tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52912413020249030.post2471854468802276593..comments2024-03-12T11:58:24.510+13:00Comments on Otagosh: Dissing DawkinsGavin Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17965552923012880262noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52912413020249030.post-23975144705127219462013-02-16T20:37:56.532+13:002013-02-16T20:37:56.532+13:00When Dawkins pointed out that Craig defended the k...When Dawkins pointed out that Craig defended the killing of Canaanite children, Dawkins was accused of only bashing fundamentalists and not engaging with sophisticated theology.<br /><br />When Dawkins then refused to debate Craig, it turned out that Craig had all along been one of the foremost Christian thinkers in the world and Dawkins was accused of not engaging with sophisticated theology.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52912413020249030.post-76141915336060223202013-02-15T07:45:55.485+13:002013-02-15T07:45:55.485+13:00Skeptics clearly haven't done the hard yards b...<i>Skeptics clearly haven't done the hard yards by researching the leading thinkers.</i><br /><br />True, and neither have the Christians themselves. They would have to break down the closed doors of the biblical scholars who are completely out of touch with what Christian churches actually teach their congregants. Far from being on the beaten track of Christianity, the biblical scholar is an aloof, far out doofus as far as the every day, average church goer is concerned. <br /><br />I don't know many times I have heard an average church goer say that they don't care how much alphabet soup a scholar has after his name, they know what the bible says and they don't need any scholars to tell them. <br /><br />Well, they don't, I reckon, because they do have the Reverend Billie Bob to tell them all they need to know. Don't even need to read the bible, they know what it says...and so forth and so on...and they're not gonna be fooled by no dang college professors!<br /><br />But, when their simplistic (and ignorant) beliefs are attacked by skeptics they run to those same hated "know nothing" biblical scholars for protection. <br /><br />It's all confirmation bias, of course, the desire to believe those who confirm our presupposed beliefs and assumptions. And, there's no way to escape confirmation bias except by accepting evidence based arguments - whether we want to or not.<br /><br />Now, people <i>say</i> they would accept the truth, no matter what it is, but they prove every Sunday that they really won't. It has been proved, with plenty of evidence, that evolution is true. Yet, people would still prefer to believe that God poofed everything into existence, as is. Then, there are others who choose to believe God poofed the universe into existence from nothing and let evolution take it's course from that point. <br /><br />That's when they allow cognitive dissonance to take control of their thinking and try their best to believe two opposites at the same time, black is white and white is black...the sun orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun, everything had a cause, God didn't have a cause. Corkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15894537940881776504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52912413020249030.post-51148184826203899822013-02-15T07:37:02.730+13:002013-02-15T07:37:02.730+13:00I believe your point is well taken. Mark Knoll to...I believe your point is well taken. Mark Knoll touched on this same theme in his book "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind." The debate has become so sharp between atheists and Christian apologists that I believe reasonable debate has become extinct. For example, many of the respondents to your statement will assume exactly what you said you are not doing: engaging in a pro-atheistic rant. They will see it exactly that way and rush to jump on the bandwagon with supportive statements without ever understanding the point of what you said. A snappy salute for Dawkins is the prescribed attitude. Christians on the other hand would see your statement as another indefensible attack on Christianity. It is neither. What you have tried to do is find that slice of rationality where constructive debate can happen but that has become ever so tiny. <br /><br />-- NeoAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08487906691943831671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52912413020249030.post-22608449830734037492013-02-15T02:12:16.965+13:002013-02-15T02:12:16.965+13:00Agreed. Richard Dawkins may not understand Paul Ti...Agreed. Richard Dawkins may not understand Paul Tillich's theology, but he doesn't need to. He offers very valid (and, in my opinion, devastating) critiques of the fuzzy, half-baked beliefs 95% of the faithful hold to.Paul D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13483419817200339955noreply@blogger.com