Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 17:24:40 GMT
Do you agree with Francesca Stavrakopoulou that Richard Dawkins misunderstands the nature of religion?
This is what she said on Twitter in 2014 so its a while ago
"I've debated with Dawkins on TV and discussed religion with him off camera. My impression is that he misunderstands the nature of religion."
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 31, 2017 22:14:13 GMT
Like mosts atheists who hate religion, how could he do anything but misunderstand it?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 31, 2017 22:26:46 GMT
No, quite the opposite, he understands it too well. Ironically people often become atheists after finding out what's in the Bible/Koran/etc.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 31, 2017 22:28:55 GMT
No, quite the opposite, he understands it too well. Ironically people often become atheists after finding out what's in the Bible/Koran/etc. I thought we were born that way.. What's in the Bible has never been a secret just like Dawkins and people like him tend to be idiots.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 31, 2017 22:34:58 GMT
No, quite the opposite, he understands it too well. Ironically people often become atheists after finding out what's in the Bible/Koran/etc. I thought we were born that way.. What's in the Bible has never been a secret just like Dawkins and people like him tend to be idiots. "I thought we were born that way.." I was refering to after childhood indoctrination. "What's in the Bible has never been a secret" It might as well be, even many self described "Christians", don't seem to have a clue what's actually in it. "people like him tend to be idiots." A highly respected Oxford scientist is an "idiot"? Oh, ok.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 22:43:56 GMT
It should be said that Francesca Stavrakopoulou is also an atheist and a theologian. She is the Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter and Head of its Department of Theology and Religion.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 31, 2017 22:54:16 GMT
It should be said that Francesca Stavrakopoulou is also an atheist and a theologian. She is the Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter and Head of its Department of Theology and Religion. Then from her perspective sounds like she's basically a mythologist with some "spirituality" thrown in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 23:05:13 GMT
It should be said that Francesca Stavrakopoulou is also an atheist and a theologian. She is the Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter and Head of its Department of Theology and Religion. Then from her perspective sounds like she's basically a mythologist with some "spirituality" thrown in. Well as she is a professor of religion my guess is that she knows more about it than a biologist. Just as Dawkins knows more about biology and Ethology than she does. I assume
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2018 3:28:05 GMT
Do you agree with Francesca Stavrakopoulou that Richard Dawkins misunderstands the nature of religion? This is what she said on Twitter in 2014 so its a while ago "I've debated with Dawkins on TV and discussed religion with him off camera. My impression is that he misunderstands the nature of religion."No. He may have a different understanding of it than she does, but that is not the same thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2018 3:32:55 GMT
No, quite the opposite, he understands it too well. Ironically people often become atheists after finding out what's in the Bible/Koran/etc. I thought we were born that way.. We are. But many stop being atheists after that. And then some of them become atheists yet again after that. Indeed. And yet many people don't know what's in it. I bet you won't try and justify that claim.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 1, 2018 5:42:58 GMT
I'd say she's being really vague; why/how does she think Dawkins misunderstands it and what, in her opinion, is the correct understanding?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 1, 2018 8:43:29 GMT
It is something people say when someone disagrees with them, particularly when the argument is either persuasive or more logical.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2018 11:54:12 GMT
It is something people say when someone disagrees with them, particularly when the argument is either persuasive or more logical. Or could it be that she a professor of ancient religion knows more about it than a biologist like Dawkins.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 1, 2018 12:54:55 GMT
Or could it be that she a professor of ancient religion knows more about it than a biologist like Dawkins. If theology were a body of objective knowledge the way biology is, this claim would have some plausibility. But it isn't. Other than content of a strictly historical nature, theology does not discover truths or knowledge that are recognized as valid by other disciplines. In fact, when they make truth claims about the nature of reality, theologians are substantially less qualified than scientists. Does Stavrakopoulou understand the psychology and social significance of religion better than Dawkins? Almost certainly. But that bears no relevance at all to whether the truth claims of religion are accurate descriptors of reality, and that's all Dawkins really cares about.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 1, 2018 23:21:04 GMT
It is something people say when someone disagrees with them, particularly when the argument is either persuasive or more logical. Or could it be that she a professor of ancient religion knows more about it than a biologist like Dawkins. That is a very narrow field of study when you consider that atheists believe it to be completely unfounded and based in mythology with only reference to historical fact. Hawkins bases his knowledge in what the real world is and how it functions. In this sense you could say that they misunderstand each other, however, the onus would be on a professor of ancient religion to prove her points using comparable methodology. To assert a proposition needs proof.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 1:14:35 GMT
Or could it be that she a professor of ancient religion knows more about it than a biologist like Dawkins. That is a very narrow field of study when you consider that atheists believe it to be completely unfounded and based in mythology with only reference to historical fact. Hawkins bases his knowledge in what the real world is and how it functions. In this sense you could say that they misunderstand each other, however, the onus would be on a professor of ancient religion to prove her points using comparable methodology. To assert a proposition needs proof. She is an atheist
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 2, 2018 2:59:41 GMT
That is a very narrow field of study when you consider that atheists believe it to be completely unfounded and based in mythology with only reference to historical fact. Hawkins bases his knowledge in what the real world is and how it functions. In this sense you could say that they misunderstand each other, however, the onus would be on a professor of ancient religion to prove her points using comparable methodology. To assert a proposition needs proof. She is an atheist Then where does she think that Dawkins is going wrong and misunderstanding? It must be obvious that they have different specialities!
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Jan 2, 2018 3:07:20 GMT
... What's in the Bible has never been a secret just like Dawkins and people like him tend to be idiots. In that regard, the Bible is kinda like the Internal Revenue Code; both are public information, but are so convoluted and fragmented that only those with a degree in theology(accounting) have taken the time to actually read it. Just about everything people know about the bible was sanitized from the pulpit. Priests tell you all the good things that God does because they want you to return next Sunday and leave money in the collection plate. Priests tend to ignore or gloss all the bad things in the bible. When was the last time the Sunday sermon told us about all the people that God murdered? Here's a list: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 2, 2018 6:36:52 GMT
... What's in the Bible has never been a secret just like Dawkins and people like him tend to be idiots. In that regard, the Bible is kinda like the Internal Revenue Code; both are public information, but are so convoluted and fragmented that only those with a degree in theology(accounting) have taken the time to actually read it. Just about everything people know about the bible was sanitized from the pulpit. Priests tell you all the good things that God does because they want you to return next Sunday and leave money in the collection plate. Priests tend to ignore or gloss all the bad things in the bible. When was the last time the Sunday sermon told us about all the people that God murdered? Here's a list: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_peopleWell, that was quite a list. I spent my entire youth at church, and - surprise - that stuff was never mentioned, except the whole flood thing. I became aware of it later in life, which obviously influenced my move towards atheism. Academically, I understand that tribalism and religion were evolutionary advantages, but I just can't wrap my head around why people still choose to believe in religion when science has done such a good job of explaining natural law, and discovering that germs caused illnesses, not demons or sin. The set of encyclopedias my parents bought for me when I was young are now outdated and inaccurate. No one wants them, and they are only 50 years old, not 2,000 years old.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 2, 2018 7:26:53 GMT
... What's in the Bible has never been a secret just like Dawkins and people like him tend to be idiots. In that regard, the Bible is kinda like the Internal Revenue Code; both are public information, but are so convoluted and fragmented that only those with a degree in theology(accounting) have taken the time to actually read it. With the exception of historical contexts, The Bible isn't that difficult as far as old literary texts go. It's probably more accessible than, say, Milton or Virgil.
|
|