Dawkins on the doctrine of attonement

[DMB]

and the differences between liberal Christians and fundies:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7007065.ece

Educated apologist, how dare you weep Christian tears, when your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering: suffering as payback for “sin” — or suffering as “atonement” for it? You may weep for Haiti where Pat Robertson does not, but at least, in his hick, sub-Palinesque ignorance, he holds up an honest mirror to the ugliness of Christian theology. You are nothing but a whited sepulchre.

[Ray Moscow]

Yeah, there's been a smackdown on various blogs about this.

WEIT has a writeup, with some good comments. (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/dawkins-at-on-faith/)

And a rebuttal of Ross Douthat’s boneheaded reply to Dawkins, too. (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/ross-douthats-theodicy/)

[Alethias]

and the differences between liberal Christians and fundies:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7007065.ece

Educated apologist, how dare you weep Christian tears, when your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering: suffering as payback for “sin” — or suffering as “atonement” for it? You may weep for Haiti where Pat Robertson does not, but at least, in his hick, sub-Palinesque ignorance, he holds up an honest mirror to the ugliness of Christian theology. You are nothing but a whited sepulchre.I just read that. I LOVE it! He uses the language of the faithists to shred them. At least the Infamous Pat Robertson is honest in his despicable doctrine. He uses the very language that believers who read his article will get and understand. Having grown up in a fundamentalist protestant environment, it really resonated with me.

Richard Dawkins rocks.

[Febble]

Well, Peter Abelard got there first.

Where I think Dawkins is theologically misled is in this:

or (most nauseating of all) who claim to see God “suffering on the cross” in the ruins of Port-au-Prince

It seems to me that that's the "other" atonement doctrine, quite different from the "scapegoat" one which he is rightly berating throughout his piece. And that doctrine has been a parallel strand in Christian theology since at least Abelard's time.

I think those who hold on to that strand are entitled to reject Robertson without hypocrisy.

I don't know why he labelled that one as "most nauseating of all".

It's the only one that ever worked for me.

[Worldtraveller]

I loved the turn of phrase in this particular paragraph.
You nice, middle-of-the-road theologians and clergymen, be-frocked and bleating in your pulpits, you disclaim Pat Robertson's suggestion that the Haitians are paying for a pact with the Devil. But you worship a god-man who — as you tell your congregations, even if you don’t believe it yourself — “cast out devils”. You even believe (or you don’t disabuse your flock when they believe) that Jesus cured a madman by causing the “devils” in him to fly into a herd of pigs and stampede them over a cliff. Charming story, well calculated to uplift and inspire the Sunday School and the Infant Bible Class.
Dawkins is stating here (much more eloquenlty) the same thing I've been saying about the Phelps clan. I like it.

The religious apologists showing in the Times thread in the OP are laughable.

[Politesse]

He uses the language of the faithists to shred them.Ha. yeah. Dawkins uses theology words about as well as dattaswami uses science words.

[Alethias]

He uses the language of the faithists to shred them.Ha. yeah. Dawkins uses theology words about as well as dattaswami uses science words.Did you actually read the article? You should do that before you criticize.

[Politesse]

He uses the language of the faithists to shred them.Ha. yeah. Dawkins uses theology words about as well as dattaswami uses science words.Did you actually read the article? You should do that before you criticize.

Yes, of course I did. He doesn't indicate much knowledge of the debate that has been waged since Abraham about whether the concept of punishment for sin is valid, or of the ultimate Christian conclusion: the atonement of God washes away any stain. To talk about hurricanes or earthquakes as punishing angels is to doubt the crucifixion and its worth, and stepping into a seat of judgment that is not meant for us. 'Judge not lest ye be judged'. This is elementary stuff, even if politicos like Robertson are quick to forget it when it serves their personal ends. Some people are Christians in the same sense that a Broncos fan is a Broncos fan- in it not for any intrinsic quality or virtue but because its their team. Robertson is among them. But it doesn't make him a more honest Christian. Anything but, in fact. And Dawkins is being disingenuous. He doesn't like Robertson because he is more honest, he likes him because Robertson is a living strawman, easily summarized and dismissed. Dawkins never speaks with theologians, with mainline Christians, with anyone who has a brain, because he himself is very ignorant of religious topics. He has to play in the kiddie pool, with the shills. He and Robertson are bosom buddies on opposite sides of a really somewhat arbitrary line, happily feeding each other's careers while really meaning little of what they say.

[David B]

He uses the language of the faithists to shred them.Ha. yeah. Dawkins uses theology words about as well as dattaswami uses science words.Did you actually read the article? You should do that before you criticize.

Yes, of course I did. He doesn't indicate much knowledge of the debate that has been waged since Abraham about whether the concept of punishment for sin is valid, or of the ultimate Christian conclusion: the atonement of God washes away any stain. To talk about hurricanes or earthquakes as punishing angels is to doubt the crucifixion and its worth, and stepping into a seat of judgment that is not meant for us. 'Judge not lest ye be judged'. This is elementary stuff, even if politicos like Robertson are quick to forget it when it serves their personal ends. Some people are Christians in the same sense that a Broncos fan is a Broncos fan- in it not for any intrinsic quality or virtue but because its their team. Robertson is among them. But it doesn't make him a more honest Christian. Anything but, in fact. And Dawkins is being disingenuous. He doesn't like Robertson because he is more honest, he likes him because Robertson is a living strawman, easily summarized and dismissed. Dawkins never speaks with theologians, with mainline Christians, with anyone who has a brain, because he himself is very ignorant of religious topics. He has to play in the kiddie pool, with the shills. He and Robertson are bosom buddies on opposite sides of a really somewhat arbitrary line, happily feeding each other's careers while really meaning little of what they say.

Well actually he does speak with educated Christians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc&feature=PlayList&p=3E40FAB89680EED5&index=7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ0WinCWtLs&feature=PlayList&p=06194CDEE3D34418&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=32

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnPac6ao83w&feature=related

He doesn't like Robertson at all.

You might be interested (perhaps not:D) in PZ Myers' take on Dawkins' alleged ignorance of the finer points of theology.

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.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

My view is that PZ has it spot on.

David

[Alethias]

Yes, of course I did. He doesn't indicate much knowledge of the debate that has been waged since Abraham about whether the concept of punishment for sin is valid, or of the ultimate Christian conclusion: the atonement of God washes away any stain.This article isn't discussing the broader scope of any such debate, but rather is honing on the horrific concept that some christians seem to have of their god using natural disasters to punish innocent people. This is an idea that is present in Pat Robertson's speeches, and is not that uncommon in the bible. But of course it violates modern sensibilities and many modern christians don't care for it, regardless of it's presence in the bible.

To talk about hurricanes or earthquakes as punishing angels is to doubt the crucifixion and its worth, and stepping into a seat of judgment that is not meant for us. 'Judge not lest ye be judged'. This is elementary stuff, even if politicos like Robertson are quick to forget it when it serves their personal ends. Some people are Christians in the same sense that a Broncos fan is a Broncos fan- in it not for any intrinsic quality or virtue but because its their team. Robertson is among them.That is your assessment, but I doubt if Robertson would even remotely agree. But it doesn't make him a more honest Christian. o, please. Do I need to quote scripture to you, that you already know?Anything but, in fact. And Dawkins is being disingenuous. O really?He doesn't like Robertson because he is more honest, he likes him because Robertson is a living strawman, easily summarized and dismissed. What makes you think he likes Robertson? I didn't get that impression.Dawkins never speaks with theologians, with mainline Christians, with anyone who has a brain, because he himself is very ignorant of religious topics.You can't back this up. He has to play in the kiddie pool, with the shills. He and Robertson are bosom buddies on opposite sides of a really somewhat arbitrary line, happily feeding each other's careers while really meaning little of what they say.:rolleyes: Empty, vapid insults.

So, I take it that you are in the class of christian that Richard Dawkins is poking at and don't like being classed as a whited sepulchre? :evil:

[Politesse]

This article isn't discussing the broader scope of any such debate, but rather is honing on the horrific concept that some christians seem to have of their god using natural disasters to punish innocent people. In response to the even greater number of christians, almost unanimous in fact, that find the notion horrific and misguided. Even the conservative right has been denouncing Robertson on this one, for the most part. Robertson is in the wrong here. Of course, Dawkins is focusing on the "some" who believe like Robertson do, I just think it is rather puerile and dishonest for him to do so. My whole point is that he is ignoring the broader scope of the debate, and that he shouldn't be.

This is an idea that is present in Pat Robertson's speeches, and is not that uncommon in the bible. But of course it violates modern sensibilities and many modern christians don't care for it, regardless of it's presence in the bible.Of course they don't care for it. It's wrong. That a case can be made for it from Scripture is irrelevant; you can make a case for anything with a carefully cropped verse or two. Often more than one viewpoint on a matter is expressed within its pages, because it was written by different people with different tasks in mind; hence four gospels, three creation accounts, two accounts of the history of Israel. Certain kinds of people may imagine that a book can infallibly tell them what to do and believe, but when it comes down to it, people make their own moral determinations, even if they depend on a holy book for support in doing so. The Bible guides and advises, it doesn't force or dictate. So an argument Sola Scriptura is not enough to justify saying "Christians believe x", particularly when it is obvious that not all of them do.

That is your assessment, but I doubt if Robertson would even remotely agree.Obviously not. So what? He is what he is.

What makes you think he likes Robertson? I didn't get that impression.Well, it's foe yay (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FoeYay). But he is holding him up as the spokesperson for Christian authenticity here.

Dawkins never speaks with theologians, with mainline Christians, with anyone who has a brain, because he himself is very ignorant of religious topics.You can't back this up.

Sure I can. Dawkins says as much himself. In his foreword to the God Delusion, for instance. Mind you, he thinks he's justified in ignoring theology and its history, because it's all just window dressing or what have you and irrelevant to what he's going on about. But to an actual theist, it just comes across as not having done his homework. His response to the charge of not engaging with traditional Christians and scholars is not "Yes I do" but rather "I don't care".

Empty, vapid insults.Dawkin's own favored strategy, after all. But you can ignore the insults if you like, it's true that I deeply dislike the man and am likely to let such pronouncements slip.

So, I take it that you are in the class of christian that Richard Dawkins is poking at and don't like being classed as a whited sepulchre?Pretty to look at but contentless? No, I don't think so, but you may draw your own opinion. I find it interesting that this charge is being leveled at those who take the time to think about their faith and what it means to them, rather than those who mindlessly parrot whatever they hear on 700 Club.

[phands]

http://www.evilbible.com

Says it all...

[Alethias]

Sure I can. Dawkins says as much himself. In his foreword to the God Delusion, for instance. Mind you, he thinks he's justified in ignoring theology and its history, because it's all just window dressing or what have you and irrelevant to what he's going on about. But to an actual theist, it just comes across as not having done his homework. His response to the charge of not engaging with traditional Christians in scholars is not "Yes I do" but rather "I don't care".Ah. moving the goalposts :) This is different than your initial claim that Dawkins "never speaks with theologians, with mainline christians, with anyone who has a brain". That was specifically refuted by David B.

So, only a learned theologian is allowed to refute a learned theologian by your standards? One has to attend the University of Invisible Clothing before one is allowed to challenge the doctrine of the invisible clothing adherents? I recommend a reading of David B's post before you answer this.

[Politesse]

So, only a learned theologian is allowed to refute a learned theologian by your standards? One has to attend the University of Invisible Clothing before one is allowed to challenge the doctrine of the invisible clothing adherents? I recommend a reading of David B's post before you answer this.If you want to be taken seriously? Yes. You want to challenge a biological proposition, you need to research biology, and talk to biologists. Law? Jurisprudence and lawyers. Theology? Well, yes, you should know something about it before you appoint yourself an apologist. I don't think Mr. Dawkins needs to attend seminary per se, but he does need to have some familiarity with what his opponents believe and the history of their faiths if he expects anyone to listen to him. If he's intrinsically right about the emperor's clothes, then a bit of education won't change that; it will just make it possible for him to make a better argument against it. An argument against an proposition that your opponent does not, in fact, endorse is not convincing. Or even relevant. He's like a Creationist arguing that monkeys can't give birth to cats. Of course they can't, but who cares? That's not what evolution predicts. And Dawkin's parody of Christian faith, to say nothing of any other religion, similarly fails to reflect what most people actually think.

[David B]

So, only a learned theologian is allowed to refute a learned theologian by your standards? One has to attend the University of Invisible Clothing before one is allowed to challenge the doctrine of the invisible clothing adherents? I recommend a reading of David B's post before you answer this.If you want to be taken seriously? Yes. You want to challenge a biological proposition, you need to research biology, and talk to biologists. Law? Jurisprudence and lawyers. Theology? Well, yes, you should know something about it before you appoint yourself an apologist. I don't think Mr. Dawkins needs to attend seminary per se, but he does need to have some familiarity with what his opponents believe and the history of their faiths if he expects anyone to listen to him. If he's intrinsically right about the emperor's clothes, then a bit of education won't change that; it will just make it possible for him to make a better argument against it. An argument against an proposition that your opponent does not, in fact, endorse is not convincing. Or even relevant. He's like a Creationist arguing that monkeys can't give birth to cats. Of course they can't, but who cares? That's not what evolution predicts. And Dawkin's parody of Christian faith, to say nothing of any other religion, similarly fails to reflect what most people actually think.

My bold.

Astrology? Phrenology? Homeopathy? Islam? John Frum? Tarot? I Ching? The multitude of mutually inconsistent creation myths from around the world, through time? etc etc.

What case can you make for saying that Christian theology is more worthy of deep study than any of these.

In any case, I trust that you well never again put forward the false proposition that Dawkins does not talk to theologians and mainstream Christians, and withdraw that claim here, now.

David

[Politesse]

Astrology? Phrenology? Homeopathy? Islam? John Frum? Tarot? I Ching? The multitude of mutually inconsistent creation myths from around the world, through time? etc etc.

What case can you make for saying that Christian theology is more worthy of deep study than any of these.
I think you quite misunderstand me, sir. My maxim that one should first research what one plans to refute is universal in scope, and meant to be universally applied. Christianity is in no special category in that regard, and I am quite happy to embrace that fact. I would, in fact, just as happily defend all those other things on the same grounds. A badly made argument is a badly made argument, and an appeal to ignorance is always a bad argument.

In any case, I trust that you well never again put forward the false proposition that Dawkins does not talk to theologians and mainstream Christians, and withdraw that claim here, now.If you wish.

[Daydream]

DMB, I thoroughly enjoyed that article. Thank you for posting it. :thumbup:

[Alethias]

So, only a learned theologian is allowed to refute a learned theologian by your standards? One has to attend the University of Invisible Clothing before one is allowed to challenge the doctrine of the invisible clothing adherents? I recommend a reading of David B's post before you answer this.If you want to be taken seriously? Yes. You want to challenge a biological proposition, you need to research biology, and talk to biologists. Law? Jurisprudence and lawyers. Theology? Well, yes, you should know something about it before you appoint yourself an apologist. I don't think Mr. Dawkins needs to attend seminary per se, but he does need to have some familiarity with what his opponents believe and the history of their faiths if he expects anyone to listen to him. If he's intrinsically right about the emperor's clothes, then a bit of education won't change that; it will just make it possible for him to make a better argument against it. An argument against an proposition that your opponent does not, in fact, endorse is not convincing. Or even relevant. He's like a Creationist arguing that monkeys can't give birth to cats. Of course they can't, but who cares? That's not what evolution predicts. And Dawkin's parody of Christian faith, to say nothing of any other religion, similarly fails to reflect what most people actually think.So...the bible doesn't support the notion of a god punishing a nation with mass death and destruction? That's what it would take for Dawkins to be wrong in his criticisms.

(Hint: it won't take me very long to find scripture references on this one. :) )

[Politesse]

So...the bible doesn't support the notion of a god punishing a nation with mass death and destruction? That's what it would take for Dawkins to be wrong in his criticisms.

(Hint: it won't take me very long to find scripture references on this one. :) )
AS I said, the Bible can be used to support anything. Certainly, prior to the period of Hellenization, it was commonly assumed by the writers of Scripture that any calamity must be an expression of anger on the part of God. This doesn't mean, however, that a Christian is compelled to feel this way, or that one is being more "honest" if one agrees with Moses over and above the teachings of Christ himself or the callings of one's own conscience.

[hecaterin]

I dunno, I'm usually a Dawkins fan, but here he seems to be going off the rails a bit.

It's one thing to say the Emperor has no clothes, and I'm totally down with that.

But it's quite another thing to engage with the apologists on their own terms, and claim that the Emperor's Real Clothes are made of finest aristocratic silk spun and woven by exploited Chinese children in sweatshops, and not that hippie organic fair-trade homespun hemp that some revisionists are claiming.