But as someone who is a non-believing child of God I think I am compelled and somewhat qualified to say I don't dislike the idea of god, nor the surface values espoused in his name so much as the People he tends to inspire.

They tend to have either a mad glint in their eye and ferocious temper that that stamps out all discussion, or the same “knowing, winking, empty smirk” I mentioned recently certain cool filmmakers have (to keep this somewhat on topic).
I can't stand either type.

Dawkins' fervent anti-godness seems to have the same venom and spit as any religion, in the same way as, say, Michael Moore tends to adopt the same nasty and underhand tactics as the worst of Fox news or some far-right wing of the Republican party.

The only Truth is uncertainty. We – don't – know.
I don't believe there is a God, but fairy muff if there is. I'm sure He'll understand my not caring.
Now leave me alone.

I've long held the view that Heaven is a vast garden, full of sweet-smelling flowers and God-fearing people of every religion.
Hell is the same place.

Jett: “It's this kind of non-reflection = swallowing the con man's codswallop that Dawkins and others attack”
- If this is the case, then what Dawkins dislikes is how gullible or unthinking some/most people are. But I don't think that's it; he really does dislike religion.

Dale: “theology (defined here as the discipline devoted to understanding god's revelations, his will, his rules, etc.)”
- This is not what theology is. It's a part of it, of course, no denying that. But I don't think it's the main part of theology, unless you're studying for priesthood. In an academic setting, the study of theology includes what you might call 'philosophy of religion' -type questions, i.e. 'does god exist?', 'how could we know if god existed?', 'if god existed, what would god be like?', and so on. Crucially, for Gareth's statement about Dawkins considering himself an expert in a field they haven’t studied, it also involves questioning the nature of religion, the development of scripture, orthodoxy; in other words, theology asks the all the same questions that Dawkins asks. (Dawkins obviously provides different answers!) Throughout, he presents himself as knowledgeable about the answers that “theology” gives – but he actually misrepresents them.

Oof – that's a bit long! Sorry for hijacking this thread. So much for Angels and Demons, eh? It must be a very interesting film, seeing as how the topic got changed so quickly…

But as someone who is a non-believing child of God I think I am compelled and somewhat qualified to say I don't dislike the idea of god, nor the surface values espoused in his name so much as the People he tends to inspire.

They tend to have either a mad glint in their eye and ferocious temper that that stamps out all discussion, or the same “knowing, winking, empty smirk” I mentioned recently certain cool filmmakers have (to keep this somewhat on topic).
I can't stand either type.

Dawkins' fervent anti-godness seems to have the same venom and spit as any religion, in the same way as, say, Michael Moore tends to adopt the same nasty and underhand tactics as the worst of Fox news or some far-right wing of the Republican party.

The only Truth is uncertainty. We – don't – know.
I don't believe there is a God, but fairy muff if there is. I'm sure He'll understand my not caring.
Now leave me alone.

I've long held the view that Heaven is a vast garden, full of sweet-smelling flowers and God-fearing people of every religion.
Hell is the same place.

Jett: “It's this kind of non-reflection = swallowing the con man's codswallop that Dawkins and others attack”
- If this is the case, then what Dawkins dislikes is how gullible or unthinking some/most people are. But I don't think that's it; he really does dislike religion.

Dale: “theology (defined here as the discipline devoted to understanding god's revelations, his will, his rules, etc.)”
- This is not what theology is. It's a part of it, of course, no denying that. But I don't think it's the main part of theology, unless you're studying for priesthood. In an academic setting, the study of theology includes what you might call 'philosophy of religion' -type questions, i.e. 'does god exist?', 'how could we know if god existed?', 'if god existed, what would god be like?', and so on. Crucially, for Gareth's statement about Dawkins considering himself an expert in a field they haven’t studied, it also involves questioning the nature of religion, the development of scripture, orthodoxy; in other words, theology asks the all the same questions that Dawkins asks. (Dawkins obviously provides different answers!) Throughout, he presents himself as knowledgeable about the answers that “theology” gives – but he actually misrepresents them.

Oof – that's a bit long! Sorry for hijacking this thread. So much for Angels and Demons, eh? It must be a very interesting film, seeing as how the topic got changed so quickly…

Here's what I'd say about Richard Dawkins: (a) He has said many times — and I think he has a very good point here — that the relevance of theology depends completely on the quality of an underlying truth claim, namely that a god either does or does not exist. If god does not exist, then theology does not matter at all, as it is nothing more than an edifice of word games and just-so stories founded on a delusion. If god does exist, nothing could be important than theology (defined here as the discipline devoted to understanding god's revelations, his will, his rules, etc.)

(b) While Dawkins has no discernible background in theology, his work in science establishes his expertise as an evaluator of hypotheses — he has a very strong record of winnowing what's demonstrably true from the nice-sounding-but-false, the not-particularly-nice-sounding-but-false, and the outright-laughably-false. He is very explicit about his method — it's all on the table. He has applied that demonstrated acumen to the question of god's existence/non-existence and found the hypothesis that god exists is, in his best judgment, false (he rates it a 6 on a 7-point scale where 1=100% certainly true and 7=100% certainly false).

Maybe he succeeded or failed in arriving at that conclusion, and maybe his method for getting to that conclusion is subject to criticism — people differ — but it is his central conclusion. I think he's right with (a) above, and that being so, he does indeed spend no time on theology. I would expect him to change on that — I know I would — were someone to successfully demonstrate, with strong reasoning and evidence and a supportable truth-evaluation methodology whose terms are specified, that the 6 needs to be dialed back to a lower number.

Departing from Dawkins's views now and speaking only for myself, I would simply ask you whether and to what extent you've considered all the theology you've rejected — Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, other Christian sects, etc. I don't claim to know the answer — maybe you've done precisely that. I recall you have a divinity background, and maybe that means you've studied all the theology on the books in exhaustive detail.

So I my smart-ass but still serious question is this: do you insist that every thinking person, yourself included, devote serious attention all the theology he/she does not currently embrace — suspending judgment until it has all been given a fair hearing? Or do you just apply this to Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and other atheists?

Truly the conversation never ends.

we've spoken before about your view that dawkin's take of theology is facile, and as you put it, at a 'high school magazine level' – i think that's correct re: comparing the people/concepts he discusses to your grasp/vision of faith/theology.

the thing is – the folks dawkin's talks about in his book – the ones who literally believe in satan/demons, (NOT as metaphor – but as reality), are legion – not everyone has your subtle approach. i just got back from a couple of days away in eastern tennessee and saw with my own eyes a congregation of THOUSANDS nodding along, saying “that's right” to a preacher who says the United Nations is a front for the anti-christ and hinted quite clearly that president obama himself might be the 'dark one'.

the folks in the pews sure seemed convinced. and it's this kind of non-reflection = swallowing the con man's codswallop that dawkins and others attack.

i know plenty of smart people who have faith – but i'd call it philosophical inquiry – these smart folks just happened to be inculcated/raised in organised religion – so it becomes the framework for the philosophical apprehension of the world.

does that make any sense?

Indeed, I doubt Ron Howard and Tom Hanks consider themselves experts on “the intersection of faith and science.” They make moving pictures.

Please state what Richard Dawkins has gotten wrong by dint of his assumed unfamiliarity with “faith” — by which I take you to mean theology, perhaps? Philosophy?

Exactly what did Dawkins neglect to study that, had he given it the attention it deserves, would have (or should have) altered his conclusions? Did Bart Ehrman, John W. Loftus, Hector Avalos, and Dan Barker, all of whom came to substantially equivalent conclusions as Dawkins on the “interaction between faith and science,” also neglect to study whatever you're talking about?

I realize I've posed a big question here, but this is a big blog (they all are — the internet is far from full), and as you said, these topics “deserve a better hearing.”

Thanks.