Ask a Fundamentalist Christian (The Responses)

MARIA
All churches have error in them, as they are run by human beings who, even with the best of intentions, are imperfect creatures.

JESUS (Matthew 5:48)
‘Be perfect therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect’

Why did Jesus load rules on to human beings that they cannot obey, even with the best of intentions?

On the question of flat vs round earth in the bible:

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

sphere’s don’t have corners

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

If something is a sphere, you can’t get to the END of it.

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

There’s no mountain in which you could see all the kingdoms of the earth, because of the curve of the earth. Not even in biblical times.

I really felt like tackling those questions, but out of respect to both Hemant and Maria, I thought it best not to do so here. But it made for a nice post on my blog, so Steven, Bart, if you’re interested, visit my site.

J.S.Brown is right about the metaphorical , and non-scientific nature, of much of the Bible.

For example Job 26:7 ‘He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.’, just raises the question ‘Why is there nothing rather than something?’

Clearly Job is not meant to convey the idea that the universe is the ‘nothing’ that God is supposed to have created the universe from. It is not meant to be factual. The universe is not ‘nothing’, despite Job.

And by the way, the Greeks had measured the circumference of the earth long before people realised that when the Bible said the world was flat, it actually meant that the world was round.

Maria,

I wish I had caught this earlier, but if you could indulge another question about homeschooling, I’d appreciate it. One of the things that I feel is most valuable in a traditional school environment is the wealth of different perspectives on any subject that a student gets from their different teachers and the other students. I think this challenges a student to consider different views as a topic is being discussed.

How do you make sure your children get different views on any subject and how do you provide for discussion of topics from viewpoints that are not your own?

Here’s three questions for you and I only ask this because of the answers my fundie relatives would give. I know the answers you might give could be controversial and you might not want to venture into answering them. If so, I understand. Here goes:

1. The Path of Salvation: Do you harp on that much and do your believe that if people are not on “The Path of Salvation” they don’t know God and are going to hell?

2. Homosexuals: If you believe the Bible is infallible, then I assume that you take the Biblical view of homosexuality, they must conform to a hetero lifestyle or go to hell even though science says there is a possible genetic link?

3. Women, according to the Bible must be submissive to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22). 1 Corinthians 7:4 The husband controls his wife (I’m summerizing). There are several like that in the books we attribute to Paul. Do you believe that a woman is stuck with her husband for life even if he is abusive to her and her children? And if she doesn’t, she has to repent and forced to return to him? Do you believe that women are lessor than men?

Ok, but what metric/method do biblical scholars use to determine which parts of the Bible are metaphorical, and which are to be taken literally?

Ok, but what metric/method do biblical scholars use to determine which parts of the Bible are metaphorical, and which are to be taken literally?

I find it amusing when atheists ask this question with the apparent assumption that there is no metric or method and that it’s all just based on arbitrary preferences. The reality is that there are many different tools we use to interpret the Bible and answer exactly these questions. There’s a whole branch of biblical studies called hermeneutics about these very issues. Of course, different scholars and different branches of the church will disagree on what kind of hermeneutics to use, but the answer to your question at least is that they certainly do have rules and a system that they follow.

Scientists in the Middle Ages did not believe the world was flat.

It is not altogether fair that I am making this point in response to Maria’s responses, since we skeptics probably promote this myth more than anyone. I actually found Maria to be following an admirable path with respect to raising her children to explore intellectually. I assume that includes a strong science curriculum.

It is a modern myth that, in the Middle Ages, people thought the world was flat. We skeptics need to look at the historical evidence and stop perpetuating this myth:
http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods46.html

Is there any scientific/religious disagreement in human history that you can point to where religion has been proven right, and science has been proven wrong?

At one time, the most up to date science there was thought that the earth was flat. The Bible had said already that it was round.

Her answer gives pretty good insight into how fundamentalists are able to justify their denial of scientific reality. They feel that scientific reality changes. What science proves today, it will change tomorrow. Whereas, their religious beliefs are unchanging, even if there isn’t any sort of consensus about whose god/belief is right.

Using scientific logic and argument will never convince someone like Maria because science will never prove anything to her satisfaction. Instead, a better way to communicate with fundamentalists is to focus on the emotional aspect of beliefs, rather than making logical arguments. As counter-intuitive as that is to most atheists, people with a deep religious beliefs hold onto them strongly not because it makes logical sense but because it feels right.

Regarding the flat earth, Maria didn’t specify the Middle Ages. She just said “at one time”. And it is true that some ancient cultures believed the world was flat for at least part of their history – the Babylonians, the Chinese and the Norse for example, among many others.

However, I’m not sure I can recall where, if anywhere, the Bible specifically teaches the world is round. Maria, can you provide a reference?

And it is true that some ancient cultures believed the world was flat for at least part of their history – the Babylonians, the Chinese and the Norse for example, among many others.

There’s a gap between the mythical reality and real reality. The Norse would have never become the powerful navigators that they did if they based their navigations on the premise of a flat Earth.

Even so- it’s hard to connect her words “the science of the time” and ancient cultures. I would argue that the science of the time argued no such thing- because science, in its current form, didn’t exist until some time between 1600 and the mid 1700s. Charitably, one could grant the Greeks some scientific credit. Much of the rationalist ideas of the Enlightenment descended from them.

Perhaps a better example is that “science” once told us that smoking was good for us. Of course, it wasn’t science- it was people making crap up and pretending that it was true because it looked like it should be. In fact, every “mistake” science has made has almost always arisen due to bad methodology. People assuming their conclusion, or getting caught up in belief.

And that’s the final beauty of science- my beliefs don’t matter. I don’t believe in gravity. But that doesn’t stop the Earth from applying a 9.8m/s acceleration to me (ignoring the small force I apply to the Earth, of course).

John said,

They feel that scientific reality changes. What science proves today, it will change tomorrow. Whereas, their religious beliefs are unchanging, even if there isn’t any sort of consensus about whose god/belief is right.

And then Mike said,

Is there something inaccurate about this statement? Do fundamentalists merely “feel” that science changes, or isn’t it a reality that science does in fact change?

I’ve had scientist friends of mine make this same point to me actually. When I asked them whether they thought science and Christian faith were in conflict they replied “Well, which science? Science is always changing.”

The way I’m reading you, I think you’re both right on target.

Change is science’s greatest strength but it’s most unpopular trait. The lack of change is religion’s greatest weakness but it’s most popular trait.

Science, when applied properly doesn’t take the stance to say “This is the truth.” It says “This is the best explanation we have so far, given what we have observed.” When better observations are available science revises, alters, or even completely revolutionizes its older explanations to fit the new observations.

Many, I’d venture to say most people don’t like that. They want “what’s so” to be settled, decided and done. They want to learn “what’s so” once and not have to worry later that they might be wrong. To be confronted with continuous changes in “what’s so” by science is confusing and frustrating to them.

That is one of the great attractions of religious accounts of “what’s so.” It doesn’t change. It says unabashedly, “This is the truth.” In fact it says, “This is the Truth,” with a capital “T” to say that since their source is divine, all of its accounts of “what’s so” are sacred and not subject to doubt, examination or challenge. Religion’s certainty appeals to people who cannot abide uncertainty or unpredictability. It appeals to people who want things simple, settled and unambiguous. It appeals to people who want to be reassured that it’s all according to a plan by a greater mind much older and wiser than them. Sorry, but here’s where I’m going to make somebody mad:

In short, it appeals to children.

As a one paragraph summary of evolution, Maria’s answer is pretty good.

I’m not sure the ‘primordial soup’ hypothesis is the best one, but that was the only thing I could criticise in her summary, apart from the claim that all life is cellular. Viruses are not cellular, but then they are not always considered to be ‘alive’.

Life is quite hard to define, even for university professors, so Maria shouldn’t be criticised for not doing a perfect job.

All-too-typical Christians have hypocrisies? So what? Doesn’t everybody? When did Christians stop being human beings with human faults and virtues?

Scientific opinion does change, but that doesn’t mean you can’t use it to prove things. It doesn’t mean that science can’t produce truth. And it can certainly disprove many things (i.e. the sun revolves around the earth, etc.)

When properly applied, the scientific method will always produce more trustworthy findings than anything that comes out of meditation, ancient texts, psychic powers, new age mysticism or any other religious/spiritual belief. People like Maria don’t see that though. They put science on the same level as all these belief systems, while holding their own religion above all. And worse, since science makes no value judgments and offers no comfort in the form of a celestial caretaker, it is deemed with greater skepticism.

Why can I put a belief in science above a belief in religion? Simple: undeniable results. We’ve landed on the moon, cured a myriad of diseases, communicate with each other at the speed of light, and so on and so on. This has been in spite of the attempts throughout human history to stifle the advance of human knowledge by various religious factions.

Some people aren’t wired to be able to think with more logic than emotion. In order to explain ourselves people such as this, we have to try to see things from their point of view and give compelling emotional reasons why atheism is a valid and reasonable belief.

Some people aren’t wired to be able to think with more logic than emotion. In order to explain ourselves people such as this, we have to try to see things from their point of view and give compelling emotional reasons why atheism is a valid and reasonable belief.

I was with you up to this point. I think almost everyone has the capacity for logic and a basic understanding of science, even Maria, who doesn’t seem to have a problem with logic at all. It seems to be ignorance, that’s not crime, and it’s probably not her fault.

Religion is inflicted on the young, when they haven’t built up the defences of logic of reason. You’re taught not to question your faith, and faith can’t possibly withstand the slightest of questioning, it’s baseless. I can understand why they would want to keep their faith, it’s comforting, it’s frightening to step out into the enlightenment. In the end, they care little what is true or not.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to use logical fallacy, appeals to emotion, to argue what is the rational approach. I think it’s worth persuading people to think, reason, but it’s more important to stop the indoctrination of children, break the cycle. I think it’s slowly going that way, I hope it continues.

You know, it’s funny; I’m a budding atheist, am probably already an atheist who just hasn’t accepted herself as such yet, or maybe I’m just a part time atheist. But I always find myself arguing with the atheists! You just get it SO WRONG, so much of the time! I say this not from meanspiritedness, but, can you take a little criticism? You atheists really need to get clear in your mind what are your own beliefs, and if you wish to be reactive against religious beliefs, you need to first study them, at least a little bit, and understand them. Otherwise, you make mistakes and assumptions, and then it all boils down to an argument between two idiots (one an atheist, one a believer). Because you have no respect for theology, you assume it is all just nonsense, but have you ever taken a Philosophy of Religion course? It can be quite the mind twister. If you remain ignorant because you cannot conceive of the possibility that religious thought could hold anything of value, then you are really no different from those who reject science for the same reason. Both are coming from a position of ignorance. Orthodox Jewish rabbis and scholars who become atheists are fascinating to read (lots of blogs out there) — their arguments are on a much higher level because they know what the real issues are. Actually, they are way beyond me.

There is nothing about a belief in God that is inconsistent with taking advantage of medical or scientific technology. Furthermore, there are very different beliefs between religious people of different faiths. We are quite complex and varied, even if you can’t see that (because you are uninformed — heh!) The Jewish Talmud frankly states that when one is ill, one should choose the superior medical doctor over a medical doctor who is pious but not as skilled or experienced. There is nothing at all confusing or illogical about a God who “works through” humans. That some ignorant Appalachian fundamentalists (my apologies to sensible Appalachians, but I couldn’t resist seizing upon a stereotype and exploiting it) avoid medical doctors and opt for holy water instead is irrelevant. They do not represent the most sophisticated of theological philosophy.

In Judaism, we have the concept of “hishtadlus,” which means “our part to do.” A person’s “hishtadlus” is to find the best surgeon to treat him; it is God’s will whether the surgeon’s efforts will ultimately be blessed.

Rabbi Natan Slifkin is an Orthodox Jewish rabbi and scientist who wrote a controversial book in which he attempted to reconcile these arguments about the infallibility of the bible’s literal description of creation and evolutionary theories. I haven’t read it; my husband says it is an admirable effort. Rabbi Slifkin did not just make it up as he went along — he painstakingly referenced all information that derived from famous sages down through history. Some in the Orthodox camp applaud his work — others have banned his book and threatened to excommunicate anyone who reads it. To that, I say, OY VEY! It should not automatically be assumed that the bible and science are in terminal conflict.

I’ll leave you with Psalm 14:1

“The fool hath said in his heart, “there is no God.”

I mean, come on; no matter what you believe, isn’t that poetic and beautiful? Isn’t it fascinating to think that centuries ago, there were people who just didn’t accept the concept of a deity?

Re: the changeable nature of science, I agree with Richard Wade above, except with the usual caveat that his comments about religious certainty only apply to some types of religious faith. There are plenty of other types however that value things like mystery, doubt, and questioning. (In fact, just the other day I filmed a television program for a conservative Christian TV station that was all about the value of mystery and how we don’t need to have all the final answers.)

Mike C, like there are not many more mean and bigoted and spiteful Christians? C’mon. That’s not a valid argument, or you wouldn’t be calling yourself a Christian today.

There is nothing about a belief in God that is inconsistent with taking advantage of medical or scientific technology.

Yeah sure, if your parameters for your religion are limited merely to belief in a god, but most religious dogmas go way beyond that. Most Christians believe that their god answers prayers, rewards piety and humbleness, and intervenes in the natural world (miracles). There is a disconnect between this stated belief and actual contemporary Christian behavior. The fact is that contemporary Christianity has evolved to coexist in the modern world. If religious leaders had continued the tradition of hard stances against medicine, they would have lost a lot of followers to the first schism that allowed the practice of secular medicine.

Christian believers from the fourth century would not recognize Christianity today because Christianity has been forced to adapt to survive. My point was to cite an example of how Christianity is not this:

That is one of the great attractions of religious accounts of “what’s so.” It doesn’t change. It says unabashedly, “This is the truth.” In fact it says, “This is the Truth,” with a capital “T” to say that since their source is divine, all of its accounts of “what’s so” are sacred and not subject to doubt, examination or challenge.

That belief is a self-inflicted delusion on contemporary Christianity. Although it may change too slowly for most to notice, Christianity DOES change.

I’ll leave you with Psalm 14:1

“The fool hath said in his heart, “there is no God.”

I mean, come on; no matter what you believe, isn’t that poetic and beautiful? Isn’t it fascinating to think that centuries ago, there were people who just didn’t accept the concept of a deity?

What’s the rest of that Psalm? Hmm let’s see:

The ENTIRE Psalm 14:1 (KJV):

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

That is clearly wrong. According to this passage, atheists are incapable of doing anything good. They cannot be honest, they cannot accomplish good things, and they cannot even show a simple act of kindness…

Now either a lot of things that contemporary society believes are good are actually abominable or the BIBLE IS WRONG!

Friendly atheists like Hemant notwithstanding, there are still too many out there who do fit the negative stereotypes… as represented by several of the comments here. I just wouldn’t want to associate myself with those who are just so unwilling or unable to see anything of value in religious worldviews.

Right, trot out the ad hominem…

I have never said that I don’t see anything of value in religious worldviews. I think religious people (especially Mormons for example) seem to live very fruitful, happy, and fulfilling lives. But that does not mean that what they believe about the world, the universe, and their place in it is actually true! And for me, the truth is more important than a happy delusion.

Is there any amount of evidence that would be able to dissuade you of your belief in the Bible?

I guess the short answer to that question is no.

I think that about sums it all up.

We expect and even encourage our daughter, and will with our son once he’s old enough to understand, to question what she believes and why she believes it. A belief that won’t stand up to questioning isn’t really much of a belief.

You talk a nice talk but yet you admit right off that there is nothing that could change your belief in the first place. Doesn’t sound like there is too much questioning going on, only a lot of rationalizing. I guess it helps to have an infallible book to fall back on?

Maria is Catholic? She’s not fundamentalist. She’s Catholic. OK, In all seriousness, I really should put it this way, Protestant Fundies are completely different and she probably will not come near answering my questions the way my relatives would. It is a totally different world even from Catholicism. Science is not true in anyways shape or form with the Protestant Evangelical Fundamentalist that I know. Even my older son can attest that it is a totally different world, even from hardline Catholicism.

Hemant, if you want a Q and A from a Protestant Fundie you need to find someone like Farwell or worse. Yes, there are worse, but I’d be very afraid of religious abuse IF they did dare come here. They probably wouldn’t because it is a sin to associate with “infidels”. In all honesty, when you said Fundamentalist, Hemant, I really thought you found someone from my relatives’ school of thought daring enough to come here without feeling the need to tell us about “The Path of Salvation” and/or having to go to the alter themselves because they came here and associated with us.

I said it before and I’ll say it again, you got really lucky, Hemant, that none of the churches you attended were REAL Evangelical Fundamentalist churches. You truly have no idea, because if you had run into one, you might just run, never to even think about going to church again. IF they didn’t scare you into going up to the alter to “be saved” first. I’ll warn you though, if you do, you belong to them and they won’t leave you alone very easily. Not quite as bad as the JWs, but close.

Mike C, like there are not many more mean and bigoted and spiteful Christians? C’mon. That’s not a valid argument, or you wouldn’t be calling yourself a Christian today.

I don’t know about more or less. I would guess there plenty of mean, bigoted and spiteful within just about any worldview. Seems to just be the human condition. But as for who has more, I have no idea. If I were to take a wild guess based on the atheists and Christians I encounter online, I’d have to say it’s about even really.

And truth be told I’m not entirely at ease with calling myself a Christian these days either, for much the same reasons that I wouldn’t want to call myself an atheist – just too much negative baggage. I greatly prefer the term “Christ follower” – I think it gets at what it’s all about for me a lot better. However, I still end up using the term Christian because I don’t want to be accused of being evasive or merely “trendy” by avoiding the word… and I don’t want to have to go into every conversation with an explanation of the difference between Christian and Christ follower. So for simplicity’s sake I still use it when I have to.

Right, trot out the ad hominem…

I have never said that I don’t see anything of value in religious worldviews. I think religious people (especially Mormons for example) seem to live very fruitful, happy, and fulfilling lives. But that does not mean that what they believe about the world, the universe, and their place in it is actually true! And for me, the truth is more important than a happy delusion.

Very well, then why did you assume my comment was about you?

And it’s not an ad hominem. If I had said that atheism was untrue because some atheists are close-minded, then that would be an ad hominem. But to say that I wouldn’t want to be associated with the atheist label because of a perception of close-mindedness, even if I thought atheism as a philosophy were actually true is not an ad hominem. The attitudes of the “hominem” is exactly what the statement is about in the first place.

Hi all,

Well.. that went better than expected, I suppose.

There is no way that I could have posted answers to questions from people that are diametrically opposed to everything I believe and actually satisfy everyone. The fact that I said what I did and had courteous responses from nearly everyone even those who obviously disagree with me 100% was greatly appreciated.

I’m sure there are areas where I could have elaborated better. I was trying not to ramble or get emotional while at the same time accurately representing myself and others who believe as I do. I, just like all of you, am a complex, multifaceted person. It’s hard to represent complex things like philosphy of parenting, personal belief and other heavy topics in a few concise paragraphs. Thanks for respecting my efforts to do so.

Hemant asked me not to answer any more questions unless he decides upon a round two. We’ll have to see what he decides.

Till then, thanks to all of you who read the blog, all who commented and all who took the time to read my thoughts, share how they felt about what I felt, and all the thought provoking questions.

Your “fundie” friend,
M.

I was with you up to this point. I think almost everyone has the capacity for logic and a basic understanding of science, even Maria, who doesn’t seem to have a problem with logic at all. It seems to be ignorance, that’s not crime, and it’s probably not her fault.

I’m not saying Maria can’t appreciate logic. It’s just that when it comes to matters of religion, faith trumps logic. Creationists think their position is logical. And that is the point. Maria has said that there is nothing that could ever convince her that the bible isn’t the absolute truth. You can present evidence all day long, but it won’t matter.

A better way would be to talk about what it is like to be an atheist. Fundamentalists think that we lead empty lives without purpose. That we feel alone and are lost. That nothing guides our lives and that in times of despair we have nothing to give us hope. I think it would be a better tactic to explain how and why this isn’t the case.

Christians are people who follow Christ.

They can be Catholic or Protestant.

But they all believe in the goodness of a man who threatened people with torture for disbelief, who resorted to abuse and insults when he disagreed with others, and who greeted people who came to him for help with the words ‘How long must I put up with this disbelieving generation?’

Christians are people who follow somebody who taught that illness was sometimes caused by demon-possession.

And Christians have the amazing audacity to claim that they follow somebody who taught the demon theory of illness, which they just ignore by visiting doctors.

Jesus even once had to be shamed by his disciples into helping somebody.

But when Jesus was reminded that even somebody he likened to a ‘dog’ (as compared to his ‘children’), might need help, then he learned his lesson.

So the guy was prepared to rethink his attitude when shamed into reconsidering.

Just like many Christians, really…..

Maria, thank you for your patient and open-hearted responses to so many pointed questions. You faced us with courage and graciousness. I was reminded of the sharks in “Finding Nemo” who are trying so hard to not eat the fish, all the while they can just barely control their carnivorous urges. I hope you can dialogue with us again and I hope we can remain at least as courteous as this time or even a little better.

Very well, then why did you assume my comment was about you?

And it’s not an ad hominem. If I had said that atheism was untrue because some atheists are close-minded, then that would be an ad hominem. But to say that I wouldn’t want to be associated with the atheist label because of a perception of close-mindedness, even if I thought atheism as a philosophy were actually true is not an ad hominem. The attitudes of the “hominem” is exactly what the statement is about in the first place.

You basically said that atheists you encounter on the internet (and implied that to this debate) are mean (except for Hemant). That’s an ad hominem attack and completely irrelevant to the debate. So moving on…

Christians are people who follow Christ.

They can be Catholic or Protestant.

But they all believe in the goodness of a man who threatened people with torture for disbelief, who resorted to abuse and insults when he disagreed with others, and who greeted people who came to him for help with the words ‘How long must I put up with this disbelieving generation?’

Christians are people who follow somebody who taught that illness was sometimes caused by demon-possession.

And Christians have the amazing audacity to claim that they follow somebody who taught the demon theory of illness, which they just ignore by visiting doctors.

Jesus even once had to be shamed by his disciples into helping somebody.

But when Jesus was reminded that even somebody he likened to a ‘dog’ (as compared to his ‘children’), might need help, then he learned his lesson.

So the guy was prepared to rethink his attitude when shamed into reconsidering.

Just like many Christians, really…..

Word…

Andrew: “You basically said that atheists you encounter on the internet (and implied that to this debate) are mean (except for Hemant). That’s an ad hominem attack …”

Ahem, you should read this: http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/12/doggerel-49-ad-hominem.html

Because you have no respect for theology, you assume it is all just nonsense, but have you ever taken a Philosophy of Religion course? It can be quite the mind twister. If you remain ignorant because you cannot conceive of the possibility that religious thought could hold anything of value, then you are really no different from those who reject science for the same reason. Both are coming from a position of ignorance.

It is all nonsense, not that it’s not rational or logical in itself, but when you see what it’s built upon. I don’t see how an Atheist would be saying that isn’t nonsense. If you don’t accept the stuff taken on faith that theology is built upon, it’s absolutely irrational nonsense. That’s how a Christian can see other religions, and call them ridiculous, but isn’t capable of looking at their beliefs with any scepticism.

I’m not going to study the practices of atrology, homeopathy, or “chi” either, because it’s like studying why the wings of fairies are green. I think we should study them, and religion, like Daniel Dennett is doing. Not from the inside, that is an absurd position. Atheists should not be wasting their time with the “philosophy” of religion, because there is real philosophy they can study. We should be studying why people beleive strange things.

You accuse rationalists of rejecting faith on the same basis that faithheads reject science. How can you possibly defend such a position? No faithhead ever rejected science because of lack of evidence.

Here’s Richard Dawkins’s response to this backwards notion of asking atheists to study theology:

You can’t criticise religion without detailed study of learned books on theology.

If, as one self-consciously intellectual critic wished, I had expounded the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope (as he vainly hoped I would), my book would have been more than a surprise bestseller, it would have been a miracle. I would happily have forgone bestsellerdom had there been the slightest hope of Duns Scotus illuminating my central question: does God exist? But I need engage only those few theologians who at least acknowledge the question, rather than blithely assuming God as a premise. For the rest, I cannot better the “Courtier’s Reply” on P. Z. Myers’s splendid Pharyngula website, where he takes me to task for outing the Emperor’s nudity while ignoring learned tomes on ruffled pantaloons and silken underwear. Most Christians happily disavow Baal and the Flying Spaghetti Monster without reference to monographs of Baalian exegesis or Pastafarian theology.

How dare you call me a fundamentalist

PZ Myer’s response on Pharyngula:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

The Courtier’s Reply

But of course, Jesus’ didn’t rebuke Thomas. In fact, he honored his request for more proof.

Tell Jesus I make the same request.

MIKE C
But of course, Jesus’ didn’t rebuke Thomas. In fact, he honored his request for more proof.

CARR
And somebody who claimed to have first hand experience of all these appearances (ie Paul) couldn’t draw on any such stories to tell the Christians in Corinth what sort of a body Jesus had.

Instead he tells them Jesus became a spirit, and instead of the simple ‘proofs’ Jesus gave that the body was the same body , waffles on about how heavenly bodies are as different from earthly bodies as a fish is from the moon.

But of course, Jesus’ didn’t rebuke Thomas. In fact, he honored his request for more proof.

After which, he said:
“Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” John 20:29

It’s the second part of that verse that we – conservative evangelicals – were taught about repeatedly. In fact, I was often told that Jesus was addressing that remark to all his followers who came after the ascension and who would not get the “proof” that Thomas got, but would instead get a special blessing for believing on faith alone.

I guess we needed a consolation prize. 😉

Regarding Richard Dawkins’ excuse for not being more conversant with the best thinking on religion:

I would happily have forgone bestsellerdom had there been the slightest hope of Duns Scotus illuminating my central question: does God exist? But I need engage only those few theologians who at least acknowledge the question, rather than blithely assuming God as a premise.

That would indeed be a vaiid excuse if Dawkins confined himself to disproving the existence of God. But he goes farther than that, accusing religion of being the “root of all evil”, a mind virus, etc. It’s where Dawkins crosses over from being a scientist/logician to a cultural critic/historian, that he loses credibility for me. He ignores how the best thinking in religion such as Sufi writings, OT midrashes, etc illuminate the human condition. For godess’s sake, one huge branch of Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy, agrees that god does not “exist.”

Of course, Dawkins does not say that religion is the root of all evil.

But why bother with accuracy?

Dawkins didn’t call his documentary ‘The Root of all Evil?’

Haven’t you bothered to read him?

I’m sure if it was a deep matter of principle to Dawkins not to unfairly characterize religion, he would have held out against the producers. It’s not a situation like in the newsroom, where headlines get stuck on an article without approval from the writer. With the explanation you quote above, again the best word I can think of is “weasel” – he didn’t care enough to insist, didn’t mind stirring up a bit of controversy, but doesn’t want the high negatives that go along with his high positives.