Dawkins and Harris continually envoke conservative religious frameworks to support their views that religion is irrational and silly. In being so narrow either their understanding of religion at large is extremely limited (like beginning religion students) or they are ignoring the many rational and systematic theologies available.

Excellent point Steve, and one I should have mentioned myself. To go just a tad further with this thought… it's bit like the back alley bully who lies in wait for the easy prey to come by, but carefully avoids an equal or greater foe. Then, they break their arms from patting themselves on the back for their cleverness and prowess! Can you imagine how a formal debate between Dawkins and, say, Alvin Plantinga would go?

As a side note, I've always thought that Dawkins's excuse for never debating an IDP was a bit lame. He claims he doesn't want to give them intellectual respectability by appearing on the same platform, let alone pretending there's anything to acutally discuss.

I attended that same debate, Douglas.

Huh. I thought you seemed familiar. However, I had to sit in one of the "extra seating" arenas, and not in the actual auditorium where Dr. Spong and Dr. Craig debated. I had to watch the debate via a wide-screen projector type set-up.

It was too bad that Craig was actually fairly ill that night. (I think he was running a 101 degree fever the whole time!). Otherwise, I think he would have been even more formidable than he was. Spong came across as arrogant, in my judgement.

Yes, Dr. Spong seemed arrogant, but rather unustifiably so, based on my impression of him in person. And, if I'd known Dr. Craig was ill, I'd have stood a bit further away from him when I met him after the debate. (I can see that his formidability that night, while I was in his presence, wasn't just due to his knowledge, intelligence, and career.)

Me: Do I need to point out to you, joy, the direct implication regarding those who do and will not believe in Jesus that this passage makes?

joy: No, you don't.

Good.

joy: Literalists are famous for sentencing most of humanity (and a majority of their fellow Christians) to hell on a daily basis. Most of humanity doesn't believe there is such a place. Thus there are lots of people who are not impressed with the threat. I'm one of 'em.

I'm impressed. But I don't see where castigating Jesus as a "literalist" for making the statement I quoted amounts to advancing your position, joy.

Could you point to some actual arguments made by Dawkins and explain why you find them simplistic and sophomoric?

Since I first made this claim I'll comment as well. When I began seminary after an engineering profession my views were sophoric and simplistic as well. I was unaware of the vast diversity in theology and religion in general. It was only after studying the theology that was available in both Christianity and other religions that I was able to really understand and compare religious sentiment. Dawkins and Harris continually envoke conservative religious frameworks to support their views that religion is irrational and silly. In being so narrow either their understanding of religion at large is extremely limited (like beginning religion students) or they are ignoring the many rational and systematic theologies available.

It's not just me who has made that observation both Konner, Ruse and others at the Beyond Belief conference accuse them of the same thing.

In order make a valid criticism of religion they would have to look at the actual beliefs of a broad spectrum of believers and also the best theology that is available. They do neither.

Could you point to some actual arguments made by Dawkins and explain why you find them simplistic and sophomoric?

Sure. I didn't just refer to Dawkins, but to him and Harris and others. Here's an example of what I mean. In The God Delusion (and even the title gives a clue about being sophomoric, imho) RD says that 'a universe superintended by a diety would look much differeint from that isn't" This claim comes on the heels of his proclaiming the power of science and scientific reasoning and that it trumps irrational faith, etc etc. And just prior he attempts to make the case that he sees no reason why God should not be an hypothesis like any other. In other words, he thinks God ought to be subject to the scientific method. LEaving all that aside, it is the claim I quoted above that needs considering. RD is the one who is effusive about the high road of reason and science. But, he offers not one whit of either to back up his claim that a universe superintiended by a diety would look much different from one that isn't.

How does he know that? Its mere assertion. He offers no reasearch studies that either he or anyone else has done to back that up. What makes this simplistic, in my opinioin, is that this is a breach of logic and reasoning that a first year logic student could see through. He wants to subject any and all religious presuppositions to scientific testing and reasoning, but apparently not his own philosophical presuppositions.

The sophmoric part is the over-all tone. He is clearly hostile to religion and religious ideas of any kind. But he basis his "analysis" on stereoptypes and half truths.

Harris does the same thing in both his books and interviews. For a good example, see this comment I made over at Teleological Blog.

Dawkins, Harris, et.al., set themselves up at the grand protectors and advocators of the high road of science and scientific reasoning. You'd think they'd be a bit more careful in applying the rules of sciencie and reason to ttheir own arguments.

Then why in the world did you bring it up, joy?

Because you decided to take issue with Steve's portrayal of the depth of Christian theology by asserting your own and claiming exclusive personal knowledge of Absolute Truth. We already know what the Dawkins [et al.] version looks like, so that's not the subject of this blog.

Agreement with more liberal, non-literalist Christian theology is not required. Thus to argue exclusivity of your own theology is off topic and a distraction.

Do I need to point out to you, joy, the direct implication regarding those who do and will not believe in Jesus that this passage makes?

No, you don't. Literalists are famous for sentencing most of humanity (and a majority of their fellow Christians) to hell on a daily basis. Most of humanity doesn't believe there is such a place. Thus there are lots of people who are not impressed with the threat. I'm one of 'em.

Regardless, it is YOU who show an unfortunate willingness to ignore clear Biblical teachings in order to hold to your worldview, while attempting to claim at least a bit of Biblical support.

I do not recall claiming biblical support for my worldview, though I've probably quoted a verse here and there. I quote Einstein, Pauli, Monty Python, Will Rogers, Bill the Clown and Yogi Berra occasionally too.

And I know for a fact that I understand more of what the Bible teaches and implies than do you. At the very least, my worldview does not directly contradict any clear Biblical teachings.

In case you missed it, this blog is not about you or your exclusive theology. It's about a lack of depth in the simplistic theologies of Dawkins, Harris, Myers, et al. and their strong tendency to overgeneralize their shallow stereotypes to all religious people.

Literalists and their evil twins account for no more than 20% of the human population, and that's being very generous because the world's most populous regions are strongly Hindu, Buddhist and animist amalgams. That means at least 80% of us are not frightened by the assertions coming from either side of that looking glass.

You'd think that someone who appeals so strongly to the efficacy of science and reason would be a bit more careful in crafting arguments and at least attempt to avoid commiting such simplistic fallacies!! Sophomoric is just the right word!

Donald,

Could you point to some actual arguments made by Dawkins and explain why you find them simplistic and sophomoric?

I re-read your comments on this thread and couldn't find any specific examples.

Thanks,
Keith S.

There are religious forums to argue (endlessly) the interpretational vagaries of religion, Gregory. This isn't one of them. Nor is what Douglas believes versus what I believe the subject of this blog.

Then why in the world did you bring it up, joy? Couldn't resist a little "jab and retreat"

It is my view that in combating the destructive influences of materialism and addressing the criticisms of Dawkins et al. circular appeals to scriptural authority do not advance things and in fact may exacerbate
them.

I agree with you on this point. Besides, to refute Dawkins and those of his ilk (I love that word — sounds like a disease "yuck, he's got 'ilk!!") — one need only appeal to logic and reason — the very things that Dawkins claims give his arguments primacy. You'd think that someone who appeals so strongly to the efficacy of science and reason would be a bit more careful in crafting arguments and at least attempt to avoid commiting such simplistic fallacies!! Sophomoric is just the right word!

In fact, after attending a debate between the two in early 2005 (at Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana), I spoke, briefly and separately, with both Dr. Craig and Dr. Spong. I asked Dr. Spong how he reconciled some of his views with some particular New Testament passages (I don't recall the specific issue or the exact particulars), and after two or three questions which he could not answer (and he clearly became more and more flustered), he eventually responded by saying something about he had his views, and conservatives had their views. It was a clear admission on his part of an inability to Biblically support his own position, in my opinion.

I attended that same debate, Douglas. It was too bad that Craig was actually fairly ill that night. (I think he was running a 101 degree fever the whole time!). Otherwise, I think he would have been even more formidable than he was. Spong came across as arrogant, in my judgement.