"...intellectual God-haters of the past."

Yes yes, I know it's the 'biblical view' that atheists hate something they don't believe exists, but to be consistent, shouldn't you throw in 'father-hater' and 'mother-hater' instead of 'Christian' in your posts every so often?

Does anyone know what passages or books in the Bible are the basis for the definition of true atheists as people who 1) don't believe in God and 2) hate him?
Dave L | 08.08.07 - 5:48 pm | #

"This all reminds me of the oft-repeated, virtually mantra-like insistence among the e-atheist crowd that belief in God is no different than belief in Santa Claus."

So, what is the difference? Christian adults believe in the fairy tale while only children believe in the fairy tale of Santa Claus? Well, if it's a different audience that makes the remark stupid then so be it, but it's far from stupid. That billions of adults (is it really that many - I doubt it) believe in it does not make it true. Billions of adults also believe in Allah, or Vishnu, or many other gods. Even more people disbelieve in Yahweh, so I guess that means that Yahweh is a myth after-all. It's not the argument that suxors, it's your apologetics.

"The so-called "New Atheism" is a movement badly in need of sound intellectual footing."

And what intellectual footing do YOU have for your beliefs? Science certainly doesn't support what is written in your Bible. You have to twist the words to make them fit what science does say. You twist in the wind in order to support some fanciful notion that has no evidence in favor of it, and somehow you think you have a solid intellectual footing? Oh, please tell me what it is.
GCT | 08.08.07 - 6:17 pm | #

GCT,

Oh, please tell me what it is.

If it's so easy, then it shouldn't be too hard, yet you don't present anything. What is it about Norm Shepherd that is good? Can you give an argument of your own? Seriously. You talk a big game all the time about how intellectual your position is and how all the atheist critiques have been so well answered, etc. etc. etc. yet you never back it up. Well, back it up for once. I'm calling you out.
GCT | 08.08.07 - 9:55 pm | #

GCT,
Call me out with specifics.

Norm Shepherd is an example of a true scholar, albeit one with whom I often disagree. My point is that his scholarship is vastly superior to that of Dawkins. As I have stated elsewhere Dawkins's arguments are little more than "Religion hurts people" and "If God made everything, who made God?" These are the arguments of a third grader; all Dawkins does is dress them in a cheap tuxedo.

I have called atheists out, in the past, asking for one argument that Dawkins has made that is a threat or a challenge to Christianity. Just one. In spite of the gazillion comments you have posted here, you didn't offer such an example. I'm still waiting.
At the same time, I gave an example of an atheist who did present arguments that were a threat to Christianity: Bertrand Russell. Now there was an intellectual atheist. He makes Dawkins look second rate, and that's being generous. Dawkins offers no argument against Christianity of the caliber that Russell was able to construct. Not even close.
heddle | Homepage | 08.08.07 - 10:46 pm | #

"Dawkins is the equivalent of a "theologian" for atheism."

No, he is the equivalent of a 'popularizer' for atheism. That's like saying Jerry Falwell was a 'theologian'. He's a scientist, not a philosopher, and although you've obviously been confronted with his arguments before, there are plenty of Christians who haven't. You've complained before about him and I believe specifically how he hasn't come up with any new arguments; are you implying that there's some new argument for theism that's been made recently?

"I could give any number of contemporary Christian theologians whose scholarship is vastly superior to the simpleminded arguments found in The God Delusion. His own countryman, Norm Shepherd, for example."

But in your post the criteria was intelligent *and* prominent which was your lead-in to Dawkins. A search on Amazon for Mr. Shepherd under Norm or Norman first brings up a book about German Shepherds, and he didn't write it. As you mentioned earlier, Bertrand Russell pretty much handled most of the arguments a while ago; with no new argument for the existence of God, there's not that much scholarship left to do that isn't repetitious.

All that and Santa Claus too. You've of course chosen the easiest target and ignore the example that is far more analogous and at least as frequent: Zeus. They didn't build Wonders of the World to a wink and a nod.
Dave L | 08.08.07 - 11:06 pm | #

Dave L, and GCT,

Sorry, my error, I meant N. T. Wright. It is Wright who is Dawkins’s countryman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_T_Wright

The two (Shepherd and Wright) are more-or-less on the same side of a big argument within reformdom (the New Perspective on Paul)--but it is unforgivable that I confused them. N. T. Wright fans will have my head on a pole. While they are both associated with the New Perspective on Paul debate, which is my lame excuse for mixing up their names, Wright is the more orthodox of the two and the more prolific.

Though both are theologians, it is Wright who is the theologian extraordinaire.

And yes, he is offering new insights to Christianity and, unlike Dawkins, conducting fresh research and scholarship. In fact, and again unlike Dawkins, he is in some ways, in some circles, turning it on its head. Search on "New Perspective on Paul" and "Federal Vision" and you'll get a hint. As a scholar of first century Judaism, he has argued that Luther interpreted Romans incorrectly--mistakenly believing that Paul was accusing the Jews of following a theology of works-salvation. In then follows (if you buy his argument) that the Reformed battle cry of "Justification by Faith Alone", which Luther based on his interpretation of Romans, is on shaky ground.

As a Christian, Wright is offering challenges that must be taken seriously, because of his scholarship. Dawkins offers nothing of the sort.

As for Zeus, you will note that Russell did not argue: believing in God is like believing in Zeus, game over man, no more debate. Victory by analogy. No, he argued, in detail and with specifics, that Christianity was inconsistent. He was a scholar. Dawkins is an amateur. He saw the difference, even if you can’t.
heddle | Homepage | 08.08.07 - 11:34 pm | #

David, thanks for the correction and the link on Wright; I will check that out. You're obviously very well read, so you of all people don't need to apologize for mixing up names.

I think though that you are comparing apples to oranges. Although Dawkins is all over the map on the different aspects of theism that he argues against, ultimately he argues against the question of whether God or any god exists. No doubt that Wright is scholarly, but is it safe to say that most of what you consider to be theological scholarship assumes that God exists? From a cursory reading of the 'New Perspective on Paul' debate for example, I see no intersection between that scholarship and the question of whether God exists. Nor would Dawkins or Russell even need to address the existence of that particular debate (except to possibly try to tie it in to some type of inconsistency.) You seem to criticize Dawkins for something that I don't think is clear that he even set out to accomplish. Would you criticize Sagan because 'Cosmos' didn't come up with any new 'scholarship'; I'd assume not because he primarily tried to explain difficult scientific topics in laymen's terms, i.e, popularize it. I'd wager also that more people have probably now read parts of Dawkins book than have read a single Russell essay, just as I'd guess that most people haven't learned what they know about Einstein by reading his papers.
Dave L | 08.09.07 - 11:21 am | #

"As for Zeus, you will note that Russell did not argue: believing in God is like believing in Zeus, game over man, no more debate. Victory by analogy. No, he argued, in detail and with specifics, that Christianity was inconsistent. He was a scholar. Dawkins is an amateur. He saw the difference, even if you can’t."

I didn't say I don't see any difference; no analogy is perfect. By far the most common criticism of Dawkins in the 'seedy e-ghetto' is the accusation that Dawkins attacks the most simplistic and easily refutable beliefs of theists, and I see frequently the refrain, "Pffft, he's an idiot, those aren't my religious beliefs". I think your comment about e-atheists and Santa Claus is too similar to that, as far as taking on a very simplistic analogy and implying that all e-atheists say that belief in Santa Claus is 'just like' belief in God.

Your comment specifically referred to the number of people who believe in God and the SC 'wink and nod' as evidence that there is 'something going on' with one and not the other. Comparing God to Zeus IMO refutes both of those arguments (not that I think that the fact a lot of people believe in something is evidence for the truth of it's existence), despite the difference in how they were worshipped and what those gods represent/represented to their respective believers. Although the Zeus, Bigfoot, Santa Claus, etc, comparison is admittedly usually brought up to take a swipe at theism, I'd like to think that it also arises to help focus the conversation. You and I are in agreement (I assume) that Zeus does not and did not ever exist (and I'll assume that the reason you don't is not just because you believe in a different god), which means we can disregard a lot of arguments for God's existence if they also support the existence of Zeus (Argument from Design, Argument from First Causes, IMO of course, and leaving aside what people said specifically about who Zeus was), and focus on the other arguments for why the Christian God exists and no one else's does.
Dave L | 08.09.07 - 11:49 am | #

"As for Zeus, you will note that Russell did not argue: believing in God is like believing in Zeus, game over man, no more debate. Victory by analogy. No, he argued, in detail and with specifics, that Christianity was inconsistent. He was a scholar. Dawkins is an amateur. He saw the difference, even if you can’t."

So, you find the teapot to be sufficiently different?

"Call me out with specifics."

I did. Find me some scholarly works that support god and all that. I'll look at the NT Wright link when I have more time, but if he is arguing about Martin Luther, then I'm not thinking that he's bringing anything new to the table, which is your argument against Dawkins, correct? Of course, you ignore the fact that Dawkins, in his book, doesn't pretend to have new arguments, and regularly talks about how all the arguments have been made before (and even tells you by whom.)

Also, by scholarship, what do you mean? What is Wright's "scholarship" and how is it good? Is he good at finding specific quotes in the Bible to support his position? Is that what passes for "good scholarship" and sound intellectual footing?

"I have called atheists out, in the past, asking for one argument that Dawkins has made that is a threat or a challenge to Christianity. Just one. In spite of the gazillion comments you have posted here, you didn't offer such an example. I'm still waiting."

And you've been answered a couple times. Multiple people have pointed out that Dawkins is a popularizer and speaking on the subject as a scientist, not a theologian or a philosopher. You've ignored those, of course. I also have to wonder if this challenge is like Dr. Dino's evolution challenge. Nothing would persuade you, so no challenge will be seen as fit by you. True or false?
GCT | 08.09.07 - 4:07 pm | #

GCT,

Find me some scholarly works that support god and all that

Nothing would persuade you, so no challenge will be seen as fit by you. True or false?

"I don't demand that Dawkins provide scholarly work demonstrating that God doesn't exist--that's asking too much. I ask for scholarly work that intelligently and innovatively attacks theism."

How does one intelligently and innovatively attack the argument that some sky daddy is up there watching over us and trying to make us be good so that we can get a lollipop? I mean, the argument itself is so third grade that it wouldn't even merit a response if not for the many people that think it's true.

"False. One argument from Dawkins that would cause any knowledgable Christian more than ten seconds of concern, and I'll acknowledge defeat."

Yes, but there is nothing he could say that you would contend gave you more than 10 seconds concern, because you've already decided the outcome. IOW, you've rigged the game.

"And Dawkins acknowledging the fact that he has nothing new to contribute, doesn't change the fact that he has nothing new to contribute."

So, you feel comfortable criticizing him for not doing something that he didn't set out to do? Why don't you also criticize him for not trying to run a mile in under 5 minutes. He obviously can't, but there are those who can. Oh wait, he hasn't set out to do that, well criticize anyway.
GCT | 08.09.07 - 6:54 pm | #

Another Christian blogger Henry Neufeld has a good summary of Dawkins' book, which is representative of his comments on theism:

"Basically you can get two completely different impressions from reading this book. The first is of a proposed dialog which invites a broad range of people who are opposed to placing religious dogma above science, of indoctrination, of forcing religious beliefs on people, and of limiting the freedom of scientific inquiry. The second is of a desire to suppress religion if it is possible to do so by any means short of violence, and describes all people of any variety of religious faith in disparaging terms."

Those assessments are only tangentially related to theology, and are more social than anything. I suspect that it is the second primarily that you find so irritating about Dawkins, and rightly so. Although he's guilty(?) of making pretty much the same arguments against theism that have been made previously (and some new bad ones, such as making arguments assuming god must be natural), that's a far cry from the strawman you've created of him being the 'theologian for atheism', and I'm not even sure you've shown that such a thing even makes sense. It's absurd to compare disparate subjects like the philosophical question of whether God exists, for instance, to the studied interpretation of Paul's writings, just to make some vague statement about the current state of theist vs atheist intellectualism.
Dave L | 08.09.07 - 8:24 pm | #

David had an excellent description of Russell concerning how he argued against Christianity by showing how it was inconsistent if you accepted that viewpoint. Are there any theologians who have done the converse: assume there is no God and show how that is internally inconsistent? The only argument that comes to mind immediately is the argument concerning morality.
Dave L | 08.09.07 - 8:26 pm | #