Dawkins Invalidates Himself

[vitamin]

I'm a former Christian (and pastor) from the Midwest who still has many, unfortunate ties to the Christian church. Yesterday, I received a forwarded email from my father-in-law containing what he believes is the laughable contradiction of Richard Dawkins' "God Delusion."

K. Clifton says:
Richard Dawkins is invalidating and marginalizing himself.

Richard Dawkins is an Evolutionary Biologist that gained some popularity in his brand of "science." However, that isn't what has him in the news, today. His book, The God Delusion, is the point of popularity that puts him in news search engines. This book attacks religion and the religious.

Now, I expect nothing less than an atheist (who chooses to disbelieve God) to write a book that says God isn't real. In fact, the Bible predicts that such events will follow people who try desperately to justify their belief against their own logic. So, the presence of his book didn't even bother me for a long time...as I said, I expect nothing less. Further, it didn't surprise me at all that it was selling well in a society that, also, seeks to deny God's reign over their lives. So, that didn't bother me, either.

However, it JUST dawned on me the irony, here. We have a man that has NO degree in religion writing an "authoritive" book about religion. Further, we have a man that rejects religion proclaimed to be an authoritive source on what religion is or is not. A few notes...

-First, what if a person with a religious degree (and no science training) were to write a book on evolution or biology. Would they not immediately be condemned for stepping outside their field and teaching without authority? In fact, this has happened, and they ARE condemned for just that. So, how is it that Dawkins gets a pass and gains authority without study?

-Second, since when does a person that rejects a field become an expert in that field? Can I, with a religious degree, reject Hinduism as being truth but claim to be an authority about what Hinduism is or is not?

-Finally...and this is the funnies part...this book gives a startling view of just how deeply Dawkins digs before reaching a conclusion. Thus, this book casts a shadow of doubt on ALL of his past work. After all, it is impossible for Dawkins to KNOW there is no God. Has he been in all of the universe to know God is not there? Was he there at the start of the universe to KNOW God wasn't there? In fact, science and evolution, itself, denies that science states truth, claiming only to deal in probabilities. So, when we have a "scientist" that states absolutely that there is no God without research or proof, how many other of his theories were reached with such unfounded faith? Indeed, the fact that he is an "evolutionary" biologist kinda backs this up, reaching conclusions without proof and portraying them (against the nature of science) as absolute truth. I think this book has done more to damage his own authority than God's.

After all, why should we listen to this man about religion, when he, apparently, isn't even a very good scientist.

Kenneth Clifton
-author of The Christian Superhero Training Guide

[Reager]

It doesn't require a divinity degree to recognize and expose the evidentiary paucity, logical fallibility, intellectual absurdity, and real-world harm of religion.

In other words, you don't have to be able to debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin to successfully argue that angels probably don't exist in the first place.


I'm a former Christian (and pastor) from the Midwest who still has many, unfortunate ties to the Christian church. Yesterday, I received a forwarded email from my father-in-law containing what he believes is the laughable contradiction of Richard Dawkins' "God Delusion."

K. Clifton says:

Richard Dawkins is invalidating and marginalizing himself.


Richard Dawkins is an Evolutionary Biologist that gained some popularity in his brand of "science." However, that isn't what has him in the news, today. His book, The God Delusion, is the point of popularity that puts him in news search engines. This book attacks religion and the religious.


Now, I expect nothing less than an atheist (who chooses to disbelieve God) to write a book that says God isn't real. In fact, the Bible predicts that such events will follow people who try desperately to justify their belief against their own logic. So, the presence of his book didn't even bother me for a long time...as I said, I expect nothing less. Further, it didn't surprise me at all that it was selling well in a society that, also, seeks to deny God's reign over their lives. So, that didn't bother me, either.


However, it JUST dawned on me the irony, here. We have a man that has NO degree in religion writing an "authoritive" book about religion. Further, we have a man that rejects religion proclaimed to be an authoritive source on what religion is or is not. A few notes...


-First, what if a person with a religious degree (and no science training) were to write a book on evolution or biology. Would they not immediately be condemned for stepping outside their field and teaching without authority? In fact, this has happened, and they ARE condemned for just that. So, how is it that Dawkins gets a pass and gains authority without study?


-Second, since when does a person that rejects a field become an expert in that field? Can I, with a religious degree, reject Hinduism as being truth but claim to be an authority about what Hinduism is or is not?


-Finally...and this is the funnies part...this book gives a startling view of just how deeply Dawkins digs before reaching a conclusion. Thus, this book casts a shadow of doubt on ALL of his past work. After all, it is impossible for Dawkins to KNOW there is no God. Has he been in all of the universe to know God is not there? Was he there at the start of the universe to KNOW God wasn't there? In fact, science and evolution, itself, denies that science states truth, claiming only to deal in probabilities. So, when we have a "scientist" that states absolutely that there is no God without research or proof, how many other of his theories were reached with such unfounded faith? Indeed, the fact that he is an "evolutionary" biologist kinda backs this up, reaching conclusions without proof and portraying them (against the nature of science) as absolute truth. I think this book has done more to damage his own authority than God's.


After all, why should we listen to this man about religion, when he, apparently, isn't even a very good scientist.


Kenneth Clifton

-author of The Christian Superhero Training Guide

[DoubtingStephen]

One wonders if Mister Clifton has a PhD in superhero development?

In the first paragraph we see the word science safely protected from being taken seriously by the use of quotation marks. He then goes on to conflate attacking a delusion with attacking the deluded.

In the second paragraph we are blessed with the revelation that the good Doctor has chosen not to believe in God. Perhaps atheism is a Lifestyle Choice in the same way as homosexuality is a Lifestyle Choice, in other words, not at all.

Professor Dawkins has not so much chosen to disbelieve in the existence of an Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy as he has gotten tired of waiting for the slightest shred of evidence that some such Super Pal exists. This is not a choice, it is a logical conclusion. As a man of science, which is distinctly different from being a Fundamentalist, I'm sure the good Doctor would be willing to reconsider his position in the extremely unlikely event that evidence should come forward of the existence of a tall, bearded, bad-tempered, Caucasian founder of the universe.

Until such an occasion any rational person would continue to fail to give credibility to fantastic and preposterous claims that are completely without even the tiniest shred of supporting evidence.

[JoeEllison]

Weak...

[Myriad]

Hi vitamin, and welcome to the forum.

You might ask whether or not Christian tradition allows writing authoritatively about Christianity without a degree.

And by the way, what degree did Paul have?

In any case, arguing based on the academic credentials of the person making the argument is fallacious, on either side.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[thaiboxerken]

The convoluted logic of these religious "experts" really does leave me wondering how or why they think they are logical at all.

[fls]

Is God unique? I don't recall the "after having searched all the universe" qualifier added to anything else we care to say about the universe, such as "two bodies are attracted to each other by a force which is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses". Are there any other claims we quibble over because all the universe has yet to be searched?

Linda

[Pixel42]

it is impossible for Dawkins to KNOW there is no God.
Dawkins agrees, and states as much in The God Delusion.

when we have a "scientist" that states absolutely that there is no God
Dawkins states no such thing, either in The God Delusion or anywhere else.

Clearly this guy has not read the book, so his opinion of it is worthless.

[dahduh]

First, a person's lack of authority in a particular field has no bearing on the correctness or otherwise of their arguments. The converse is the well-known "argument from authority" fallacy. It does of course have bearing on whether or not you choose to take the trouble to look at the argument in detail. Since Dawkins has established his credentials as a serious academic, he is probably worth listening to at least.

Second, Dawkins never claims to be an 'expert' on religion; indeed, in the first few pages of his book he remarks that theology appears to be a subject with any content, and while it has plenty of breadth it appears to have no depth at all. Taking theology as an example, the premise is that God exists. If one rejects the premise, then one can reject the entire field without looking any further. This is much like a physicist rejecting a claim of a perpetual motion machine without even bothering to look at the machine, if the inventor cannot explain what happened to the law of conservation of energy.

Finally, it seems that while Mr. Clifton may have turned the pages of Dawkin's book, he hasn't really read and thought about it. According to Mr. Clifton, since Dawkins can't prove God does not exist (true, and something Dawkins would be the first to admit), therefore God exists. Dawkins can't disprove the existence of unicorns or teapots beyond the orbit of Pluto orbiting the sun, but it doesn't follow that the teapots are there or that unicorns exist. The point is dealt with in Dawkin's book, and elsewhere ad nauseum.

I would also correct Mr. Clifton on one other point: more than once he refers to Dawkin's 'faith'. Dawkin's state of mind about God is not one of faith, but one of unbelief, something entirely different.

It's amusing to pick out all the logical fallacies Mr. Clifton makes, but now I'm bored with this already. Same old same old.

[CFLarsen]

Dear Kenneth,

...wherever you may be...

an atheist (who chooses to disbelieve God)

An atheist is someone who has no supernatural beliefs. It isn't necessarily a choice - we are born atheists. You, too.

In fact, the Bible predicts that such events will follow people who try desperately to justify their belief against their own logic.

Why would this validate the Bible? I doubt there are any promoters of the supernatural/paranormal/miraculous who doesn't warn against criticism. Does that validate their beliefs?

If not, why not?

So, the presence of his book didn't even bother me for a long time...as I said, I expect nothing less. Further, it didn't surprise me at all that it was selling well in a society that, also, seeks to deny God's reign over their lives. So, that didn't bother me, either.

However, it JUST dawned on me the irony, here.

Sure, it didn't bother you. :rolleyes:

We have a man that has NO degree in religion

What the heck is a "degree in religion"?

writing an "authoritive" book about religion.

Who has claimed the book is "authoritive"?

Further, we have a man that rejects religion proclaimed to be an authoritive source on what religion is or is not.

Who has claimed that Dawkins is an "authoritive"?

And it's "authoritative". Yes, I got that from an authoritative source. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritive)

First, what if a person with a religious degree (and no science training) were to write a book on evolution or biology. Would they not immediately be condemned for stepping outside their field and teaching without authority? In fact, this has happened, and they ARE condemned for just that. So, how is it that Dawkins gets a pass and gains authority without study?

Dawkins doesn't get a "pass" from this. All that matters is arguments, evidence and facts.

Second, since when does a person that rejects a field become an expert in that field? Can I, with a religious degree, reject Hinduism as being truth but claim to be an authority about what Hinduism is or is not?

What does it take to become an expert in the field? I can get a "religious degree" on the bleedin' Internet by paying a few dollars, does that make me an expert in the field?

Finally...and this is the funnies part...this book gives a startling view of just how deeply Dawkins digs before reaching a conclusion. Thus, this book casts a shadow of doubt on ALL of his past work.

No, it doesn't. Think what you like about Dawkins' opinions on religion, it doesn't take away any of his evidence on evolution and science.

After all, it is impossible for Dawkins to KNOW there is no God.

He doesn't claim to.

Has he been in all of the universe to know God is not there? Was he there at the start of the universe to KNOW God wasn't there?

Have you been there, so you know that God is there? The onus is on you - you are the one making the claim that God exists.

In fact, science and evolution, itself, denies that science states truth, claiming only to deal in probabilities.

You can call it that. But it is "probabilities" based on verifiable evidence and scientifically based theories.

What do you have, besides personal faith? And why should we weigh your personal beliefs more than science?

So, when we have a "scientist"

Dawkins is a scientist. If you don't think he is, what do you think a scientist is?

that states absolutely that there is no God without research or proof

Yeah, you got that one right. I don't see how that can possibly be a reason to criticize him, though. He goes on evidence, you go on...faith?

You want to pit those two against each other and see which is the best explanation of the real world?

, how many other of his theories were reached with such unfounded faith? Indeed, the fact that he is an "evolutionary" biologist kinda backs this up, reaching conclusions without proof and portraying them (against the nature of science) as absolute truth.

Not at all. Dawkins, as a scientist, bases his arguments on evidence and scientific theories. But he would be the first to tell you that science isn't about absolute truth.

Only believers will claim absolute truth - but they do that based on nothing but their own faith.

I think this book has done more to damage his own authority than God's.

It is telling that you claim to speak for God.

After all, why should we listen to this man about religion, when he, apparently, isn't even a very good scientist.

Why should we listen to you, when you clearly can't get the most fundamental things right?

[tsg]

K. Clifton says:
[...]
However, it JUST dawned on me the irony, here. We have a man that has NO degree in religion writing an "authoritive" book about religion. Further, we have a man that rejects religion proclaimed to be an authoritive source on what religion is or is not. A few notes...


Courtier's Reply (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply#The_Courtier.27s_Reply). Nothing more. One need not be an expert in fashion to see the Emperor has no clothes.

[dogjones]

If a person (or even, parson) were to present evidence for a scientific hypothesis, the quality of the evidence would be examined rather than the background of the parson. In other words, the science is what is rigorously examined, not the scientist. Remember that science is a methodology, a tool - nothing more. A person with no letters after their name can theoretically use this tool as effectively as any other (in reality though, it's experience with said tool that makes one proficient.)

[NobbyNobbs]

K. Clifton says:

However, it JUST dawned on me the irony, here. We have a man that has NO degree in religion writing an "authoritive" book about religion. Further, we have a man that rejects religion proclaimed to be an authoritive source on what religion is or is not. A few notes...

-First, what if a person with a religious degree (and no science training) were to write a book on evolution or biology. Would they not immediately be condemned for stepping outside their field and teaching without authority? In fact, this has happened, and they ARE condemned for just that. So, how is it that Dawkins gets a pass and gains authority without study?

Kenneth Clifton
-author of The Christian Superhero Training Guide


And yet, priests feel qualified to give marriage counseling. Go figure.

[Ratatoskr]

So the short version is: "Only a priest should decide whether there is a God"?

[Fnord]

It doesn't require a divinity degree to recognize and expose the evidentiary paucity, logical fallibility, intellectual absurdity, and real-world harm of religion.

In other words, you don't have to be able to debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin to successfully argue that angels probably don't exist in the first place.


Let me apply a little Ad Absurdium to your thesis...

It doesn't require a degree in forensic science to recognize and expose the evidentiary paucity, logical fallibility, intellectual absurdity, and real-world threat of the 911 conspiracy and coverup.

In other words, you don't have to be able to debate how many people it takes to fly a plane to successfully argue that those 19 terrorists probably didn't exist in the first place.

(Ach! I should have used the term "Ad Nauseum"!)

It's not so much that I disagree with your conclusions, but it's the initial assumptions you used that tend to discredit the rest of your thesis.

Oh, wait ... that was your entire thesis!

[Reager]

Huh?

Let me apply a little Ad Absurdium to your thesis...

It doesn't require a degree in forensic science to recognize and expose the evidentiary paucity, logical fallibility, intellectual absurdity, and real-world threat of the 911 conspiracy and coverup.

In other words, you don't have to be able to debate how many people it takes to fly a plane to successfully argue that those 19 terrorists probably didn't exist in the first place.

(Ach! I should have used the term "Ad Nauseum"!)

It's not so much that I disagree with your conclusions, but it's the initial assumptions you used that tend to discredit the rest of your thesis.

Oh, wait ... that was your entire thesis!

[Madalch]

And by the way, what degree did Paul have?
In any case, arguing based on the academic credentials of the person making the argument is fallacious, on either side.
Then Simon said, "Are we suppose to know this?";
and Andrew said, "Do we have to write this down?".
And James said, "Will this be on the exam?".

(From here: http://draltang01.blogspot.com/2007/03/lesson.html )

[Dr Adequate]

Richard Dawkins is invalidating and marginalizing himself. Nothing like a bestseller to marginalize a man.

In fact, the Bible predicts that such events will follow people who try desperately to justify their belief against their own logic. There's a lot of meaningless statements in the Bible, though I must have missed this one.

Could you translate it from Fundie into English?

However, it JUST dawned on me the irony, here. When an opinion has JUST dawned on me, I spend a while wondering if it's true and coherent before shooting my mouth off about it, you might learn from my example.

We have a man that has NO degree in religion writing an "authoritive" book about religion. Further, we have a man that rejects religion proclaimed to be an authoritive source on what religion is or is not. Who has "proclaimed" him to be more "authoritative" than the next man?

First, what if a person with a religious degree (and no science training) were to write a book on evolution or biology. Would they not immediately be condemned for stepping outside their field and teaching without authority? Not if they were right.

For example, there was a chap called Darwin (you may have heard of him) whose only degree was in theology, but when he wrote a book on evolution and biology, he had no difficulty getting his ideas heard and eventually accepted by scientists. The only people I've ever heard whining about his lack of a biology degree are halfwitted religious fanatics enslaved to their notion that ideas require "authority". Scientists, by contrast, know that what an idea needs is evidence.

-Second, since when does a person that rejects a field become an expert in that field? Can I, with a religious degree, reject Hinduism as being truth but claim to be an authority about what Hinduism is or is not? Only if you have studied Hinduism and do in fact know what it is and isn't.

-Finally...and this is the funnies part...this book gives a startling view of just how deeply Dawkins digs before reaching a conclusion. Thus, this book casts a shadow of doubt on ALL of his past work. After all, it is impossible for Dawkins to KNOW there is no God. Has he been in all of the universe to know God is not there? Was he there at the start of the universe to KNOW God wasn't there? As God is claimed to be everywhere, his existence can be invalidated by finding one place in which it is not.

In fact, science and evolution, itself, denies that science states truth ... No. Neither "science" nor "evolution" deny that science states truth.

If "science" denied that, we should be bordering on the Liar Paradox.

Of course there are truths in science. The world is not flat, for example.

This is not the fictitious "absolute truth" of the philosopher, but it is the truth.

So, when we have a "scientist" that states absolutely that there is no God without research or proof, how many other of his theories were reached with such unfounded faith? Please quote this "absolute" statement. Please provide proof that Dawkins has written "without research or proof".

Indeed, the fact that he is an "evolutionary" biologist kinda backs this up, reaching conclusions without proof and portraying them (against the nature of science) as absolute truth. No-one has portrayed biology as "absolute truth" in the philosophical sense, any more than physics or chemistry. Nor are its conclusions reached without proof.

After all, why should we listen to this man about religion, when he, apparently, isn't even a very good scientist. "Apparently"? You mean, someone told you this lie and you wanted to believe it?

[PAC]

"people who try desperately to justify their belief against their own logic"


Isn't this a central point in questioning the religious. Now it is used against Dawkins?



"Further, it didn't surprise me at all that it was selling well in a society that, also, seeks to deny God's reign over their lives. So, that didn't bother me, either."


Why do the majority, in control, Chrisitians insist on claiming that society is against them and portray themselves as a put upon monority? ....The War on Christmas, etc

[Fnord]

Huh?


Excellent ripost! I'm sure there is more to follow, and I'm looking forward to it!

[Mobyseven]

Let me apply a little Ad Absurdium to your thesis...

It doesn't require a degree in forensic science to recognize and expose the evidentiary paucity, logical fallibility, intellectual absurdity, and real-world threat of the 911 conspiracy and coverup.

In other words, you don't have to be able to debate how many people it takes to fly a plane to successfully argue that those 19 terrorists probably didn't exist in the first place.

(Ach! I should have used the term "Ad Nauseum"!)

It's not so much that I disagree with your conclusions, but it's the initial assumptions you used that tend to discredit the rest of your thesis.

Oh, wait ... that was your entire thesis!

Fnord, that analogy makes you a knight in the kingdom of dumb.

If you want I and others can explain to you just why it is such a bad analogy, but I think you already know. If you don't - a hint: You just compared a degree in divinity to a degree in forensic science, and two of the criteria in the post you responded to were in relation to logic and evidence.

Care to retract that analogy - and perhaps the condescending post that accompanied it?

[Ysidro]

Why do the majority, in control, Chrisitians insist on claiming that society is against them and portray themselves as a put upon monority? ....The War on Christmas, etc

Martyrdom has a long and glorified history in Christianity. After all, Jesus supposedly started the trend!

Let's face it, this is basic "us vs. them" thinking. It's a control mechanism. There needs to be someone after you so your group pulls together in defense. Can't have folks thinking and straying from the flock!

[articulett]

The courtier's reply-- every theist who comes up with it imagines themselves so clever.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,463,The-Courtiers-Reply,PZ-Myers

Dawkins just uses the same arguments that people use to laugh of Zeus, Allah, L. Ron, sprites, etc.-- nobody needs to be an expert in anything to realize people have been making invisible entities for eons-- and science is pretty good and refining and honing the knowledge we get (see what we've learned since Darwin!)-- However, despite eons of belief-- and lot of studies about how and why people come to believe weird things ("believe this and you will live happily ever after-- don't believe it and you'll be punished for all eternity")-- there's nothing to suggest that anything supernatural exists or that there can be consciousness without a living brain.

But if the letter writer is an old guy-- he's looking forward to see his delusion pay off-- no need to rebut him...

If only the faithful didn't expect special respect or deference for their inane opinions and imagine themselves experts on the creation of the universe and life upon it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg

[Fnord]

Fnord, that analogy makes you a knight in the kingdom of dumb.

See below.


If you want I and others can explain to you just why it is such a bad analogy, but I think you already know. If you don't - a hint: You just compared a degree in divinity to a degree in forensic science, and two of the criteria in the post you responded to were in relation to logic and evidence.


Go ahead and explain how taking the original thesis to an absurd conclusion is a bad analogy. Better yet, defend the original thesis in such a way that I have no other choice than to accept it.

The point of my analogy is that it actually does take some expertise in a particular field to successfuly debunk false claims made within that field. A civil engineer can more successfully debunk false claims made about building construction than a physician; a physician can more successfully debunk claims of the efficacy of homeopathic treatments than a civil engineer; a Doctor of Forensic Science can more easily debunk claims of a 911 twoofer than a JREF poster; and a Doctor of Divinity can more successfully debunk religion than a biologist.


Care to retract that analogy - and perhaps the condescending post that accompanied it?


No. Care to retract the "knight in the kingdom of dumb" post that you made?

[Ysidro]

The point of my analogy is that it actually does take some expertise in a particular field to successfuly debunk false claims made within that field. A civil engineer can more successfully debunk false claims made about building construction than a physician; a physician can more successfully debunk claims of the efficacy of homeopathic treatments than a civil engineer; a Doctor of Forensic Science can more easily debunk claims of a 911 twoofer than a JREF poster; and a Doctor of Divinity can more successfully debunk religion than a biologist.


Why does one have to be an expert in made up stuff to know it's made up? Should we only listen to Doctors of Divinity? Should cult leaders be trusted over their opponents?

Do you even realize how silly your arguement is? And I don't mean absurd. I mean silly. Authority means little. Evidence does.

I thought you knew this.

[hgc]

Degree in religion? Meh. In the words (paraphrase, perhaps) of the great Pat Condell (and I don't know who before him): "Theology is the study of the unknowable."

It's a phony course of study. That doesn't apply to Religious Studies (or Comparative Religions), which falls under Sociology or Anthropology or Philosophy or whatever. But then what special knowledge is attained through the rigors of attaining a Theology or Divinity degree? Someone please tell me. I think it's an expertise in special pleading.

[bobcarp]

I have no degree in medicine, but I know babies don't come from storks...

[joobz]

The point of my analogy is that it actually does take some expertise in a particular field to successfuly debunk false claims made within that field. A civil engineer can more successfully debunk false claims made about building construction than a physician; a physician can more successfully debunk claims of the efficacy of homeopathic treatments than a civil engineer; a Doctor of Forensic Science can more easily debunk claims of a 911 twoofer than a JREF poster; and a Doctor of Divinity can more successfully debunk religion than a biologist.

This is all very true. But the person with the degree, must use their expertise to explain what points in the arguement are junk. Since Dawkins isn't a religious scholar by training, than it shouldn't be hard for a religious scholar by training to come and debunk Dawkins' arguements.

[Dunstan]

The point of my analogy is that it actually does take some expertise in a particular field to successfuly debunk false claims made within that field.

That sentence is a much stronger statement than the examples you give:

A civil engineer can more successfully debunk false claims made about building construction than a physician; a physician can more successfully debunk claims of the efficacy of homeopathic treatments than a civil engineer; a Doctor of Forensic Science can more easily debunk claims of a 911 twoofer than a JREF poster; and a Doctor of Divinity can more successfully debunk religion than a biologist.

You've gone from saying that debunking requires expertise to saying that expertise makes debunking more successful. Or are you defining "expertise" as just "some knowledge," so that a physician has "some expertise" in building construction, etc.

Does Randi need a degree in psychology to debunk parapsychology research?

[Kochanski]

What gets me most about the K. Clifton quote in the OP is that anyone who has actually read the book, knows that K. Clifton did not read it. It reminds me of book assignments in school, you know the teacher could always tell who actually did the reading assignment and who didn't ;)

And you know that K. Clifton didn't, or if he did, his reading comprehension skills are nil or he is doing his best to deliberately misrepresent what the book is about.

I am going to be charitable and say he just didn't do the homework assignment.

As an aside, Fnord, have you even read The God Delusion? Try it, please.

[Wowbagger]

So, let me get this straight... Clifton can not find a single thing wrong with what Dawkins actually says, so he has to resort to ad homs. I hope Dawkins takes this as a compliment of his work.

Just for fun, I will summarize Clifton in one sentance: "Richard Dawkins is not really an expert on religion, therefore anything bad he says about it must, automatically, be false; and therefore his credibility is automatically ruined to the point where even his biology must be severely flawed."

Of course, as Kochanski points out, he probably didn't even read the book. So, if not, then what qualifies him to comment in it?!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Now, I expect nothing less than an atheist (who chooses to disbelieve God) to write a book that says God isn't real. In fact, the Bible predicts that such events will follow people who try desperately to justify their belief against their own logic.
help me ... help me ... i'm caught in a vortex of circular logic ... help me ...

[Bob Klase]

Just for fun, I will summarize Clifton in one sentance: "Richard Dawkins is not really an expert on religion, therefore anything bad he says about it must, automatically, be false; and therefore his credibility is automatically ruined to the point where even his biology must be severely flawed.

One can only wonder if Clifton applies this line of "reasoning" to the religious leaders who are not experts in biology and other sciences- would he agree that their credibility is ruined when it comes to claiming evolution is false? One need not wonder very long though.

[Reager]

Fnord, that analogy makes you a knight in the kingdom of dumb.

If you want I and others can explain to you just why it is such a bad analogy, but I think you already know. If you don't - a hint: You just compared a degree in divinity to a degree in forensic science, and two of the criteria in the post you responded to were in relation to logic and evidence.

Care to retract that analogy - and perhaps the condescending post that accompanied it?

Thank you for posting what I should have, but lacked the patience to actually type out. :D

[CapelDodger]

I'm a former Christian (and pastor) from the Midwest who still has many, unfortunate ties to the Christian church. Yesterday, I received a forwarded email from my father-in-law containing what he believes is the laughable contradiction of Richard Dawkins' "God Delusion."

Are we sure this "Kenneth Clifton" thing isn't a spoof? It reads like one. And not subtly. It as good as announces itself.

But perhaps there are things beyond parody, things we atheists can only regard as mysteries.

[Magyar]

One can only wonder if Clifton applies this line of "reasoning" to the religious leaders who are not experts in biology and other sciences- would he agree that their credibility is ruined when it comes to claiming evolution is false? One need not wonder very long though.

Or for that matter to other religions they have no knowledge of at all.

[CapelDodger]

What gets me most about the K. Clifton quote in the OP is that anyone who has actually read the book, knows that K. Clifton did not read it.

Do we? Do we even know there's a K Clifton? As in emodied soul firmly stamped "K Clifton" and author of the reported comments? I think not.

Perhaps K Clifton is a construct, a vehicle to launch a spoof into the blogosphere with.

It reminds me of book assignments in school, you know the teacher could always tell who actually did the reading assignment and who didn't ;)

This is where I start to suspect design. I wonder how it could be so exactly perverse without deliberate reference to the book.

(I know the book exists, I've got a copy.)

[vitamin]

Are we sure this "Kenneth Clifton" thing isn't a spoof? It reads like one. And not subtly. It as good as announces itself.

But perhaps there are things beyond parody, things we atheists can only regard as mysteries.

It very well could be a spoof but my father-in-law doesn't read it as such.

[DoubtingStephen]

It very well could be a spoof but my father-in-law doesn't read it as such.

True religious fervor is indistinguishable from comedy. It is comedy.

Think about it, isn't it hilarious when the entire audience knows that the comic character has got it all wrong, but she or he has no clue at all?

This is why I never worry about running out of material for those of my websites intended to ridicule religion. All I have to do is glance at the day's news and there it is, every day, all day.

It's always funnier when it is the other guy that is suffering, from a religious affliction in this case.

We just finished watching the Nova program on Intellijint Deezine. I'm sure our neighbors heard us laughing.

[articulett]

Why does one have to be an expert in made up stuff to know it's made up? Should we only listen to Doctors of Divinity? Should cult leaders be trusted over their opponents?

Do you even realize how silly your arguement is? And I don't mean absurd. I mean silly. Authority means little. Evidence does.

I thought you knew this.

Yes, we don't need to study Greek Mythology, Scientology, or Heavens Gate beliefs to conclude that those people believe things that don't correspond with reality. In fact, it seems people are really good at doing exactly that. Schizophrenics do it regular. The 19 hijackers did it with such conviction that they gave up their lives for their beliefs. I think we can rightfully say they were deceived. We don't need to study the intricacies of such believes to understand this.

[Mobyseven]

Go ahead and explain how taking the original thesis to an absurd conclusion is a bad analogy. Better yet, defend the original thesis in such a way that I have no other choice than to accept it.

Well gee-willickers Einstein, I don't know what could possibly be wrong with taking the original argument to an absurd conclusion. Perhaps it's that...oh, I don't know - you didn't take the original argument to an absurd conclusion? To be perfectly frank, I don't know what you were doing. All I know is that your analogy had nothing at all to do with what was originally posted.

Reager said:

In other words, you don't have to be able to debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin to successfully argue that angels probably don't exist in the first place.

This is a fair statement. The point Reager was making here was that before you debate the properties of an object, you first have to establish that the object exists. If angels don't exist, then it is nonsense to ask how many of them can dance on the head of a pin.

You then said:

In other words, you don't have to be able to debate how many people it takes to fly a plane to successfully argue that those 19 terrorists probably didn't exist in the first place.

Quite frankly, I have no idea how you could even begin to think that this is an appropriate analogy. In Reager's post, he discusses 'angels' - a name referring to an object that we have no evidence for. We don't know whether they exist - and given the astounding lack of any evidence at all for their existence it is reasonable to conclude that they probably don't exist. No need, therefore, to discuss the pin-dancing habits of angels.

Your post bears about as much resemblance to Reager's post as a cow does to a casserole. We know that aeroplanes exist. We know that people exist. And we have an overwhelming amount of evidence that on September 11 there were 19 terrorists on four different planes.

Absolutely awful analogies aside, what you are now saying bears absolutely no resemblance to the analogy you originally used. Lets take a look at what you're saying now...

The point of my analogy is that it actually does take some expertise in a particular field to successfuly debunk false claims made within that field. A civil engineer can more successfully debunk false claims made about building construction than a physician; a physician can more successfully debunk claims of the efficacy of homeopathic treatments than a civil engineer; a Doctor of Forensic Science can more easily debunk claims of a 911 twoofer than a JREF poster; and a Doctor of Divinity can more successfully debunk religion than a biologist.

There are a number of errors in your argument and examples here.

First, you say that it someone requires expertise in a particular field to successfully debunk false claims made within that field. This statement makes a whopping great assumption: That all fields of study are legitimate.

This is clearly not the case.

For example, if I were to claim to be a leading expert on the Mole-People of Androgynous-Beta Five, you would likely call foul on me. You also would be perfectly correct in doing so. There is (to the best of my knowledge) no planet named Androgynous-Beta Five, and thus anyone who claims they are experts in the field of Androgynian biology is probably either crazy or talking from a more nefarious orifice.

If a field of study is itself bunk, any 'expertise' to be gained in that field is also bunk. Your example about physicians being well suited to debunk homeopathy is a perfect example of this - you recognise that homeopathy is not a legitimate field of study. As such, you chose a profession (physician) that has trained in a field of study (medicine) that would give them the appropriate expertise to recognise homeopathy as being an illegitimate field of study in the first place. I don't know whether you made that realisation consciously or not, but without the unstated assumption that homeopathy is an illegitimate field of study your example makes no sense - it would otherwise have been that, "A homeopath can more successfully debunk claims of the efficacy of homeopathic treatments than a civil engineer."

This brings me nicely to the second point, which is closely related to the first: A person who has 'expertise' in an illegitimate field of study is extremely unlikely to know that their 'expertise' is useless. Most homeopaths accept that homeopathy works - despite its utter failure to actually produce results. They know it works, they feel it works, and if they are at odds with reality, then damnit, reality is wrong!

Admittedly I'm paraphrasing - partly to avoid a longwinded discussion about homeopathy, but mostly because I like to be charitable, and what I just said sounds a whole lot less stupid than your average homeopathic weasel words.

Dawkins - atheists in general - doesn't have a problem with a particular aspect of theology or divinity. His problem is with the god hypothesis. Now, this happens to bear quite strongly upon theology and divinity because if god doesn't exist, those fields of study are illegitimate.

This means, and this is the really important part so pay attention, that if one considers a field of study to be illegitimate, one does not have to have expertise in that field of study to show that it is illegitimate.

To suggest that a theologian or doctor of divinity is the only person who can 'debunk god' (because it is god, not religion that atheists do not believe in) is just downright silly. It is saying that the only person who can prove that a claim is false is a person whose expertise relies upon that very claim being true! It is analogous to stating that the only person who can prove the 'law of similars' is false is a homeopath.

Which brings me to my final point: Who then, is the most qualified to 'debunk'? The answer is simple - the person who has done the research. The person who has properly investigated the claim. It doesn't matter who that person is. It is the arguments, and not the arguer that is important - to state otherwise is to commit the logical fallacy of argument from authority.

You mentioned in your examples above that, "...a Doctor of Forensic Science can more easily debunk claims of a 911 twoofer than a JREF poster." I highly doubt this. Certainly, there are some claims made by the truth movement on which a doctor of forensic science would be highly qualified to comment. But there are also a huge number of claims that would leave such an expert baffled - claims regarding structural engineering, claims regarding NORAD, claims regarding the 9/11 Commission Report, and so on. In truth, many posters in the JREF Conspiracy Theories subforum would be far more qualified than a doctor of forensic science to debunk the claims of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist: Mark Roberts, Gumboot, Brainster and myself are four people I can think of off the top of my head. And the reason we are more qualified? Because we've done the appropriate research. We don't have a Bachelor in Conspiracy Theories. None of us have written a Masters thesis about the truth movement. But when it comes to 9/11, we've done our research and we are prepared.

Like it or not, Dawkins has done his research too. He didn't blindly walk into this topic and start randomly shooting, he took his time. He looked into the evidence, both for and against. He examined the arguments for the existence of god, found them to be lacking, and explained the reasons why. Saying that Dawkins doesn't have the right expertise on the subject because he is not a theologian or doctor of divinity is to baselessly assume the existence of that which Dawkins set out to deny - god. As such, any accusations that Dawkins is not properly qualified are no more than circular reasoning: To disprove the existence of god, one must have the correct expertise. But the correct expertise is expertise in fields which are only legitimate if god exists.

I have to wonder - if Dawkins doesn't have the correct expertise to comment, why aren't all the people who actually have the correct expertise coming forward to correct him? Why do they resort to attacking the man, or a strawman, rather than the arguments?

Perhaps you, Fnord, can point out to me what Dawkins got wrong?

No. Care to retract the "knight in the kingdom of dumb" post that you made?

*Sigh* Perhaps I'll retract it after you demonstrate that you actually understand everything I've written above. For now I've given you a title to match your tone: Sir Fnord the Condescending of the Kingdom of Dumb.

[Dorian Gray]

So a Catholic priest isn't qualified to give marital advice? Hmmm....

Neither Jesus nor God went to college. Hmmm....

Rational arguments don't work on religious people - if they did, there'd be no religious people. - House

[bpesta22]

You don't have to be a cow to know about milk.




If indeed a non-biologist could write an article that passed peer-review in a bio journal, then it should be published. Credentials at that point would be irrelevant.

Before getting the article accepted, though, credentials (or lack thereof) might indicate the probability of successfully getting it accepted.

[articulett]

What does it take to become an expert in the field? I can get a "religious degree" on the bleedin' Internet by paying a few dollars, does that make me an expert in the field?



No Claus, it's free. http://www.themonastery.org/?destination=colorOrdination

[tsg]

You've gone from saying that debunking requires expertise to saying that expertise makes debunking more successful.

Fnord has his goalposts custom built with wheels on.

[articulett]

For example, there was a chap called Darwin (you may have heard of him) whose only degree was in theology, but when he wrote a book on evolution and biology, he had no difficulty getting his ideas heard and eventually accepted by scientists. The only people I've ever heard whining about his lack of a biology degree are halfwitted religious fanatics enslaved to their notion that ideas require "authority". Scientists, by contrast, know that what an idea needs is evidence.



And that Gregor Mendel dude was a Monk... no science degree... Heck religionists have been doing science for eons... (though the majority pretend to be doing science).

If the current theologians wouldn't make claims regarding scientific notions like the age of the earth or the origins of man or try to wedge themselves into science class or make the kiddies ignorant of scientific fact and distrustful of science (while trusting their dishonest pedophiliac clergy)-- then maybe scientists wouldn't have to broach the subject. But since the rational people are in the same world with the irrational all of whom have their own personal truths based on their assorted faiths-- then who else will speak up and assert the nakedness of the Emperor.

[articulett]

What gets me most about the K. Clifton quote in the OP is that anyone who has actually read the book, knows that K. Clifton did not read it. It reminds me of book assignments in school, you know the teacher could always tell who actually did the reading assignment and who didn't ;)

And you know that K. Clifton didn't, or if he did, his reading comprehension skills are nil or he is doing his best to deliberately misrepresent what the book is about.

I am going to be charitable and say he just didn't do the homework assignment.

As an aside, Fnord, have you even read The God Delusion? Try it, please.

I don't think any of the people who dis Dawkins have actually read him-- at least not from what I can tell. Talk about people pretending to have expertise in something they know nothing about-- the Dawkins dissers are king--

[articulett]

Are we sure this "Kenneth Clifton" thing isn't a spoof? It reads like one. And not subtly. It as good as announces itself.

But perhaps there are things beyond parody, things we atheists can only regard as mysteries.

In America, you can't really tell the parodies of Christians from actual fundies. Sad, but true.

[timhau]

Finally, it seems that while Mr. Clifton may have turned the pages of Dawkin's book, he hasn't really read and thought about it.

I'm not even sure he has that degree of familiarity with the book. The name of Ch. 4 of The God Delusion is 'Why there almost certainly is no god'.

[CFLarsen]

No Claus, it's free. http://www.themonastery.org/?destination=colorOrdination

Easy come, easy go.

[Wowbagger]

One can only wonder if Clifton applies this line of "reasoning" to the religious leaders who are not experts in biology and other sciences- would he agree that their credibility is ruined when it comes to claiming evolution is false? One need not wonder very long though.

Of course he applies the same reasoning on religious leaders: That's why his religious leaders are always right, no matter what they say!

Get with the program! :rolleyes:

[bignickel]

I think we should come up with a name for this fallacy. Since the best example I've heard so far dealt with it from the perspective of a certain famous story, I suggest we call it "The Emperor's New Clothing Experts Fallacy": the fallacy that only experts in a field of study can discuss if that field's phenomenon actually exists.

"Can you believe the nerve of that fellow, and his ridiculous article about the Emperor's new suit? Has he read Randle's "Meditations on the Emperor's Buttons"? Has he answered Woodwain's "Notes on Emperor's Button Sizes"? Until he can sum up the arguments of Cockburn's "Emperor's Clothing Color Theory and Exercises", we don't have to answer such novice speculations."

[vitamin]

I think we should come up with a name for this fallacy. Since the best example I've heard so far dealt with it from the perspective of a certain famous story, I suggest we call it "The Emperor's New Clothing Experts Fallacy": the fallacy that only experts in a field of study can discuss if that field's phenomenon actually exists.


You've got my vote.

[NobbyNobbs]

See below.





Go ahead and explain how taking the original thesis to an absurd conclusion is a bad analogy. Better yet, defend the original thesis in such a way that I have no other choice than to accept it.

The point of my analogy is that it actually does take some expertise in a particular field to successfuly debunk false claims made within that field. A civil engineer can more successfully debunk false claims made about building construction than a physician; a physician can more successfully debunk claims of the efficacy of homeopathic treatments than a civil engineer; a Doctor of Forensic Science can more easily debunk claims of a 911 twoofer than a JREF poster; and a Doctor of Divinity can more successfully debunk religion than a biologist.


No. Care to retract the "knight in the kingdom of dumb" post that you made?

Fnord, does this mean it takes an elf expert to debunk Santa Claus? A fairy expert to debunk the Tooth Fairy? A biologist to debunk the Easter Bunny?

I have a 6-year old at home who could do all of that quite effectively, and the only thing he's an expert in is missing the toilet when he pees.

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by Fnord http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3155067#post3155067)
The point of my analogy is that it actually does take some expertise in a particular field to successfuly debunk false claims made within that field.



That sentence is a much stronger statement than the examples you give:


Originally Posted by Fnord http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3155067#post3155067)
A civil engineer can more successfully debunk false claims made about building construction than a physician; a physician can more successfully debunk claims of the efficacy of homeopathic treatments than a civil engineer; a Doctor of Forensic Science can more easily debunk claims of a 911 twoofer than a JREF poster; and a Doctor of Divinity can more successfully debunk religion than a biologist.



You've gone from saying that debunking requires expertise to saying that expertise makes debunking more successful. Or are you defining "expertise" as just "some knowledge," so that a physician has "some expertise" in building construction, etc.

It takes some expertise, not necessarily being THE expert on a topic, but some experience and/or education in a field to help a person to see the deception.

Has Mr. Dawkins worked as a magician, "psychic," lawyer, politician, or used-car salesman? If so, then I'd have to say that he is eminently qualified to debunk religion! But being "just" a biologist gives him no greater qualification to debunk religion than being a chess master qualifies one to criticize a hula competition.

To clarify further, I'll state that having no knowledge of a particular field leaves a person severely handicapped to identify, investigate, and debunk false data and fallacious reasoning within that field. This is why I believe that people who have not studied religion, and whose only claims to knowing anything about religion is that they have read a Bible (Koran, Torah, etc.) and can spell "Televangelism" are not qualified to debunk religion. Criticise, yes; debunk; no. Anyone can be a mere critic.

For instance, I spent some time in my youth as a "psychic" doing tarot readings, dream interpretations, and numerology. I'm also an Electrical Engineer.

Either one gives me some insight into the various gadgets and methods that wooists claim to give them special powers. But the first has actually given me a little more insight into the methods used by salespeople and job applicants to influence decisions in purchasing and hiring.

Human Resources calls me in on about one in five non-technical applications when they know that something "just ain't right" but can't quite figure out what it is. None of those HR people are engineers or former "psychics" (a.k.a., flim-flam artists, con men, and charlatans). Then I do a cold reading on the applicant (keeping within the law on interviews), and he or she ends up telling me things about themselves that "standard" methods don't uncover.

It's much easier when the applicant is going for a technical position. Don't understand Ohm's Law? You're not working in my department! Better yet, try to tell me that you worked on a substance that becomes a superconductor at and below 70°? Pull my other leg ... it's got bells on.


Does Randi need a degree in psychology to debunk parapsychology research?

No, his experience and learning as a professional stage magician seems to be sufficient. For instance, a professor from the University at Buffalo once accused Mr. Randi of being a fraud. Mr. Randi said "Yes indeed, I'm a trickster, I'm a cheat, I'm a charlatan, that's what I do for a living. Everything I've done here was by trickery."

Also, both psychology and parapsychology seem to rely on one person's insight into another person's behavior. So, while a PhD in Psychology may not be needed to debunk Sylvia Browne, it might help.

Dr. Phil? Are you logged in?

Or maybe it's time to invoke Godwin's Law...

[tsg]

I think we should come up with a name for this fallacy. Since the best example I've heard so far dealt with it from the perspective of a certain famous story, I suggest we call it "The Emperor's New Clothing Experts Fallacy": the fallacy that only experts in a field of study can discuss if that field's phenomenon actually exists.

"Can you believe the nerve of that fellow, and his ridiculous article about the Emperor's new suit? Has he read Randle's "Meditations on the Emperor's Buttons"? Has he answered Woodwain's "Notes on Emperor's Button Sizes"? Until he can sum up the arguments of Cockburn's "Emperor's Clothing Color Theory and Exercises", we don't have to answer such novice speculations."

Both PZ Meyers and Dawkins himself have taken to calling it the "Courtier's Reply" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier's_reply#The_Courtier.27s_Reply).

[Dunstan]

Has Mr. Dawkins worked as a magician, "psychic," lawyer, politician, or used-car salesman? If so, then I'd have to say that he is eminently qualified to debunk religion! But being "just" a biologist gives him no greater qualification to debunk religion than being a chess master qualifies one to criticize a hula competition.

You're not being serious here, are you? You don't really mean to imply that if Dawkins sold cars during his youth, you would re-evaluate The God Delusion?

I'm pretty sure you're joking here, but I've seen some strange arguments around here.

To clarify further, I'll state that having no knowledge of a particular field leaves a person severely handicapped to identify, investigate, and debunk false data and fallacious reasoning within that field. This is why I believe that people who have not studied religion, and whose only claims to knowing anything about religion is that they have read a Bible (Koran, Torah, etc.) and can spell "Televangelism" are not qualified to debunk religion.

Kind of shifting the goalposts, aren't you? Who's saying that reading a bible and spelling "televangelism" is sufficient?

Criticise, yes; debunk; no. Anyone can be a mere critic.

You'll have to explain how you're using the term "debunk" then. I gather you're attaching some special meaning to it that isn't apparent to me or my dictionary.

For instance, I spent some time in my youth as a "psychic" doing tarot readings, dream interpretations, and numerology. I'm also an Electrical Engineer.

Either one gives me some insight into the various gadgets and methods that wooists claim to give them special powers. But the first has actually given me a little more insight into the methods used by salespeople and job applicants to influence decisions in purchasing and hiring.

I'm sure it has. But do you really think that's the only source of insight? I gather you don't, because you then accept Randi's credentials. And used car salesmen, lawyers, and politicians, too? At this point, I don't even follow what your point is anymore. We all draw upon our experience, education, and judgment in making decisions. So what?

How about we just judge Dawkins' arguments on the quality of the arguments and not his C.V.? I don't recall Dawkins saying, in The God Delusion or elsewhere, that we should accept his arguments about God's existence "because I'm a respected evolutionary biologist." Even the sections on evolutionary theory are backed by facts and references, not his personal authority.

[hgc]

I'm sure it has. But do you really think that's the only source of insight? I gather you don't, because you then accept Randi's credentials. And used car salesmen, lawyers, and politicians, too? At this point, I don't even follow what your point is anymore. We all draw upon our experience, education, and judgment in making decisions. So what?


His point is that only people who have worked as professional tricksters are qualified to debunk the trickery of religion. As if only by debunking the trickery of supposed miracles can one "debunk" religion. I think. And as if one really needs this experience to see through miracles. Strange notions indeed.

[CapelDodger]

In America, you can't really tell the parodies of Christians from actual fundies. Sad, but true.

Indeed, but I'd generalise it, by geography and creed. More even - say, fanatical supporters of sporting ensembles. Anthing that is at heart utterly vacuous.

Comedic parody can usually be identified by the less intellectually-challenged, but the gotcha parody is different. I'm thinking here of "Transgressing the boundaries : Towards a new hermeneutic of quantum physics", which was a brilliant gotcha-parody of modern philosopho-speak. Of course, if you don't hear the "Gotcha!" within a sensible period, and the laughs are unintentional, you have to sigh and go with the sad.

[CapelDodger]

I'm not even sure he has that degree of familiarity with the book. The name of Ch. 4 of The God Delusion is 'Why there almost certainly is no god'.

The necessary bow to philosophers (of whom theologists are a subset) just to frustrate them. In truth, this degree of "almost" is indistinguishable from "absolute". Except, of course, for those who demand "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty" (Douglas Adams, bless him).

[Mobyseven]

Has Mr. Dawkins worked as a magician, "psychic," lawyer, politician, or used-car salesman? If so, then I'd have to say that he is eminently qualified to debunk religion! But being "just" a biologist gives him no greater qualification to debunk religion than being a chess master qualifies one to criticize a hula competition.

I certainly hope that's not a real argument Fnord. Not only is it completely nonsensical ("Well sure, if he was a used-car salesman I'd believe him! But a biologist...") but it is insulting to Dawkins, who actually has taken the time to educate himself on matters of religion and philosophy.

Have you read The God Delusion?

To clarify further, I'll state that having no knowledge of a particular field leaves a person severely handicapped to identify, investigate, and debunk false data and fallacious reasoning within that field. This is why I believe that people who have not studied religion, and whose only claims to knowing anything about religion is that they have read a Bible (Koran, Torah, etc.) and can spell "Televangelism" are not qualified to debunk religion. Criticise, yes; debunk; no. Anyone can be a mere critic.

Well then, you should have no trouble listing all the things that Dawkins got wrong then.

Go ahead. Start at number one, and use as many dot points as you need.

ETA: You may wish to read my reply to you on the top of this page as well.

[Robin]

[INDENT]
K. Clifton says:

....
After all, it is impossible for Dawkins to KNOW there is no God. Has he been in all of the universe to know God is not there? Was he there at the start of the universe to KNOW God wasn't there? In fact, science and evolution, itself, denies that science states truth, claiming only to deal in probabilities. So, when we have a "scientist" that states absolutely that there is no God without research or proof, how many other of his theories were reached with such unfounded faith? Indeed, the fact that he is an "evolutionary" biologist kinda backs this up, reaching conclusions without proof and portraying them (against the nature of science) as absolute truth.
This is more than enough evidence that Mr Clifton hasn't even read 'The God Delusion'.

Apparently it is necessary to have a degree in religion before you can comment on religion, but not at all important to read a book before commenting on the book.

[Mobyseven]

Bump for Fnord.

[tsg]

He's moved is goalposts clear over to another thread.

[Mobyseven]

Fnord? Fnord???

It's okay. You don't have to write a reply to my posts, after all - if you move the goalposts any further they're likely to disappear into the sea.

But could you kindly answer me but one question: Have you read The God Delusion?

[juryjone]

Sorry I'm late to this thread. Story of my life.

Are we sure this "Kenneth Clifton" thing isn't a spoof? It reads like one. And not subtly. It as good as announces itself.

But perhaps there are things beyond parody, things we atheists can only regard as mysteries.

While we can't know for sure that Mr. Clifton (sure it's not Tony Clifton? (gratuitous Andy Kaufman reference)) actually wrote the piece in the OP, Kenneth Clifton did write a tome called The Christian Superhero Training Guide (http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Superhero-Training-Guide/dp/1430324635/ref=tag_tdp_sv_edpp_i). And from the sound of his self-penned description of the book on Amazon, I find it perfectly reasonable to assume that he did write the OP:

This book is the culmination of years of work and study (written while finishing my Bible degree) and contains resources to benefit every Christian, especially if you are new to the faith or want to remind yourself of who you are in Christ. Our world focuses on the powers of superheroes but ignores the supernatural call upon all of us to extend Christ's reign over our lives. Yes, we have Arch Foes that try to stop us (this book studies 5 ... Demons, The World, The Flesh, Doubt, and Pride). However, we have a Lord who conquered those foes and has given us the power to overcome them, if we will learn to take and use the authority He gives us. This book studies Superheroes of the Past (Biblical Heroes), Superheroes of the Present (current day believers), and our Arch Foes. Then, I have provided 4 appendi: logical and Scriptural answers to the 10 top demon lies in the world, Providence Scriptures, Silver Bullet Arguments to help you win debates, and poetry about Heaven.

I may have to get the book, since he's including poetry about heaven.



Apart from the ad homs in the OP, I was also struck by the contention the bible "predicts" that an atheist will write a book saying "God isn't real". I guess the word "predict" here is used like the "predictions" that SB makes about earthquakes: predictions that are self-evident. Except, as Dr. A points out, there is no such "prediction" in the bible. Yet another liar for Jesus.

Also, I would like to add my voice to the chorus entreating Fnord to return and explain himself. After Mobyseven posted a terrific rebuttal to his contention that "expertise" is needed to "debunk" an illegitimate field, he replied to a previous post, then disappeared. C'mon, Fnord. It doesn't have to be a post further detailing your argument, or showing that you've actually read The God Delusion. Just a simple "I concede the point" would do.

[vitamin]

While we can't know for sure that Mr. Clifton (sure it's not Tony Clifton? (gratuitous Andy Kaufman reference)) actually wrote the piece in the OP, Kenneth Clifton did write a tome called The Christian Superhero Training Guide. And from the sound of his self-penned description of the book on Amazon, I find it perfectly reasonable to assume that he did write the OP:


I managed to track down Kenneth Clifton's website (christiansuperhero.com) and judging by his other attempts at forming coherent sentences, it's probably safe to say that you are correct. I dropped him a line in effort to validate the email but so far no response.

Also, I think Mobyseven may have scared to Fnord away.

[UnrepentantSinner]

-First, what if a person with a religious degree (and no science training) were to write a book on evolution or biology. Would they not immediately be condemned for stepping outside their field and teaching without authority? In fact, this has happened, and they ARE condemned for just that. So, how is it that Dawkins gets a pass and gains authority without study?

-Second, since when does a person that rejects a field become an expert in that field? Can I, with a religious degree, reject Hinduism as being truth but claim to be an authority about what Hinduism is or is not?

Ummm, this is exactly what Creationists do. And there really isn't anything wrong with a layman writing a critique of a subject as long as they know what the heck they're talking about. Even folks like Jonathan Wells, with a biology related PhD, filled Icons of Evolution with lies, urban legends, straw men and misunderstandings of the subject he was writing about.

I would have no problem with even a lay Creationist writing a book critical of evolution as long as it wasn't an abortion like we've become accustom to seeing from them.

[Mobyseven]

Also, I think Mobyseven may have scared to Fnord away.

What people are saying about Mobyseven:

"Frightening!" - The Australian

"Packs more shock than a viewing of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and is five times more likely to need a mask than Michael Myers!" - The Tribune

"If there is a benevolent god, he sure didn't create Mobyseven!" - The New York Times