythology and worse, people lap up his every word when he talks because he is a professor? As if that makes him an expert in any area he wishes to give an opinion about.

Victor Davis Hanson may be the best classicist author in recent memory. I enjoyed his account of the Peloponnesian War (except his attempts to link it to Iraq), but frankly anytime he opens his mouth (or his notebook) and speaks/writes on any other topic, I get the feeling that I am dealing with an autistic five year old. What is worse is that his ideas on war,politics and the middle east are seriously listened to by policy makers.

Why do people feel the need sprout wisdom about totally unrelated fields, and worse why do people listen to them with such reverence.

[Voyager]

Dawkins got into writing about religion because of the large number of screeds he got from creationist crazies doubting evolution. He does not pretend to be a theologian, but only someone pointing out that the evidence for the existence of any god is a bit weak, to put it mildly. That kind of thing usually has to be done from outside religion, since those devoting their life to it are less likely to see this - though it has happened.

There are plenty of examples of experts going outside their fields and making fools of themselves, but Dawkins isn't one of them.

[drachillix]

Originally Posted by AK84

but when he is placed as some sort of expert on religion and mythology and worse, people lap up his every word when he talks because he is a professor? As if that makes him an expert in any area he wishes to give an opinion about.

Would you feel better if he was an expert in ancient fiction?

[jjimm]

Why shouldn't individuals be allowed to opine on any topic they want to?

Originally Posted by AK84

people lap up his every word

his ideas on war,politics and the middle east are seriously listened to by policy makers.

Strikes me that these are the actual targets of your ire.

[FixMyIgnorance]

I disapprove of this pitting.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by AK84

Why do people think that persons who are experts in one field are somehow experts in all other fields? The two below are just for illustration.

Richard Dawkins may be (for all I know) an excellent biological scientist, first rate even, but when he is placed as some sort of expert on religion and mythology and worse, people lap up his every word when he talks because he is a professor? As if that makes him an expert in any area he wishes to give an opinion about.

You don't have to be an expert on theology to know that religion is stupid, that the arguments for it are stupid and that the people who follow it are doing something stupid.

Heck, I'm no theologian and I can argue for that well enough.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Dawkins got into writing about religion because of the large number of screeds he got from creationist crazies doubting evolution.

Yes, I think that Dawkins should stop talking about religion when the fundamentalist religionists stop talking about evolution.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Giles

Yes, I think that Dawkins should stop talking about religion when the fundamentalist religionists stop talking about evolution.

Ding ding ding we have a winnah!

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by drachillix

Would you feel better if he was an expert in ancient fiction?

You mean, like, a historian or an anthropologist?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by FixMyIgnorance

I disapprove of this pitting.

I disbelieve it, myself.

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by AK84

Richard Dawkins may be (for all I know) an excellent biological scientist, first rate even, but when he is placed as some sort of expert on religion and mythology and worse, people lap up his every word when he talks because he is a professor? As if that makes him an expert in any area he wishes to give an opinion about..

"For all I know"..................So you don't know what he has written?

He quite clearly states that he is not an expert on several subjects. Certainly he claims no expertise on religion. He can however be considered an expert on what makes an evidential claim valid and put under scrutiny such claims as are made by religion. Using the most primitive analysis (which is all that is required...and a great feature of his writing) the claims don't stack up.
That is what annoys the religious. They build up a wall of complicated closed-reasoning and circular thinking and don't like it when a layperson points out the obvious flaws.

What he does is use the religious claims against them, that is all. He needs no other expertise other than what the religious say themselves and an understanding of what we mean by "evidence"

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by AK84

Richard Dawkins may be (for all I know) an excellent biological scientist, first rate even, but when he is placed as some sort of expert on religion and mythology and worse, people lap up his every word when he talks because he is a professor?

As said, you don't need to be an expert on religion to shoot it full of holes. And he gets attention partly because he's one of the few semi-prominent figures willing to point out the Emperor has no clothes, and partly because the religious believers have latched onto an image of him as some sort of atheist prophet.

[Nava]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

"For all I know"..................So you don't know what he has written?

AK84 is a lawyer, not a biologist. He knows Dawkins has written a lot, but their fields of expertise don't meet: he's no more qualified to tell whether Dawkins is a good and famous biologist or only a famous one than I am (I'm a Chemical Engineer).

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by Nava

AK84 is a lawyer, not a biologist. He knows Dawkins has written a lot, but their fields of expertise don't meet: he's no more qualified to tell whether Dawkins is a good and famous biologist or only a famous one than I am (I'm a Chemical Engineer).

I mention it because if AK84 hasn't read much of Dawkins' work, then it will be difficult to judge if claims of his expertise in any area are valid.

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by AK84

Richard Dawkins may be (for all I know) an excellent biological scientist, first rate even, but when he is placed as some sort of expert on religion and mythology and worse, people lap up his every word when he talks because he is a professor? As if that makes him an expert in any area he wishes to give an opinion about.

I don't need a 4 year degree in Invisible Fashion Design to recognize when the emperor has no clothes. If theology ever becomes a real field of study rather than so much navel-gazing, your criticism would be relevant.

I don't know or care who the other guy is.

[AK84]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

I mention it because if AK84 hasn't read much of Dawkins' work, then it will be difficult to judge if claims of his expertise in any area are valid.

I though I made it quite clear that I was speaking about his credential as a biological scientist, of which I have no ability to comment on, and will presume he is reasonably competent and well regarded in his field. it is his writings and opinions and claims to expertise on other fields that I protest.


In any case, I vehemently disagree that he has not claimed any particular knowledge of religion as some posters have written above, he has written a whole book on the subject.

Now, the Greatest show on earth was one of the better books I have read, precisely because he stays within his expertise (for the most part).


I will note that no one seems to have any objection with respect to my comments on Mr Hanson.

[Rachellelogram]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

I don't need a 4 year degree in Invisible Fashion Design to recognize when the emperor has no clothes. If theology ever becomes a real field of study rather than so much navel-gazing, your criticism would be relevant.

I don't know or care who the other guy is.

You don't think theology is a legitimate area of study? It's a lot more involved than navel-gazing; it also involves a thorough knowledge of world history, the study of religious practices, and learning the reasons behind them. Theologians are trying to glean a better understanding of past and present beliefs & practices of religion. Is theology any less legitimate than the study of secular fiction or more-generalized anthropology? I say no.

Now, if you're just talking about a Christian yokel, they're good for a couple of minutes of naysaying and navel-gazing before throwing the Bible at you (I myself wear a Bible-proof vest on Sundays, in preparation for just such an occasion). But an actual degree in theology is fairly rigorous. I don't have one, but an old college friend of mine does. I know for a fact that he worked his ass off, although we lost contact after he converted from atheism to Eastern Orthodoxy (more my doing than his).

Just because you don't follow a particular religion or believe in the supernatural (I certainly don't) doesn't mean theology is an easy or worthless area of study. In fact, if we have any hope to evolve past humanity's predilection toward religion, it NEEDS to be studied! Without understanding why religion has had a stranglehold on humanity for the vast majority of people for all of recorded history, we have no hope of overcoming it.

Frankly, your refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of theology indicates a high degree of short-sightedness and immaturity.

[FixMyIgnorance]

Honestly, even though he doesn't claim to be an expert at religion (whatever that would mean), he sure seems to know the details of it better than most believers. It's not like he's unaware of the rules/contents of various holy scriptures or what's being taught/how people argue/etc. He knows them quite well.

Besides, do I *really* need to know TimeCube inside and out before I can call utter bollocks upon it?

[AK84]

Originally Posted by FixMyIgnorance

Honestly, even though he doesn't claim to be an expert at religion (whatever that would mean), he sure seems to know the details of it better than most believers. It's not like he's unaware of the rules/contents of various holy scriptures or what's being taught/how people argue/etc. He knows them quite well.

Besides, do I *really* need to know TimeCube inside and out before I can call utter bollocks upon it?

Yeah and I probably know more about the US Constitution than probably 99 percent of Americans. Still does not make me an expert and if I write a book about it, it will rightly be considered inferior, even though it relates directly to my area of expertise (law). Being well read on something might improve a person's ability in dinner conversations p, it doesn't entitle them to hold themselves out as experts as the gentlemen (and others) in thOP have done nor should their opinions be treated as such.

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by AK84

I though I made it quite clear that I was speaking about his credential as a biological scientist, of which I have no ability to comment on, and will presume he is reasonably competent and well regarded in his field. it is his writings and opinions and claims to expertise on other fields that I protest.

And if you know anything about him you will know he claims no expertise in religion itself.

[quote]In any case, I vehemently disagree that he has not claimed any particular knowledge of religion as some posters have written above, he has written a whole book on the subject. [quote] Yes, and he merely challenges the claims made by the religious themselves. He has enough knowledge to do that.....as do you.........as do I.
At heart, the book is not theological. It is casting a sceptical and scientific eye over the claims of religions. He is capable of doing that.

Now, the Greatest show on earth was one of the better books I have read, precisely because he stays within his expertise (for the most part).I will note that no one seems to have any objection with respect to my comments on Mr Hanson

don't know him, don't care.

[Biggirl]

Originally Posted by AK84

Yeah and I probably know more about the US Constitution than probably 99 percent of Americans. Still does not make me an expert

It doesn't? You're in the top one percent of people who know shit about the Constitution and that doesn't make you an expert? Damn, experting is a tough field to break into.

[Princhester]

Originally Posted by AK84

Richard Dawkins may be (for all I know) an excellent biological scientist, first rate even, but when he is placed as some sort of expert on religion and mythology and worse, people lap up his every word when he talks because he is a professor? As if that makes him an expert in any area he wishes to give an opinion about.

This is just an argument from authority, framed in the negative, and as unconvincing as such arguments usually are.

The only relevant question is whether what Dawkins says is wrong. Do you have anything to say about that? If you did, that might be worth something depending on the quality of your arguments.

Your OP however, is a waste of electrons.

[rat avatar]

I have no idea why an evolutionary biologist would need to to become an advocate for secularism.

[stpauler]

I've got an uncle who was a fireman all of his adult employed life. When he retired, he wrote a great book on taxonomy.

Jesus was a carpenter by trade, so he has no reason to opine on what God thinks. (If you believe in any of that.)

Is the OP insinuating that one's profession is the only route to being an expert on a subject? Because that would be really dumb if he did.

[Alka Seltzer]

A very poorly thought out pitting. Funnily enough, Dawkins complains about this kind of thing in his book, The God Delusion. Why defer to religious figures? What is their expertise exactly?

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

Just because you don't follow a particular religion or believe in the supernatural (I certainly don't) doesn't mean theology is an easy or worthless area of study. In fact, if we have any hope to evolve past humanity's predilection toward religion, it NEEDS to be studied! Without understanding why religion has had a stranglehold on humanity for the vast majority of people for all of recorded history, we have no hope of overcoming it.

The thing is, little of that can be understood through theology, which is essentially exercises in apologetics. Most theists aren't well versed in theology, so an understanding of theological arguments does little to explain the spread of religion. (Which is an interesting question, and not one that should be readily dismissed. I thought the weakest parts of the The God Delusion were where Dawkins tried to this.)

Theology is a sub-branch of philosophy, but it's limited by it's inherent assumptions. It's quite fair to be dismissive of theology itself on that basis. However, it's not fair to dismiss someone's writings because they are a theologian, that doesn't prevent them from being well versed in philosophy or ethics.

[Banquet Bear]

...I don't trust that Richard Dawkins. I don't want anyone I know to grow up joining one of those "star cults."

[Ca3799]

Dawkins has been writing about religious topics for quite some time- The Blind Watchmaker came out in the mid to late 80's and he has been involved in many, many secular and Humanist associations for a very long time. I don't think people "lap up his every word because he's a Professor" but because he's been thinking and writing on the topic for 35 years.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Biggirl

It doesn't? You're in the top one percent of people who know shit about the Constitution and that doesn't make you an expert? Damn, experting is a tough field to break into.

Time was, all you had to be was some damn fool from out of town.

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by AK84

Victor Davis Hanson may be the best classicist author in recent memory.

There is no accounting for taste. All the same, this is completely false.

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by Giles

Yes, I think that Dawkins should stop talking about religion when the fundamentalist religionists stop talking about evolution.

Amen.

[fessie]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

You don't have to be an expert on theology to know that religion is stupid, that the arguments for it are stupid and that the people who follow it are doing something stupid.

Heck, I'm no theologian and I can argue for that well enough.

And this is evidence of your mad rhetorical skillz?

(I'm not a fan of Dawkins, either, though I heartily concur with the group that the fundamentalists need to get the fuck outta science)

[Ca3799]

AK84, did you read something by Dawkins that you disagreed with, or do you just object to him in some vague, "he's wrong", sort of way?

I can't address the other guy you mentioned- Hanson- as I'm not familiar with his writings. A quick Google shows he seems to write on military history, a subject that's not of much interest to me. What do the two (Dawkins and Hanson) have in common that you mention them together?

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by AK84

Why do people think that persons who are experts in one field are somehow experts in all other fields? The two below are just for illustration.

Richard Dawkins may be (for all I know) an excellent biological scientist, first rate even, but when he is placed as some sort of expert on religion and mythology and worse, people lap up his every word when he talks because he is a professor? As if that makes him an expert in any area he wishes to give an opinion about.

Ask yourself why it appears to be necessary for a man to have an advanced degree in botany, physics, and an encyclopedic knowledge of anthropology in the Middle East to disprove a guy who once read a story about a spontaneously combustible bush.

Then we can quibble over how many things one can be an expert in at one time.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by fessie

And this is evidence of your mad rhetorical skillz?

(I'm not a fan of Dawkins, either, though I heartily concur with the group that the fundamentalists need to get the fuck outta science)

It's evidence for how low the bar is.

The claims of religions aren't exactly deep or meaningful. You don't need to be the pope to look at the claims of Catholicism and realize they're full of shit. You need to be able to reason and evaluate evidence.

[The Hamster King]

Prescient PZ Myers rebutted the OP six years ago:

The Courtier's Reply

[Jackmannii]

If a commentator who is not a theologian grossly misrepresents the tenets of religion, or displays a stunning ignorance of political facts, then the OP would have a point that they should think about sticking with things they know about.

I don't see that problem with Dawkins or Hanson (though I frequently disagree with Hanson). Religion and politics are pretty much sport for everyone anyway and not rocket science.

Speaking strictly of science, I see a big problem with scientists who set themselves up as experts in fields outside their area of expertise. The most obvious example of this is Nobel prize winners making asses of themselves (i.e the "Nobel disease"). Frequently you'll see promoters of alternative medicine and various forms of woo touting the physicians and scientists who support their claims, but who have limited or no expertise in the areas cited. And there was the recent op-ed in the Wall St. Journal by climate change doubters, most of who seemed to be trained in non-climate related fields but felt themselves qualified to emote on the subject.

[bump]

Originally Posted by Biggirl

It doesn't? You're in the top one percent of people who know shit about the Constitution and that doesn't make you an expert? Damn, experting is a tough field to break into.

As it should be. I probably know more about computers and information technology than 99% of people in the US, but I wouldn't set myself up as an expert either. There are still 3 million out there who might know more about it than I do.

Nobody who counts(industry decision makers) would listen to me pontificate about how *I* think IT departments should work, or what the role of the CIO ought to be; I'm not experienced enough, for one thing, and for the most part, I'm probably not educated enough either.

That being said, maybe there's a little misinterpretation on the OP's part on Dawkins' goals and work. If it is just pointing out that religion is non-scientific and ultimately required a great deal of faith, that's fine. It's pretty obvious to most of us, religious or atheist, who have spent any time thinking about it.

However, if he's going off and arguing that the Church had it wrong about Arianism or stuff like that, then yeah, he's not qualified to talk about that.

[fessie]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

It's evidence for how low the bar is.

The claims of religions aren't exactly deep or meaningful. You don't need to be the pope to look at the claims of Catholicism and realize they're full of shit. You need to be able to reason and evaluate evidence.

[Condescending Robot]

Hanson is particularly problematic because he seems to think that Athenian society is an ideal. It's rare, at least in the 21st century, for a classicist to go native, but he has actually bought a date farm and begun living as a smallholding hoplite. His desire to reconstruct Western society along agrarian militarist lines certainly strikes one as a bit fascist.

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

You don't think theology is a legitimate area of study? It's a lot more involved than navel-gazing; it also involves a thorough knowledge of world history, the study of religious practices, and learning the reasons behind them. Theologians are trying to glean a better understanding of past and present beliefs & practices of religion. Is theology any less legitimate than the study of secular fiction or more-generalized anthropology? I say no.

I went to parochial school for kindergarten through 12 grade. I went to a catholic university where I was required to take multiple theology classes in order to graduate. I understand what theology is and it's worthless. Everything you say theology does, some other field does better with practical results and is based on empirical evidence.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

Theologians are trying to glean a better understanding of past and present beliefs & practices of religion. Is theology any less legitimate than the study of secular fiction or more-generalized anthropology? I say no.

I say yes they are "less legitimate", because they are so heavily invested in believing in and justifying baseless dogma. A scholar of secular fiction who insisted that Star Wars was historically true and spent his life trying to justify that conclusion would be a bad scholar, an idiot...and the scholar-equivalent of a theologian.

[FixMyIgnorance]

Originally Posted by AK84

Yeah and I probably know more about the US Constitution than probably 99 percent of Americans. Still does not make me an expert and if I write a book about it, it will rightly be considered inferior, even though it relates directly to my area of expertise (law). Being well read on something might improve a person's ability in dinner conversations p, it doesn't entitle them to hold themselves out as experts as the gentlemen (and others) in thOP have done nor should their opinions be treated as such.

So despite knowing more about the Constitution than 99% of people, we shouldn't listen to any criticisms you have about it? (Besides I would argue Dawkins is not merely at a 99% cutoff but likely much higher)

All you're doing is saying "He's not an expert and therefore we shouldn't listen to him." What does make someone an expert? It's ultimately pretty arbitrary. You don't need to know everything about a subject in order to criticize vital premises.

What matters are the arguments. If you think Dawkins should stop talking about religion, give some hard reasons why instead of whining about his background as a biologist. What details is he missing as a non-expert that would completely overturn his arguments?

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by FixMyIgnorance

What matters are the arguments. If you think Dawkins should stop talking about religion, give some hard reasons why instead of whining about his background as a biologist. What details is he missing as a non-expert that would completely overturn his arguments?

This......

The only way to approach this is to give a clear example of where he is wrong. AK84's concerns have been raised many times in relation to Richard Dawkins in general and "the God Delusion" more specifically. So this has been discussed many times. Not once have I seen a reasonable example given.
I'd like to see one, Dawkins in particular would like the chance to correct any errors made or clarify any confusion.

[Thudlow Boink]

The problem with Richard Dawkins and his writings/pronouncements on religion is not primarily that he's not an expert. It's that he has blind spots and prejudices, that keep him from being fair to religion(s) and, in some cases, from understanding religion(s) and religious people.

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

I know for a fact that he worked his ass off, although we lost contact after he converted from atheism to Eastern Orthodoxy (more my doing than his).

Heh. I had to re-read that; for a minute there, I thought you were taking credit for his conversion (which would have been an interesting story) rather than for losing contact.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Originally Posted by Giles

Yes, I think that Dawkins should stop talking about religion when the fundamentalist religionists stop talking about evolution.

Beautiful.

[SciFiSam]

How would one become an expert in theology and religion, then? By studying it, reading about it and discussing it a lot? Dawkins appears to have done a lot of that. If he's getting factual things wrong, then that's bad, but he mostly talks about belief and gives opinions on it and the way it's formed, not about particular portions of the Bible.

By getting a qualification in it? Well, most people who get a qualification in theology or religion are religious, which kinda makes them biased, and those who have lost their faith after getting such qualifications are most likely not accepted as experts by those of their own faith.

People with those qualifications are more likely to be able to say where in what text something is claimed, or what the Nicene Decree actually is, and various other things, but that doesn't mean they're the only arbiters of belief. If the only arbiters of belief are believers then there's not much room for debate.

I agree with the gist of your pitting, though. A better example would be Bill Bryson. Seems like a lovely man and a very good writer, but I wish he didn't think he was qualified to write about every single topic - he gets too many factual things wrong.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

The problem with Richard Dawkins and his writings/pronouncements on religion is not primarily that he's not an expert. It's that he has blind spots and prejudices, that keep him from being fair to religion(s) and, in some cases, from understanding religion(s) and religious people.

I'm not stipulating that he doesn't understand religious people, but you don't need to understand religious people to argue against a religion.

A religion is ultimately a set of factual claims. Christianity claims that God created the universe and that sin exists, and that an afterlife exists and so on. It doesn't take minute understanding of their dogma to point out that there is no evidence for their assertions being true.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

The only way to approach this is to give a clear example of where he is wrong. AK84's concerns have been raised many times in relation to Richard Dawkins in general and "the God Delusion" more specifically. So this has been discussed many times. Not once have I seen a reasonable example given.
I'd like to see one, Dawkins in particular would like the chance to correct any errors made or clarify any confusion.

Terry Eagleton's review of The God Delusion is a good description (by a fellow non-believer) of how Dawkins' ill-informed zealotry results in sweeping generalizations rather than cogent criticisms of religious belief as a whole.

As a lifelong atheist myself, I look at Dawkins the way moderate theists must regard some of their fundamentalist sects: I appreciate his publicly sticking up for the beliefs that we share, but I find his rancor and clumsy overstatement to be somewhat tedious and embarrassing. It's a free country and he can write whatever he wants about religion, but most of it is not particularly admirable or impressive (or original, if it comes to that).

One particular eye-rolling example of Dawkins' doofishness on the subject is something I remember from his (otherwise generally excellent) Greatest Show on Earth, which IIRC he was citing from The God Delusion. He described some Christian monastic community writing in a loophole to their "fast days" (i.e., meatless diet days) regulations which would ordinarily allow them to eat fish but not meat on those days. The loophole allowed for some occasions when meat could be served on a fast day as long as it was lowered into a well first and "fished" up out of it, to make it ceremonially equivalent to fish. "They must think God is awfully easily fooled", hee-hawed Dawkins.

Although I don't follow any religious dietary laws myself and consider them all fundamentally arbitrary and from my perspective essentially pointless, Dawkins' particular criticism of this one is just stupid. Obviously, the monks who established this exception in their dietary laws didn't really imagine that an omniscient omnipotent God could be fooled into thinking that they weren't eating meat as long as they drew their shin of beef or whatever it was out of a well first. Equally obviously, they were requiring that ceremonial procedure not as a way to "fool God" but to remind themselves of the continuing importance of the laws, even if for whatever reason they allowed some modifications to them.

In other words, the fishing-up-the-meat rule is not to say "Yo God, this is actually a fish and not a shin of beef so we cool, right?", but rather to say "Remember brethren, we have undertaken for the purposes of spiritual discipline not to eat meat on this day. Although we permit this exception to the rule, that does not mean that the rule may be disregarded at whim or that our spiritual discipline isn't to be taken seriously." As atheists, we may not agree with either of those attitudes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to tell them apart.

Dawkins' inability or unwillingness to apply that kind of understanding and empathy to the beliefs of religious people is what makes him in general a clueless buffoon when it comes to seriously analyzing religious doctrine. I grudgingly give him a pass on his ignorant clowning primarily because the religious zealots who attack his scientific popularizations tend to be much more egregious (not to mention dangerous) clueless buffoons than he could ever be.

[Docta G]

I'm a professor of philosophy--iif I agree with Dawkins, do his views suddenly gain credibility as a result?

It's the line of reasoning that matters, not who makes it.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Terry Eagleton's review of The God Delusion is a good description (by a fellow non-believer) of how Dawkins' ill-informed zealotry results in sweeping generalizations rather than cogent criticisms of religious belief as a whole.

As a lifelong atheist myself, I look at Dawkins the way moderate theists must regard some of their fundamentalist sects: I appreciate his publicly sticking up for the beliefs that we share, but I find his rancor and clumsy overstatement to be somewhat tedious and embarrassing. It's a free country and he can write whatever he wants about religion, but most of it is not particularly admirable or impressive (or original, if it comes to that).

One particular eye-rolling example of Dawkins' doofishness on the subject is something I remember from his (otherwise generally excellent) Greatest Show on Earth, which IIRC he was citing from The God Delusion. He described some Christian monastic community writing in a loophole to their "fast days" (i.e., meatless diet days) regulations which would ordinarily allow them to eat fish but not meat on those days. The loophole allowed for some occasions when meat could be served on a fast day as long as it was lowered into a well first and "fished" up out of it, to make it ceremonially equivalent to fish. "They must think God is awfully easily fooled", hee-hawed Dawkins.

Although I don't follow any religious dietary laws myself and consider them all fundamentally arbitrary and from my perspective essentially pointless, Dawkins' particular criticism of this one is just stupid. Obviously, the monks who established this exception in their dietary laws didn't really imagine that an omniscient omnipotent God could be fooled into thinking that they weren't eating meat as long as they drew their shin of beef or whatever it was out of a well first. Equally obviously, they were requiring that ceremonial procedure not as a way to "fool God" but to remind themselves of the continuing importance of the laws, even if for whatever reason they allowed some modifications to them.

In other words, the fishing-up-the-meat rule is not to say "Yo God, this is actually a fish and not a shin of beef so we cool, right?", but rather to say "Remember brethren, we have undertaken for the purposes of spiritual discipline not to eat meat on this day. Although we permit this exception to the rule, that does not mean that the rule may be disregarded at whim or that our spiritual discipline isn't to be taken seriously." As atheists, we may not agree with either of those attitudes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to tell them apart.

Dawkins' inability or unwillingness to apply that kind of understanding and empathy to the beliefs of religious people is what makes him in general a clueless buffoon when it comes to seriously analyzing religious doctrine. I grudgingly give him a pass on his ignorant clowning primarily because the religious zealots who attack his scientific popularizations tend to be much more egregious (not to mention dangerous) clueless buffoons than he could ever be.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. The point of the above mentioned snippit is that the theists believe really stupid shit. And then they bend over backwards so they can justify the really stupid shit so that it doesn't actually hinder them. These monks are contorting themselves mentally to get around a rule they don't like.

There is nothing profound or elegant about trying to game the system. It's just self-satisfied rules-lawyering.