Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 09-16-2007, 10:26 PM

I would disagree with your charge of intellectual dishonestly. Dawkins has not studied theology because he thinks it is on the level of astronomy. I can't say that I blame him.

May I suggest that you discuss this matter in another forum? It would drag this thread too far off topic. But it is rather bad form to lodge such charges in a summary fashion, as if everyone agreed with you, when they don't.

I can split these posts off if you like. Just tell me which forum.

InnocentSmith · 09-16-2007, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I would disagree with your charge of intellectual dishonestly. Dawkins has not studied theology because he thinks it is on the level of astronomy. I can't say that I blame him.

May I suggest that you discuss this matter in another forum? It would drag this thread too far off topic. But it is rather bad form to lodge such charges in a summary fashion, as if everyone agreed with you, when they don't.

I can split these posts off if you like. Just tell me which forum.

My apologies.

I'm not particularly passionate about this issue, so I'm not especially interested in pursuing it further. If you'd like to split it, you may certainly feel free to do so.

darstec · 09-17-2007, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I would disagree with your charge of intellectual dishonestly. Dawkins has not studied theology because he thinks it is on the level of astronomy. I can't say that I blame him.

May I suggest that you discuss this matter in another forum? It would drag this thread too far off topic. But it is rather bad form to lodge such charges in a summary fashion, as if everyone agreed with you, when they don't.

I can split these posts off if you like. Just tell me which forum.

Are you sure you didn't mean astrology?

From a review http://www.rit.edu/~vvrsps/BookRevs/dawkin.htmof Richard Dawkins' book Unweaving the rainbow: science, delusion and the appetite for wonder

Quote:

Dawkins explains as clearly as any good astronomy teacher, and more beautifully than most, what constellations are, and exposes the inanity of statements like 'Neptune moves into Aquarius' (p. 114-116)."

Toto · 09-17-2007, 12:49 AM

Yes I meant astrology. It's been a long day.

Diogenes the Cynic · 09-17-2007, 07:07 AM

I flipped through this book just the other day at a local Borders. It's a typical Strobel collection of "rebuttals" to strawmen. He basically tries to present DaVinci Code type bullshit as "liberal schlarship" and wastes a lot of energy trying to refute claims which basically are not made by NT scholars (like that the Gnostic works are "more accurate" than the Canonicals, for instance). The book doesn't really address actual scholarship, it attacks popular crackpot-ism and then pats itself on the back for having proven the truth of Christianity yet again. As usual, Strobel is convincing to absolutely nobody who isn't already a Christian or who has any genuine knowledge of Historical Jesus scholarship.

Emil · 09-17-2007, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I flipped through this book just the other day at a local Borders. It's a typical Strobel collection of "rebuttals" to strawmen. He basically tries to present DaVinci Code type bullshit as "liberal schlarship" and wastes a lot of energy trying to refute claims which basically are not made by NT scholars (like that the Gnostic works are "more accurate" than the Canonicals, for instance). The book doesn't really address actual scholarship, it attacks popular crackpot-ism and then pats itself on the back for having proven the truth of Christianity yet again. As usual, Strobel is convincing to absolutely nobody who isn't already a Christian or who has any genuine knowledge of Historical Jesus scholarship.

That can be said for most books, can't it? - The God Delusion come to my mind, even though I haven't read all of it.

Diogenes the Cynic · 09-17-2007, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deleet

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I flipped through this book just the other day at a local Borders. It's a typical Strobel collection of "rebuttals" to strawmen. He basically tries to present DaVinci Code type bullshit as "liberal schlarship" and wastes a lot of energy trying to refute claims which basically are not made by NT scholars (like that the Gnostic works are "more accurate" than the Canonicals, for instance). The book doesn't really address actual scholarship, it attacks popular crackpot-ism and then pats itself on the back for having proven the truth of Christianity yet again. As usual, Strobel is convincing to absolutely nobody who isn't already a Christian or who has any genuine knowledge of Historical Jesus scholarship.

That can be said for most books, can't it? - The God Delusion come to my mind, even though I haven't read all of it.

It may be true that certain readers would close their minds to Dawkins but Dawkins is in no way comparable to Strobel in terms of the content and legitimacy of his arguments. For one thing, Dawkin directly addresses the arguments his opponents actually make. Strobel invents arguments that his opponents do NOT make. For anothr thing, Dawkins' arguments are actually grounded in scientific method and verifiable fact while Strobel's are founded on nothing but arguments from pseudo-authority (i.e. interviews with carefully selected, phony "experts") and are shot through with logical fallacies of every conceivable description (circularity and special pleading being chief among them).

Toto · 09-24-2007, 08:24 PM

An amusing review of Strobel's DVD

Quote:

...can Strobel convince us that the Bible is truly an accurate historical document, and not a biased, constantly rewritten and re-imagined religious text engineered by ancient writers to recruit believers? He proposes the following:

...

2) The New Testament stories were passed down by Oral Tradition. Oral Tradition is self correcting, since members of the community with firsthand knowledge would have corrected the storytellers, and those storytellers would have corrected future storytellers, and so forth. Basically, Oral Tradition was more or less an awesome way to preserve data.

...

Number 2, however, is straight-up lunacy. To defend oral history as a good way to accurately preserve historical data, given the shifting moods and needs of storytelling authority figures, is nothing short of absurd. There’s an English bishop in the film who smartly concedes that “It’s obvious that [the bible] has been edited based on the needs of the community.” It’s one of the several contradictions that crops up in the film, and, unfortunately, renders the rest of the film useless, since Strobel uses the gospels to prove Jesus’ divinity from here on in. Which, as you can imagine, is pretty easy.

Minimalist · 09-24-2007, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Proving yet again that apologetics is not about persuading the skeptics. It's about reassuring the believers.

Same was true of the Inquisition.

TCPHumanist · 09-28-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InnocentSmith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In what way are Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris dishonest? That's a serious charge to just fling out without any qualification or proof. For one thing, they are all openly polemical and do not pretend to be doing something that they are not.

Dawkins in particular is often intellectually dishonest at best, though generally only in his work on religion. His biological work is interesting, if not widely accepted. Harris was fine in The End of Faith (or via: amazon.co.uk), but there were a number of issues with his Letter (or via: amazon.co.uk). In general, these authors have the obnoxious habit of commenting on religions which they have not seriously studied, on books they do not seem to have read, and with logic that would embarrass a first-year philosophy student.

No, Toto asked you to provide examples of how the three are dishonest. He did not ask you to just wildly fling some more accusations without cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by InnocentSmith

I'm not especially interested in pursuing it further.

So yet another poster engaging in spurious mud-flinging and then walking away when challenged. Oh well

-------------------------
But back on topic. I recommend anyone who isn't already aware of the site, to check out www.caseagainstfaith.com. The webmaster got an advance copy of The Real Jesus from Zondervan Press, and started his rebuttals from there. He's currently up to chapter 3.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-16-2007, 10:26 PM	#11
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I would disagree with your charge of intellectual dishonestly. Dawkins has not studied theology because he thinks it is on the level of astronomy. I can't say that I blame him. May I suggest that you discuss this matter in another forum? It would drag this thread too far off topic. But it is rather bad form to lodge such charges in a summary fashion, as if everyone agreed with you, when they don't. I can split these posts off if you like. Just tell me which forum.

09-17-2007, 12:49 AM	#14
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Yes I meant astrology. It's been a long day.

09-17-2007, 07:07 AM	#15
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I flipped through this book just the other day at a local Borders. It's a typical Strobel collection of "rebuttals" to strawmen. He basically tries to present DaVinci Code type bullshit as "liberal schlarship" and wastes a lot of energy trying to refute claims which basically are not made by NT scholars (like that the Gnostic works are "more accurate" than the Canonicals, for instance). The book doesn't really address actual scholarship, it attacks popular crackpot-ism and then pats itself on the back for having proven the truth of Christianity yet again. As usual, Strobel is convincing to absolutely nobody who isn't already a Christian or who has any genuine knowledge of Historical Jesus scholarship.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.