Comments on: Cage-match or dialogue? http://gathkinsons.net/blog/?p=470 Sat, 06 Aug 2011 11:07:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: John http://gathkinsons.net/blog/?p=470&cpage=1#comment-43138 John Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:37:00 +0000 http://gathkinsons.net/blog/?p=470#comment-43138 I don't know for sure about Dawkins, but I have NEVER seen Hitchens debate anyone who I would believe to be deeply educated in Theology. I have seen Hitchens spend countless TV time verbally burying Jerry Fallwell, but I can't count Fallwell as a major theological force. Sure, he had a heavy influence in Christianity, but he focused on being an old school preacher, not a Dr. in theology. Because of this, I can't give Hitchens and his views too much time. You are exactly right... a common person CAN'T debate with a heavily educated man/woman because they haven't been trained to do so. (That's not to say a common man is not smarter, but unless your Bo Jackson or Deion Sanders, a professional football player is not going to do so well in Major League Baseball.) If Hitchens, or even Dawkins, ever really opted to debate a well educated theologian, I would LOVE to see that. I don’t know for sure about Dawkins, but I have NEVER seen Hitchens debate anyone who I would believe to be deeply educated in Theology. I have seen Hitchens spend countless TV time verbally burying Jerry Fallwell, but I can’t count Fallwell as a major theological force. Sure, he had a heavy influence in Christianity, but he focused on being an old school preacher, not a Dr. in theology.

Because of this, I can’t give Hitchens and his views too much time. You are exactly right… a common person CAN’T debate with a heavily educated man/woman because they haven’t been trained to do so. (That’s not to say a common man is not smarter, but unless your Bo Jackson or Deion Sanders, a professional football player is not going to do so well in Major League Baseball.)

If Hitchens, or even Dawkins, ever really opted to debate a well educated theologian, I would LOVE to see that.

]]> By: Raven http://gathkinsons.net/blog/?p=470&cpage=1#comment-42199 Raven Mon, 03 May 2010 09:32:14 +0000 http://gathkinsons.net/blog/?p=470#comment-42199 Yet you and Sullivan aimed your chief denunciations only at Dawkins and Hitchens, etc., the atheist side of the argument, not at those televangelists? Again, where is the level playing field? Or perhaps I should ask, where is a less partial referee, to call out both sides fairly? Yet you and Sullivan aimed your chief denunciations only at Dawkins and Hitchens, etc., the atheist side of the argument, not at those televangelists? Again, where is the level playing field? Or perhaps I should ask, where is a less partial referee, to call out both sides fairly?

]]> By: Allen http://gathkinsons.net/blog/?p=470&cpage=1#comment-42186 Allen Sun, 02 May 2010 23:11:39 +0000 http://gathkinsons.net/blog/?p=470#comment-42186 They can talk to whomever they like, but they need to be honest about what their arguments actually achieve. My point is that the arguments they're using are arguments against fundamentalism, or against some of the more despicable uses that religion has been put to. But their claim is that those arguments falsify Christianity as a whole. They don't, because the counterarguments have been made repeatedly; Dawkins, etc. just choose to ignore those counterarguments. If you're saying that their enterprise makes them as intellectually rigorous as the televangelists, that's setting the bar awfully low. They can talk to whomever they like, but they need to be honest about what their arguments actually achieve. My point is that the arguments they’re using are arguments against fundamentalism, or against some of the more despicable uses that religion has been put to. But their claim is that those arguments falsify Christianity as a whole. They don’t, because the counterarguments have been made repeatedly; Dawkins, etc. just choose to ignore those counterarguments. If you’re saying that their enterprise makes them as intellectually rigorous as the televangelists, that’s setting the bar awfully low.

]]> By: Raven http://gathkinsons.net/blog/?p=470&cpage=1#comment-42149 Raven Sat, 01 May 2010 02:30:47 +0000 http://gathkinsons.net/blog/?p=470#comment-42149 So the televangelists and mega-churches can talk to the big crowds, the ‘average churchgoer’, but Hitchens and Dawkins aren't allowed to take a turn talking to the same audience? Only to the "grad-school students" in the back room? That doesn't exactly seem like a level playing field. Now if no-one ever addressed those poor grad-school students (modern theologians) <i>at all</i>, methinks you'd have grounds for complaint. But that's not the case. Abstruse theological arguments abound, and always have. It's in the arena of easily understood plain speech that gaps have needed to be filled in for a long time. So the televangelists and mega-churches can talk to the big crowds, the ‘average churchgoer’, but Hitchens and Dawkins aren’t allowed to take a turn talking to the same audience? Only to the “grad-school students” in the back room? That doesn’t exactly seem like a level playing field.

Now if no-one ever addressed those poor grad-school students (modern theologians) at all, methinks you’d have grounds for complaint. But that’s not the case. Abstruse theological arguments abound, and always have. It’s in the arena of easily understood plain speech that gaps have needed to be filled in for a long time.

]]> By: Allen http://gathkinsons.net/blog/?p=470&cpage=1#comment-42141 Allen Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:47:29 +0000 http://gathkinsons.net/blog/?p=470#comment-42141 No, not my point. It's fine to go out and argue against creationism, or various forms of literalism. I do it all the time. But I don't claim that I'm thereby falsifying Christianity; just that you I'm making arguments against literalism, or creationism, or whatever the actual opponent is. Hitchens and Dawkins, though, are claiming to invalidate all of religion, or at the very least all of Christianity. In essence they're claiming that, because it can be clearly shown that the Bible is not literally true in various scientific and historical claims, therefore Christianity is false. That's what Sullivan's objecting to. If you want to claim that Christianity per se is invalid, then intellectual rigor demands that you find the strongest counterarguments and take them on. That would mean engaging with modern theologians, not just with the 'average churchgoer'. No, not my point. It’s fine to go out and argue against creationism, or various forms of literalism. I do it all the time. But I don’t claim that I’m thereby falsifying Christianity; just that you I’m making arguments against literalism, or creationism, or whatever the actual opponent is.

Hitchens and Dawkins, though, are claiming to invalidate all of religion, or at the very least all of Christianity. In essence they’re claiming that, because it can be clearly shown that the Bible is not literally true in various scientific and historical claims, therefore Christianity is false. That’s what Sullivan’s objecting to.

If you want to claim that Christianity per se is invalid, then intellectual rigor demands that you find the strongest counterarguments and take them on. That would mean engaging with modern theologians, not just with the ‘average churchgoer’.

]]> By: Raven http://gathkinsons.net/blog/?p=470&cpage=1#comment-42131 Raven Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:10:45 +0000 http://gathkinsons.net/blog/?p=470#comment-42131 So clearly Jesus was a charlatan, because he went around speaking to the common people on their own level, instead of only staying in the Temple discussing abstruse theology with the priests? That might be the argument of, say, the Pharisees. So clearly Jesus was a charlatan, because he went around speaking to the common people on their own level, instead of only staying in the Temple discussing abstruse theology with the priests? That might be the argument of, say, the Pharisees.

]]>