4 ms·
Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"? To par
by IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"?
To paraphrase Dawkins' speech to the University of Kentucky,
The thing about being an atheist is that you don't think that "theology" is a subject at all. You're not an expert in fairies, but I'll bet you have no problem not believing in those.
Actually, since Dawkins is an expert in Ethology, the evolution of animal behavior, he is in fact uniquely qualified to talk about religion, as that is among the most odd, fascinating, paradoxical, and complex behaviors that evolution has yet produced. In The God Delusion, he outlines many of the factors of the human animal that make us particularly susceptible to religion.
Theologists are the ones not qualified to analyze religion.
- robg 18y ago"In The God Delusion, he outlines many of the factors of the human animal that make us particularly susceptible to religion." And yet none are testable hypotheses. In other words, he's no longer doing science unless he can propose some experiments with predictions. They're just so stories that give the illusion of understanding without verification. Hmmm, seems an awful lot like faith creeping in... Now, that's not to knock evolutionary theory. It's just a massive reach, without an empirical net, to try to apply it toward explaining away religion.