Monday, October 6, 2008 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

by Graham Tomlin

Published in UKFocus, March 2008

Dr. Graham Tomlin, Dean of St Mellitus College, London, has written an essay in response to Richard Dawkins' best-selling book The God Delusion. The essay is to be published as part of Nick Gumbel's book Is God a Delusion?. This is an edited extract which provides the themes of his argument:

Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion has been a phenomenon. Taking even its author by surprise, it has outstripped all expectations and has been a run-away best-seller for many months.

It is worth asking at the outset why Dawkins' book has been so successful. There are a number of possible reasons.

First is the 9/11 effect. Ever since the planes crashed into the twin towers on that dreadful day, and it became obvious that this was the work of religious extremists, God and religion have been very public subjects of discussion.

We might think that this suspicion and anger would be directed primarily against extreme Islam, which the media usually portrays as the main origin of religious violence today. However, Christianity has not escaped censure either.

Although today it is hard to find many examples of Christian extremism, the history of the Christian church is far from unblemished and critics only need to point out the Crusades of the Middle Ages, Medieval anti-Semitism and and some more outlandish statements from the weird fringes of Christianity today to lump the Christians in with Al-Qaeda as dangerous fanatics.

The second factor is Dawkins' own reputation. He is of course the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and such a prestigious academic position gives his arguments a certain degree of weight, that they wold not have if they came from someone with a less prestigious post.

The third factor is the skill of Dawkins' own writing. In previous works such as and The Blind Watchmaker, he has shown himself to be one of the contemporary world's most effective interpreters of science to an unscientific readership. He has remarkable ability to explain complex scientific matters to those who are not versed in such things that outstrips most of his contemporaries.

Perhaps one of the surprising things about Dawkins' book is that its success is in fact founded more upon its rhetoric than its argument.

It is worth reading one of his chapters with an eye to the way the language works, the subtle uses of ridicule, the familiar colloquial banter with his reader, and then trying to separate out those from the arguments themselves to see what a brilliant communicator he is.

The language quickly creates a cast of goodies and baddies with carefully placed adjectives and pejorative language ('Christial zealots', 'Bible-believing fundamentalists', 'decent liberals', 'thoughtful sceptics' etc).

However, in this short respond I want to look at some of the key arguments Dawkins makes and suggest how a Christian might answer them.

1. No Sign of God?

One of Dawkins' key arguments is very simple: that there is simply no compelling evidence for the existence of God, especially when it comes to analysing God's supposed intervention in the world.

If God answers prayer, performs miracles and the like, then we ought to be able tell that he is doing such a thing - there simply should be more obvious evidence for him.

So how might a Christian respond to this? In a sense Dawkins has a point. If God does intervene with the world on particular occasions that seem to transcend the normal operation of physical and biological processes, then we might expect to be able to tell when he does so.

However, Dawkins is by his own admission no theologian, and does not really appreciate a Christian view of miracles. It is bad theology as well as bad science to imagine a 'God of the gaps' where God is invoked to explain anything that science cannot.

This is because God is not a 'thing' within the world that causes other 'things' to happen according to the normal observable physical laws of nature.

On a Christian understanding, miracles are not random interventions of GOd, like a secret visitor moving chess pieces on a board while the players are not looking.

They are instead actions that seem to obey a different set of laws, or operate in another dimension of reality that is not specifically accessible to scientific analysis or study, and which shows up in odd events in our own world. They will always therefore seem odd, inexplicable and disputable.

God usually achieves his purposes indirectly, through human agency. Particular people in the Bible or Christian history are normally the agents of miracles, whether Moses parting of the Red Sea, Jesus raising the dead, or Christian saints performing healings. Christian theology says that God is both beyond this world (transcendent) and yet also operates within this world (immanent).

If God is the creator of this physical world and yet occasionally acts within it, through ordinary (or perhaps extraordinary) people, according to a different order of things, then we would expect to see occasional events and experiences within oour world which are hard to explain under natural terms.

2. Bad Arguments for God?

Dawkins spends quite some time looking at the various arguments that have been used for the existence of God and trying to show that they simply do not work.

He makes a decent fist of the point: however it is hamstrung by his lack of knowledge of the subtleties of Christian theology. This is one of the frustrating aspects of the book.

It would be irritating for a biologist if I were to try to write a book about science in which I displayed my ignorance of the meaning of multicellularity, or the behaviour of chromosomes.

So you can imagine it is a little annoying to read Dawkins writing about a subject of which he is certainly no expert and not just a little uninformed.

For example, Dawkins tries to present some of the classic arguments for the existence of God, such as Thomas Aquinas' proofs, as supposed knock-down arguments to convince the sceptic that God exists.

However: as many theologians have pointed out, Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God, such as the Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument and the Argument from Design, were never meant to be hard and fast proofs to the non-believer to convince them that God exists.

Aquinas presents them (as do most other mainstream Christian theologians) as confirmations of faith rather than proofs of it.

In other words, for those who have a belief in God, they provide a rationale for showing how that belief makes sense.

Another argument that Dawkins seeks to undermine is the argument from personal experience, the argument that 'I experience the reality of God, therefore he exists'.

Dawkins delights in pointing out all kinds of examples of supposed religious experiences that have turned out to have completely naturalistic explanation. Of course, it is possible to do this time and time again.

However, it is still very hard to argue away the whole of religious experience from human history along these lines. Experience of the divine or a dimension beyond the physical is pervasive in just about ever culture that has ever lived n the face of the planet.

Of course it is interpreted in different ways but the bare fact remains that countless people profess to an experience of something beyond the material or the natural which the naturalist can always try to explain away, but finds it hard to do so because of the sheer mass of such testimony.

3. Science explains everything?

Dawkins argues that natural selection explains everything we can see around us and therefore there is no need for God.

The main pint of Dawkins' argument is that the existence of complex beings such as ourselves can be perfectly explained by the process of natural selection and there is really no need for supposing any kind of God as part of the process.

Dawkins may well be right in arguing that natural selection does provide a good explanation of how we have developed from very simple organisms, how life emerged, and how the world has come to be what it is today.

However, there remain a number of questions. For example, several philosophers have pointed out that it is hard to imagine human language appearing through a simple process of genetic evolution. Evolutionary process would normally expect a new ability to have appeared one individual first: however, it is impossible for language to be individual - it has to involve at least two people who converse together.

There is also a further question that Dawkins is simply unable to answer and that is the question of why there is anything here at all. yes, the process may have begun with some very simple elements combining to form life, but why were those elements here in the first place?

The Big Bang is of course one possible solution to this argument, but even that does not provide an answer because it still leaves open the question why there was something to go 'bang' in the first place?

4. Religion a Mistake?

One of the more curious parts of Dawkins' argument is his account of the origins of religion. This concerns his well-known idea of 'memes' or 'units of meaning', which are transferred like a virus from one mind to another and spread in the same way that a virus does.

This provides an account of the origins of religion that fits with natural selection, so that 'memes' are like genes that ensure their own survival by mutating to create different forms.

This argument has been criticised on a number of occasions. It is interesting to see that Dawkins seems to be less sure of it now and it takes a much less central place in his quiver of arrows than it used to.

The basic problem is this: who is to say which 'meme' is a good virus or a bad virus?

He has already come to the conclusion that religion is a bad thing and therefore he explains its origins through this metaphor of a disruptive virus.

However, who is to say whether religion is a virus or whether Dawkins' own ideas are a virus which is spreading in the same way?

There is also of course no independent, objective proof of the existence of 'memes'. It is really a metaphor he is using rather than a scientifically proven fact.

This is rather strange as he accuses Christians of basing their faith upon things that are not proven, and so it is a little bit rich to see him arguing so strongly for such an idea himself.

5. Goodness is an Accident?

Dawkins realises that he also has to come up with some explanation for the origins of morality and goodness if he is to complete his case against religious beliefs.

Again, as in the idea of 'memes', he goes for a naturalistic explanation that fits in with evolutionary biology. He argues that there are Darwinian reasons for people to be generous or kind towards each other; for example, favouring the fortunes of one's own kin, reciprocity where 'if you scratch my back I'll scratch yours', the benefits of gaining a reputation for generosity and so on.

However, this does not get away from the basic implication here that all our behaviour is ultimately selfish. In ensures the survival of genes and our own selves.

Even altruistic behaviour is only altruistic on the surface; underneath it is a thinly disguised means of personal or genetic survival. There are a number of significant problems with this approach.

As we saw in the last point, again there is a real problem of evidence.

How are we to take seriously an argument that has as little evidential basis as this?

Christian faith is not so much about telling us what is right and wrong as about enabling us to do what it is right and to avoid what is wrong.

It describes how God's own power, the Holy Spirit, can enter a human life to give that life a new dimension of energy and purpose to do what is right and to live a good life, to live according to the Kingdom of God. Criticising Christian morality for not offering a distinct list of do's and don't that cannot be found elsewhere is simply to miss the point.

At the end of the day there is a simple choice to be made. Is love a 'misfiring instinct', an accidental by-product of evolution, and a thinly veiled strategy for personal or genetic survival? Or is it actually the centre of reality; the reason why we are here?

Dawkins and Christian faith give two fundamentally different answers to this question.

For Dawkins, love is purely an accident.

For Christians, it is the very centre of all that we are.

6. The Tyrant of the Bible?

Dawkins offers us an amusing and ribald description of the God of the Bible, arguing that such a character is by no means a being worthy of worship and devotion, but in fact a cruel tyrant, best confined to history and thrown out of all civilized discussion.

True, it is not hard to make this case by careful selection of passages, especially from the Old Testament and by the careful ignoring of others where God is presented as long-suffering, patient, 'slow to anger and abounding in love and faithfulness' (Exodus 34:6).

Although Dawkins ridicules the God of the Bible along these lines, he is strangely silent about Jesus, seeing him as some kind of exception to the ugly divine character he things he sees from the pages of the Bible.

Dawkins again shows his ignorance of Christian theology by taking an over-literalistic reading of the texts. He fails to see that in Christian theology there is a clear interpretative criterion for reading the Old Testament, and that is that we read the Old Testament in the light of Jesus Christ.

The central clue the Bible gives us to the character of God is in Jesus. That is the place we should look first and we should interpret everything else in the light of him. The character of Jesus reflects the core character of the God of the Old Testament - patiently kind, endlessly loving, achingly compassionate, angry at evil, fiercely loyal. God desires us to worship him not because he is some insecure despot who demands that we cravenly bow down before him, but because for us to worship a God who is in himself love is in fact the best thing we can do. We worship God not because he needs it but because it is good for us.

7. The Evil of Religion?

One of the main planks of Dawkins' argument and that of the many other atheists is the suggestion that religion makes people do very bad things.

Whereas moderate, gentle atheists like himself are incapable of anything nasty to anyone, religion, being rooted in a transcendent cause, has the power to make people do unspeakably evil things to each other and the world in which they live.

Of course it is not hard to find examples of this in the past or from the contemporary world. Much of the violent conflict in the world today from Iraq to Palestine, and terrorists attacks in the USA and Europe, is due at least in some part to religion.

Dawkins takes this argument a step further when he response to those who ask him why he is so vehemently opposed even to moderate religion.

His point is that moderate religion provides a kind of 'cover' for the bad things done by extremists in religion. If the moderates in religion gave up their faith then it would expose the extremists for who they are and would deprive them of a vital source of potential support.

Of course Dawkins has a point that religion can make people do bad things, but then again so can almost anything that is important to human beings.

People have done unspeakably horrible things to each other in the name of their family, tribe, nation, football team, or even in the name of love. To seek to eliminate anything that can be used for violent ends would logically eliminating each of these along with religion.

Atheism is just as capable as religion (if not more) of dastardly acts of violence and oppression. The point here is not that religion is necessary superior to atheism in this regard, it is simply to say that human beings are such that they are likely to take any idea, however good or bad, and turn it into an excuse for doing violence to each other.

In fact this insight points very clearly to a Christian understanding of human nature that is both gloriously optimistic and hugely pessimistic.

Christians believe that we are made in the image of God, capable of amazing acts of love, compassion, mercy and grace. yet we are also deeply flawed, fragile and fallen, equally capable of acts of terrible evil.

This seems to fit the human condition and the course of history far better than the overly optimistic suggestions of atheists such as Dawkins.

8. The Inspiration of Atheism?

Dawkins rounds off his book with a warm and cuddly vision of the future where atheism will provide consolation, inspire the imagination, and bring about a world of harmony, peace and love.

Can atheism provide such hope? Can it provide the way forward for a glorious future for humanity?

The difficulty here is finding any evidence that this might ever be the case. Previous experiments in trying to build an avowedly atheistic society that deliberately tries to get rid of religion are not promising.

Soviet Russia, as we have seen, was not exactly a beacon of tolerance, peace and harmony (at least not for the 20 million who died). Nor were Pol Pot's Cambodia. Mao's China or the state of Burma today. In other words atheism has so far failed in every attempt to provide this perfect society that Dawkins so optimistically things will emerge.

Now of course it is possible to accuse Christianity of failing in the same way. Atheists might argue that Christians have equally failed to provide and to create the perfect society.

However, Christians never claim to be able to do this. They always claim that until the coming of the new heavens and the new earth, this world will always be imperfect with its characteristic mixture of good and evil.

As St Augustine put it, the City of God will live uncomfortably alongside the City of the World in this present age, and so we are not to expect to see the perfect society before God brings it about.

Richard Dawkins reminds me of someone passionately convinced of the virtures of sight, confronted by people trying to explain to him the concept of smell. Such a person might be absolutely committed to the view that vision alone can understand and explain reality.

Perhaps the main problem with Dawkins is that he starts the discussion in the wrong place. Nowhere does the Bible show any interest in the question 'Is there a God?'. The writers do not try to prove it, demonstrate it, or argue for it. They simply assume it.

This is the only way God can be found. Dawkins tends to think belief in God is like a random opinion that one happens to hold, just like believing that it will rain tomorrow, or that there are Yetis in the Himalayas.

Yet 'faith' in the Bible is much richer and stronger than that, and involves much more than a mere idea. Faith begins, when I realise that I am not what I might be. In fact, to be blunt, I am self-centered, thoughtless, loveless and need to change. And I need to find a way to do that.

The God of the Bible is not interested in whether we happen to entertain the opinion that he exists nor not. He is interested in challenging us. And only those prepared for that challenge will ever find him.

We find him when we begin to live life on the assumption that not only is God there, but he is to be counted on. We find him when we live on the assumption that Jesus Christ is the exact image of God, and that the point of life is to let God transform us to be like him.

We find him when we begin to live as if every person we meet is valuable because they are mad in God's image; that there is always hope in the worst situation because Jesus rose from the dead; that the Bible is God's Word through which he wants to speak to us each day. In other words, faith involves personal risk, and only those prepared to take that risk can find God.

Jesus told a story about a man digging in a field, who found a box of hidden treasure, and who sold all he had to buy that field. God hides himself in our world, just as the treasure is hidden in the field.

He is not obvious, but waits to be found by those who are serious enough to stake everything on him 'sell everything they have' to follow him. Of course it is possible to look at this world and miss God altogether. Jesus Christ said 'those who seek will find' (Luke 11:9).

God is searching for us and is there to be found but only by those who risk everything to do so. Those who do find him find love, adventure and satisfaction beyond what they imagined possible.

Posted: Monday, October 6, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 246 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #261026 by MrPickwick on October 6, 2008 at 10:53 am

A new flea in the horizon!

It is worth asking at the outset why Dawkins' book has been so successful. There are a number of possible reasons.

He happens to leave one reason out: Dawkins is simply right.

Other Comments by MrPickwick

2. Comment #261028 by mbobo on October 6, 2008 at 10:55 am

Sir,perhaps you're just the "delusional" individual we've been waiting for...

Delusion- a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact...

Other Comments by mbobo

3. Comment #261029 by PrimeNumbers on October 6, 2008 at 10:56 am

What a pile of stinking theology. Jesus was not a paragon of moral virtue, not least his support of slavery.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

4. Comment #261030 by Steve Zara on October 6, 2008 at 10:56 am

I started reading at random. I saw this:

They simply assume it.

This is the only way God can be found.

Is it worth reading any more?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

5. Comment #261032 by drthos on October 6, 2008 at 10:58 am

Honestly, didn't The God Delusion deal quite openly with all these objections? It's as if he didn't read it...

Other Comments by drthos

6. Comment #261033 by tvictor on October 6, 2008 at 10:58 am

theology.............

Other Comments by tvictor

7. Comment #261034 by Le_Adder_Noir on October 6, 2008 at 11:00 am

"God is searching for us and is there to be found but only by those who risk everything to do so. Those who do find him find love, adventure and satisfaction beyond what they imagined possible. "

Risk/give your life and get a bunch of virgins in return?

Other Comments by Le_Adder_Noir

8. Comment #261037 by flobear on October 6, 2008 at 11:04 am

Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God, such as the Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument and the Argument from Design, were never meant to be hard and fast proofs to the non-believer to convince them that God exists.

Aquinas presents them (as do most other mainstream Christian theologians) as confirmations of faith rather than proofs of it.

In other words, for those who have a belief in God, they provide a rationale for showing how that belief makes sense.

How silly of me for thinking that an argument should be logical for everyone. No no, these arguments only work if you start off agreeing with them. Sounds air tight to me.

Lets start off with the assumption that this author is an idiot. I conclude, therefore, that the author is an idiot.

edit:

is hard to imagine human language appearing through a simple process of genetic evolution

Oh my god! It's hard to imagine something! Science never was good at explaining things that look confusing. Well, I mean, except for every scientific discovery so far.

Seriously, this article is giving me a headache.

Other Comments by flobear

9. Comment #261038 by al-rawandi on October 6, 2008 at 11:06 am

Ghost written by Richard Morgan.

It has that familiar odor.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

10. Comment #261042 by Don_Quix on October 6, 2008 at 11:10 am

They are instead actions that seem to obey a different set of laws, or operate in another dimension of reality that is not specifically accessible to scientific analysis or study, and which shows up in odd events in our own world.

If something happens in our universe, it is by definition natural and open to scientific inquiry.
Why do these apologists never seem to understand that?

I was going to write a really long post in response to all the old tiresome logical loop-de-loops in this article. But then I took a sip from my coffee, a deep breath of the pleasant morning air on this lovely day, and decided I have much better things to do.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

11. Comment #261044 by Peacebeuponme on October 6, 2008 at 11:11 am

The main pint of Dawkins' argument.

I wouldn't mind a pint of that in a country pub. I wonder how it compares to Bishop's Finger?

EDIT: Some fucking excellent, fortuitous typos in this article:

they are mad in God's image

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

12. Comment #261045 by sunbeamforjesus on October 6, 2008 at 11:13 am

Fucking Hell!Where does one begin to try to sift this stack of crap? i am not even going to try.Once again a "reasonable" fuckwit attempts to rubbish TGD and Richard with a raft of valueless soundbites,none of which is worth a cuntful of toadshit!(I'm warming up now so keep your womenfolk away from this)This twat is no more of an intellectual or a scholar than Sarah Palin.He makes no RATIONAL arguments, merely resulting to the old tried and tested bullshit.As with all fuckwits he should be forcibly circumcised by a rabbi with blunt teeth and Aids!
There! I have disposed of him in a reasoned and gentlemanly manner.

Other Comments by sunbeamforjesus

13. Comment #261046 by Peacebeuponme on October 6, 2008 at 11:15 am

Soviet Russia

Hello again Stalin. You do like popping up in christian bullshit, don't you?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

14. Comment #261047 by brainsys on October 6, 2008 at 11:16 am

Theology may be an imagined subject but I had always associated the process of explaining the unexplainable in the face of skeptism, alternate or contradictory scientific evidence to produce scholars of great sophisticated and beautifully intertwined sophistry.

But instead I think Tomlin has done more to give theology a bad name than even RD could aspire to. In fact I think Tomlin is quite thick. Take this paragraph ..

"However, there remain a number of questions. For example, several philosophers have pointed out that it is hard to imagine human language appearing through a simple process of genetic evolution. Evolutionary process would normally expect a new ability to have appeared one individual first: however, it is impossible for language to be individual - it has to involve at least two people who converse together."

Think about it for a little while and you realise it is just plain nonsense. Anyone who has a deaf kid or just a puppy will know about development of asymetrical communication. The fact that he takes the word of a philosopher rather than a linguist is telling. And of course he either had not read or understood what RD has written.

Come on, theology can do better than this.

Other Comments by brainsys

15. Comment #261048 by Sciros on October 6, 2008 at 11:16 am

Soviet Russia

Hello again Stalin. You do like popping up in christian bullshit, don't you?

In Soviet Russia, you bite flea!!

Other Comments by Sciros

16. Comment #261049 by Vaal on October 6, 2008 at 11:16 am

Oh my goodness, nothing more than wishful thinking. God outside the Universe blah blah blah, miracles blah blah blah, nobody knows the mind of God blah blah blah, theology blah blah blah..

This is because God is not a 'thing' within the world that causes other 'things' to happen according to the normal observable physical laws of nature

Ah, the usual cop-out. And just HOW do YOU know this exactly? Has he been chatting to you personally? Assertion with what you consider authority doesn't make it true, it just makes you look a fool. And who created God, why is there only one God if Gods can exist, and why exactly are you so insecure that you need a supernatural agent to justify your existence?

Just the usual straw man tedious drivel. Not a single question answered with anything less than "fairy in the garden" rhetoric. PLEASE come up with an argument that isn't so woolly that I can knit a tent with it. Come on, you MUST be able to do better.

EDIT: Irate, please put this guy out of his misery.

Other Comments by Vaal

17. Comment #261051 by root2squared on October 6, 2008 at 11:19 am

Comment #261048 by Sciros

Lol! That is funny on more than one level.

Other Comments by root2squared

18. Comment #261052 by jaytee_555 on October 6, 2008 at 11:19 am

Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear!

And he gets a salary for this sort of vaccuous waffle?

Richard was right when he remarked that theology was not a valid subject of study. It's all pure double-talk

Other Comments by jaytee_555

19. Comment #261053 by Wosret on October 6, 2008 at 11:19 am

I get really annoyed by these guys.

Just inventing stuff, and saying "god does this" and "god does that", "this is how god works". Is all bald assertion. Demonstrate it. "If we assume X, then I'm right" is not an argument or a rebuttal, it's special pleading.

"Lots of people have claimed to experience something beyond the material, and the natural". This one made me laugh. It would be nice if they could tell us how they know it was beyond the material, and natural, and then what it was exactly, and describe it without referencing the material or natural. Otherwise I don't see anything other than "why people think they know more than they possibly could" needing to be explained.

I found it comical that he criticized RD of speaking about theology without being a theologian, and how he would never do such a thing, and then in the very next "rebuttal" weighs in on what he thinks natural selection can't explain.

This person is simply a transparent hypocrite, an idiot, and a charlatan.

How are such people taken seriously? I can just be happy that they generally aren't, within the intelligentsia.

Other Comments by Wosret

20. Comment #261054 by Sciros on October 6, 2008 at 11:19 am

It would be irritating for a biologist if I were to try to write a book about science in which I displayed my ignorance of the meaning of multicellularity, or the behaviour of chromosomes.

So instead I'll crap out a rubbish article where I display my ignorance of that and a great many other things! Winnar!

Other Comments by Sciros

21. Comment #261055 by Isherwood on October 6, 2008 at 11:20 am

I read through #3, though I'm not sure why. This sums up the article nicely:

"Aquinas presents [his arguments]... as confirmations of faith rather than proofs of it."

Huh? So a "confirmation" is simply an intellectual pat on the back that has no real substance other than emotional security? What a load of steaming poop.

Other Comments by Isherwood

22. Comment #261056 by Lev-CapeTown on October 6, 2008 at 11:21 am

*Starts reading....
Not too bad, very complimentary

gets to:

Moses parting of the Red Sea

*Stops reading

*Smirk* What a dreamer

Other Comments by Lev-CapeTown

23. Comment #261057 by Ole on October 6, 2008 at 11:21 am

They are instead actions that seem to obey a different set of laws, or operate in another dimension of reality that is not specifically accessible to scientific analysis or study, and which shows up in odd events in our own world. They will always therefore seem odd, inexplicable and disputable.

This is an "argument" that people who are into many types of pseudoscience could use.

Btw, how scientfic is theology?

Faust regretted that he had studied that subject: "..und leider theologie"

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

24. Comment #261059 by Nietzschesbulldog on October 6, 2008 at 11:23 am

Holy holes, Batman!

this guy trotts out the the same old arguments filled with the same old tired holes conveniently packed with the Courtier and his bare naked emperor.

it would be funny if it wasn't so f4cking annoying!

We worship God not because he needs it but because it is good for us.

Oh, Really? Tell that to the Incan empire . . . oh, wait, we can't. Because you christians killed them all! NOPE! God doesn't exist

Other Comments by Nietzschesbulldog

25. Comment #261060 by Sciros on October 6, 2008 at 11:25 am

Holy holes, Batman!

I have a .wav on my computer of Burt Ward (as Robin) saying "Holy hole in a doughtnut!"

Other Comments by Sciros

26. Comment #261061 by sunbeamforjesus on October 6, 2008 at 11:27 am

At least Hitler was excluded this time.Speaking of whom,why do all shades of xtian fuckwits always wheel out Hitler as the prime example of what us awful atheists will do when the dead man on a stick is not pulling our strings.Do they not realise that the overwheming majority of the German armed forces,including the S.S.,S.A.,Abwehr,and the Ukrainian Iron Guard (who ran many of the camps under German supervision)were either catholic or lutherans.Hitler himself never actually killed anyone.He persuaded millions of xtians to do the killing for him.

Other Comments by sunbeamforjesus

27. Comment #261062 by Jack Rawlinson on October 6, 2008 at 11:30 am

Sooo... where are these marvellous, subtle theological arguments for the existence of God? I find it really surprising (*cough*) that as a theologian, Tomlin didn't see fit to include any, preferring instead to trot out the usual dismal array of straw men, poor arguments, non-arguments, wishful thinking, argumenta ad populum and similarly fallacious tripe.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

28. Comment #261063 by Lev-CapeTown on October 6, 2008 at 11:32 am

Atheism is just as capable as religion (if not more) of dastardly acts of violence and oppression.

And exactly what doctrine would an atheist be following that would lead him/her to commit violence?

Another little shit nugget....

Other Comments by Lev-CapeTown

29. Comment #261064 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on October 6, 2008 at 11:35 am

Full of logical fallacies, as is to be expected. At least this author appears to have perused the entire table of contents, and possibly even to have read some of the book. he clearly didn't understand all of it... but it's a start. Too bad it doesn't make any of his arguments more than the load of collops they are.

Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher

30. Comment #261065 by J04NN4 on October 6, 2008 at 11:40 am

I'm sure there must be a university out there that would give Richard an honourary degree in theology. Maybe then these idiots would have to think up a more intellectual response than sticking their fingers in their ears and proclaiming they will not respond as Richard has 'no right' to an opinion on the subject.

Other Comments by J04NN4

31. Comment #261066 by Diocletian on October 6, 2008 at 11:41 am

However, there remain a number of questions. For example, several philosophers have pointed out that it is hard to imagine human language appearing through a simple process of genetic evolution. Evolutionary process would normally expect a new ability to have appeared one individual first: however, it is impossible for language to be individual - it has to involve at least two people who converse together.

Hmmm... well perhaps if instead of reading the ramblings of philosophers he read the writings of scientists who study the evolution of language and communication, he would not show his abject ignorance on the topic. That and a better (any?) understanding of natural selection.

Other Comments by Diocletian

32. Comment #261070 by Gruff Mckenzie on October 6, 2008 at 11:52 am

Do you ever feel like a glutton for punishment coming back here to read this tripe?

My favourite was the language stuff, hilarious and intellectually stunted.

Other Comments by Gruff Mckenzie

33. Comment #261074 by Am I Evil? on October 6, 2008 at 11:58 am

"You're no theologian... which means you just don't get it!"

As ever, the only drivel they counter with.

I have more respect for chavs than theologians.

Other Comments by Am I Evil?

34. Comment #261075 by a non e-moose on October 6, 2008 at 11:58 am

The diffrence is that Dawkins doesn't recognize theology as a legitimate field of study, and he makes the case for why it should not be considered one in his book.

Biology on the other hand is the study of life based on empirical observations; a field of study in which expertise is actually worth something. I would like to hear Mr. Tomlins argument for why this is not a legitimate field of study.

Edit: If you want to argue Leprechauns don't exist you don't read hundreds of volums on the feeding habits of Leprechauns, but if you want to prove that, say, multicellularity evolved several times indipendently, you do read several volums on multicelularity and evolution.

Edit II:

However, there remain a number of questions. For example, several philosophers have pointed out that it is hard to imagine human language appearing through a simple process of genetic evolution. Evolutionary process would normally expect a new ability to have appeared one individual first: however, it is impossible for language to be individual - it has to involve at least two people who converse together.

Hmmm... well perhaps if instead of reading the ramblings of philosophers he read the writings of scientists who study the evolution of language and communication, he would not show his abject ignorance on the topic. That and a better (any?) understanding of natural selection.

Oh wow, I didn't even read this far before I got annoyed and gave up. Yes, Mr. Tomlin, it is indeed very irritating when you write books displaying your ignorance, and I'm not even a biologist.

also "christian scientist" or "theologian" =/= philosopher.

Other Comments by a non e-moose

35. Comment #261076 by RainDear on October 6, 2008 at 12:00 pm

What is it with these theologians? Do they have a very low IQ? Or some totally different operating system in their brains? No, probably not.

I doubt Tomlin, a British College Dean, can be as silly as his essay. He must know his arguments wouldn't pass muster in a kindergarten. I think he is just desperately defending his medieval world view, because he believes that society will slide into anarchy if that horrible, godless atheism takes over.

So intellectual dishonesty, plain stupidity or even outright lies are a small price to pay. He is clearly fighting a war to avoid the end of civilization as he knows it.

Other Comments by RainDear

36. Comment #261078 by asyouwere on October 6, 2008 at 12:05 pm

If it "is hard to imagine human language appearing through a simple process of genetic evolution," how more puzzling would human reproduction.

Other Comments by asyouwere

37. Comment #261081 by Caudimordax on October 6, 2008 at 12:08 pm

True, it is not hard to make this case by careful selection of passages, especially from the Old Testament and by the careful ignoring of others where God is presented as long-suffering, patient, 'slow to anger and abounding in love and faithfulness' (Exodus 34:6).

Sort of the way christians make their own case by careful selection of passages and by the careful ignoring of others? Others like Leviticus?

Same old, same old "you don't understand what the book is saying because you need special training to interpret it so that it doesn't say what it is saying."

Other Comments by Caudimordax

38. Comment #261082 by Janus on October 6, 2008 at 12:10 pm

About what I expected from a theologian.

Perhaps the funniest part is that he says 'God of the gaps' is bad theology, and yet a few paragraphs later he uses 'God of the gaps' to 'answer' his questions about language and the origin of the elements that make up life.

Other Comments by Janus

39. Comment #261083 by Nietzschesbulldog on October 6, 2008 at 12:10 pm

god is "transcendant" and god is "immanent" . . . hmmm doesn't make sense . . . god is both in the world and outside of the world . . . hmmmm god is both p and not p . . . hmmm god is a logical contradiction . . . here, I'll help you out, God doesn't exist!

This is why so many of us think that theology is a load of horse sh1t. He may find logical contradictions fascinating and rewarding, but as our consciousness rises higher and higher, the thin veil of wool isn't going to be able to cover our eyes anymore.

Tomlin is fascinated by this now, but soon he is going to be as naked as his emperor!

I have a .wav on my computer of Burt Ward (as Robin) saying "Holy hole in a doughtnut!"

Sciros, I wonder how many people use that style of Robin expression and have any idea where it comes from? I remember seeing only one of those old episodes in my entire life, and I still can't remember ever having heard it.

Other Comments by Nietzschesbulldog

40. Comment #261086 by Darwin's badger on October 6, 2008 at 12:14 pm

The stupid...it burns.

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

41. Comment #261087 by Ivan The Not So Bad on October 6, 2008 at 12:16 pm

"Although today it is hard to find many examples of Christian extremism..."

How many millions are becoming infected with HIV and dying because of Christian teaching (or even outright lies) regarding condoms?

Not hard to think of that one. Took me all of two seconds. And that is coming from a so-called moderate church.

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

42. Comment #261090 by Gibsnag on October 6, 2008 at 12:18 pm

I stopped reading after:

"For example, several philosophers have pointed out that it is hard to imagine human language appearing through a simple process of genetic evolution. Evolutionary process would normally expect a new ability to have appeared one individual first: however, it is impossible for language to be individual - it has to involve at least two people who converse together. "

Who gives a fuck what Philosophers think about Evolutionary Theory?

Other Comments by Gibsnag

43. Comment #261091 by croatcat on October 6, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Perhaps the main problem with Dawkins is that he starts the discussion in the wrong place. Nowhere does the Bible show any interest in the question 'Is there a God?'. The writers do not try to prove it, demonstrate it, or argue for it. They simply assume it.

Ahh. Religion in a nutshell. The old ass-u-me dichotomy.

Other Comments by croatcat

44. Comment #261093 by PHackett on October 6, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Aquinas presents them (as do most other mainstream Christian theologians) as confirmations of faith rather than proofs of it.

So - If you have faith these are good, true logical arguments,

if you dont have faith they are not

It's difficult to know where to begin with this poor reasoning, it baffles me that this person gets in to print.

Other Comments by PHackett

45. Comment #261097 by root2squared on October 6, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Why did they cut down so many trees for this? :(

Why couldn't they simply have sold the unprocessed stuff straight from the bulls?

Why are they so dumb?

Other Comments by root2squared

46. Comment #261101 by Diacanu on October 6, 2008 at 12:28 pm

"Dawkins: a theologian's perspective".

May as well have read...

"Dawkins: a Bigfoot researcher's perspective".

...to my eyes.

Why does "theologian", get such automatic respect?

You always see in movies, or talk shows, or whatever, when there's a big question about the universe, they go "that one's for the theologians, I'm just a/an (insert 'regular guy', occupation)".

I say movies and talk shows, because I've never known a real person to say that shit.

It's always spouted by a fictional character by some writer, or some coached host that doesn't want to offend.
Course, the writer is often bullied by some high up that doesn't want to offend either.
So, you get this insincere infomercial for theology shoved down your throat.
And as usual, religion did nothing to deserve it.

When I see that tired line, I always mentally replace "theologian", with "bullshit artist".

Action Hero- Well, we finally killed all those hideous broccoli monsters.

Sidekick- Where do ya think they came from, Biff?
Were they God's revenge on us for pollution ya think?

Action Hero- *Sardonic smirk* That's one for the bullshit artists, Kip. I got better things to worry about.

Damsel- Oh, Biff Armfist! You say-uved me!

Action Hero- Like pooning my sweet lady! *wink*

*Jump to credits and stunt bloopers*

Other Comments by Diacanu

47. Comment #261102 by Sciros on October 6, 2008 at 12:30 pm

philosophers have pointed out that it is hard to imagine

Well damn, if philosophers find something hard to imagine, then IT IS WRONG!! I agree, we should only put into science books what philosophers find easy to imagine. That is the new standard. Easy to imagine. By philosophers.

events and experiences within oour world which are hard to explain

Easy to explain [to a moron like this author]. That's another good standard. If he can't figure it out, then IT IS WRONG!!

Other Comments by Sciros

48. Comment #261107 by Naturalist1 on October 6, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Hello everyone. No one seems to have noticed the obvious typo in the 4th paragraph from the end. It was supposed to be the word "Made" but came out "Mad". which as it turns out is just perfect, hilarious in fact for this sentence:

We find him when we begin to live as if every person we meet is valuable because they are mad in God's image

.
Mad....Just Barking Mad!

Other Comments by Naturalist1

49. Comment #261109 by Apophenia on October 6, 2008 at 12:39 pm

oh dear..

1.

They are instead actions that seem to obey a different set of laws,.

Gaps law…

God usually achieves his purposes indirectly, through human agency. ,.

Human’s usually achieve their purposes with grandiose stories that make them look like they’d be good to have on side. See politics...

Other Comments by Apophenia

50. Comment #261110 by godsbelow on October 6, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Same-old same-old. Pretending theology is a real field of study and can be used to account for anything. Claiming that something is explained by theology is a contradiction in terms, since none of it has ANY evidentiary basis. They can just make up whatever crap they want. E.g.:

"Christian theology says that God is both beyond this world (transcendent) and yet also operates within this world (immanent)."

Just declaring a fact is not an explanation at all.

Almost feel sorry for theologians: they waste their lives with their pretend philosophy when they might have spent it on real philosophy, learning something.

Other Comments by godsbelow

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 5 | Next | Last