One of the biggest whines I hear from theists about The God Delusion is that Richard Dawkins just doesn’t know enough about all that wonderful theology. Why, if only he knew more! Maybe then he would totally be a Christian.
But I’m wondering. What would that knowledge actually change? Aside from making Dawkins a great Jeopardy! player, it’s obvious the whiny little Christians really don’t have an answer. After all, just think about it. Has anyone even bothered to give a single example where having a deep theological background would have changed a single bit of The God Delusion?
The truth is, theology is nothing more than literary criticism with a narrow focus. What’s more – and here’s the kicker – Christian theology assumes God. Why in the hell would Dawkins ever defer to theologians? Using theology to prove God is classic question begging and has no place in a serious debate about the existence of God. I hardly believe anyone who says any different is even really interested in these sort of discussions.
Filed under: Atheism/Humanism | Tagged: Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, theology |
For the Sake of Science 
Theologians and others claim to have some deeper knowledge and insight and finesse but when asked to enumerate what it actually is, they never do. Theologians need to be careful since they reside in a house of cards.
I have come to the conclusion that all teachings of Theology are based upon a misapplied logic. If you accept the premise there is a God, then you can make of the world what you will. Logically, it all follows.
I was taught by the Jesuits, the followers of St. Thomas Aquinas. They were known as the Army of God (and probably still are). I was taught Ethics, Epistemology, Theology, (as well as Greek, Latin and all the other classics) and throughout my 8yrs of training the Logic of St. Thomas applied.
Once you lose the misapplied logic ( i.e. there is a God) I, and learn to think for yourself and not for some doctrinal principle, you learn to think coherently, logically, and consistently. But it was some journey, some battle,,,,
For me, the most interesting aspect is when you hear theologians describe the kind of “God” they can support with rational argumentation.
Inevitably, he bears almost no resemblance to the God that ACTUAL Christians worship. If you started telling a group of random American Christians about “A transcendent immanent being without persona,” they’d be utterly confused. And if the theologian went on to explain that God cannot possibly be a recognizable individual who hears and answers prayers, he’d be swiftly met with “Oh, you’re some kinda ATHEIST. That sure ain’t God you’re talkin’ about!”
Dawkins doesn’t address these “sophisticated” theologians’ arguments because he’s writing for the populace, not the scholars. He doesn’t bother refuting the theologians’ nonsense because nobody knows or even _cares_ about it other than fellow theologians.