Richard Dawkins

[drat16]

In a 1997 article appearing in the New York Review of Books, well-known paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould accused Richard Dawkins of being a ‘Darwinian fundamentalist.’   Gould is certainly not the last to make this charge in regards to Dawkins.  Prospect in November 2005 declared via a poll of its readers that Dawkins was one of the top three leading intellectuals of the world. However, that same magazine’s subsequent review of Dawkins’ The God Delusion labeled him ‘Dawkins the Dogmatist’ and stated The God Delusion was “incurious, dogmatic, rambling, and self-contradictory.”   Dawkins has emphatically stated that he is not like a fundamentalist because he feels he is completely open to following the evidence where it leads him. However, one can call into question Dawkins’ claims to openness. This author’s purpose is not to offer a response to Dawkins or to advocate a form of theism. Rather, this author shall seek to demonstrate that Dawkins has in fact become a dangerous fundamentalist as Gould insightfully stated.  This shall be accomplished by analyzing Dawkins for traits commonly associated with one considered to be a ‘fundamentalist’: improper interaction with opponents, mistreatment of evidence, frequent use of straw man argumentation, and a willingness to use the rhetoric of intolerance. The author will close by attempting to demonstrate why this fundamentalism has made Dawkins’ ideas rather dangerous to modern society.

Interaction with Opponents

   Dawkins in The God Delusion attacks religious faith because he finds it to be dangerous to society. Dawkins writes of his desire to make converts to atheism in the preface, “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”   However, Dawkins then goes on to admit that this is perhaps a little too optimistic of a goal as “…dyed-in-the-wool faith heads are immune to argument.”   This concisely represents the Dawkins view of faith. Faith is an irrational, hope against all evidence type of enterprise. Later Dawkins writes, “Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.”   It is little wonder why Dawkins is so concerned with the potential dangers of faith. If faith requires no reasoning then surely irrationality could eventually lead to morally repugnant behavior.
   Yet the ‘faith’ that Dawkins warns against is nothing like the Christian concept of faith. Christians can agree with Dawkins that irrational faith is dangerous, as Christianity would also strongly oppose irrational faith.   It can be demonstrated from both the Bible and church history that the call to faith in Christ is a summons to reasonable faith. This faith is not, as Dawkins suggests, hope against all evidence. It is instead a hope in Christ because of the evidence. Catholic writer Nicholas Lash wrote this after surveying a particular sentence written by Dawkins in which faith was deemed irrational:
That sentence gives me a strange feeling, as I sit reading it in my study- the walls of which are filled, from top to bottom, with volumes dedicated to attempts at just such an understanding [of reasonable faith]. It really is most disquieting that a book so polemically ignorant of the extent to which faith’s quest for understanding has, for century after century, been central to the practice and identity of those educational enterprises which we call the great religious traditions of the world, should receive the plaudits it has.
   Dawkins could be forgiven for his incorrect depiction of the Christian if it were simply due to a lack of training in theology. Unfortunately, it appears that simple ignorance is not the cause of Dawkins’ error.  Oxford professor Keith Ward has stated “…if you take a course in theology at Oxford, Dawkins’ own university, you will be challenged to think for yourself, to engage with the best philosophical minds of the past, and to decide for or against specific religious beliefs on the basis of the best reasons you can find.”  Alister McGrath who is also a professor at Oxford has stated in regards to Dawkins’ definition, “I don’t accept this idea of faith, and I have yet to meet a theologian who takes it seriously. It cannot be defended from any official declaration of faith from any Christian denomination.”  McGrath also notes that Dawkins offers no evidence supporting his definition of faith and writes, “It is Dawkins’ own definition, constructed with his own agenda in mind, being represented as if it were characteristic of those he wishes to criticize.” 
    It quickly becomes apparent that Dawkins has simply refused to interact with, or even to mention, the definition of faith offered by many in the theology department at his own university. While Dawkins admits to reading some of McGrath’s objections before writing The God Delusion, Dawkins never mentions that McGrath offers strong argumentation against the concept of blind faith. One would expect Dawkins, out of respect for evidence and healthy argument, to at least discuss this issue and defend his concept of blind faith. However, no healthy dialogue occurs as Dawkins continues to dogmatically apply his false definition of faith onto Christianity despite strong objections by Christian theologians. It is perhaps ironic that in spite of solid contrary evidence offered by theologians, Dawkins continually offers a definition of faith supported by no evidence.
    One other brief example would be Dawkins’ handling of the Gospels. Dawkins states rather emphatically that the gospels were written very late by stating, “When the gospels were written, many years after Jesus’ death, nobody knew where he was born.”  By contrast, Thomas Crean notes several scholars who have dated a fragment of Matthew’s gospel to the first century by using commonly accepted dating techniques. Crean then writes, “Is this papyrus hidden away in some inaccessible monastery of Syria or Egypt? No, it is in the library of Magdalen College, Oxford, just a stone’s throw from Professor Dawkins.”  Rather than offering a rebuttal of this strong evidence in disagreement with him, or even offering evidence to support his position, Dawkins simply makes a rather controversial assertion and then moves on.

Dawkins and Evidence

    It seems McGrath is correct to write, “Dawkins tends to seek out, recall, and interpret evidence in a manner that sustains his atheist beliefs.”  Perhaps to demonstrate exactly how unreasonable Dawkins becomes with evidence, it is helpful to consider Dawkins’ treatment of sources. The God Delusion is not a science book and there are no research studies cited by Dawkins to support his thesis that religion is dangerous. With such a controversial thesis, one would expect Dawkins to submit statistical studies showing a causal link between religion and violence. However, it appears that The New York Times reviewer wrote correctly, “Dawkins does not bother to cite such empirical evidence; instead, he relies, rather unscientifically, on his intuition.” 
     The actual sources that Dawkins does offer are of a very interesting variety. A brief perusal of the endnotes will yield the discovery that the vast majority of citations emerge from the Internet. This is not bad in and of itself, but the fact that so many sources are from Internet blogs is troubling. At one point Dawkins even cites Dateline Hollywood, which is an internet based tabloid.  Dawkins himself admits that the story taken from Dateline may or may not be accurate, and therefore one must simply ask why this received citation at all. At another point Dawkins makes the controversial statement that Jesus only taught love for fellow Jews. For this Dawkins cites an associate professor of anesthesiology with no known training in Scripture.  In the section on the origins of religion, Dawkins frequently cites sources well over one hundred years old that are now widely discounted.  To add even further complications, Dawkins quotes these old sources only second hand indicating he himself is not actually reading the documents. Many more examples are available but the point is simply that Dawkins offers no solid evidence to support his thesis.
       Dawkins’ consideration of evidence that opposes his position is also questionable. Dawkins’ treatment of the philosophical arguments concerning the existence of  God  is perhaps the best example of this. Dawkins spends only three pages on Aquinas’ well-known ‘five ways,’ apparently to allow him to move on and offer parodies of those arguments from an atheistic blog. The New York Times wrote, “Shirking the intellectual hard work, Dawkins prefers to move on to parodic ‘proofs’ that he has found on the internet… Dawkins’ failure to appreciate just how hard philosophical questions about religion can be makes reading it an intellectually frustrating experience.”  Michael Ruse stated it best by writing, “Dawkins misunderstands the place of the proofs, but this is nothing to his treatment of the proofs themselves. This is a man truly out of his depth.”
         The London Telegraph stated, “So great is his loathing for religion that it sometimes overwhelms his reasoned argument.”  Perhaps a ‘fundamentalist’ is a person who grasps for any dubious ‘evidence’ to support their claim, yet misinterprets the competing evidences offered by those who differ. One honestly must consider if Dawkins’ treatment of evidence is any different.

Straw Man Argument

       Another troubling trend throughout the God delusion is Dawkins’ construction of a straw man argument in dealing with his opponents. One reviewer stated, “The religion that Dawkins demolishes, like the God he imagines as enthroned in its midst, deserves (and staggers under) practically all the blows he launches at it; but there’s a whole other world that he scarcely lays a glove on.”  Indeed, Dawkins impressively attacks irrational faith, makes a case for separation of church and state, deconstructs the notion that America is a ‘Christian nation,’ and pleads for religious violence to end. Yet, at the end of all of this, Dawkins never once convincingly disproves the God hypothesis or demonstrates that religion is the cause of evil. Terry Eagleton reviewed Dawkins’ work for the respected London Review of Books and stated, “Dawkins, it appears, has sometimes been told by theologians that he sets up straw men only to bowl them over, a charge he rebuts in this book; but if The God Delusion is anything to go by, they are absolutely right.”   In short, the ‘faith’ that Dawkins constructs and then tears down is practically unrecognizable to most Christians.
       Dawkins has a serious tendency to find Christianity’s worst offenders (assuming these people are Christians to begin with) and offer them as an example of the logical outcome of the Christian faith. For example, in his section on ethics Dawkins does not offer a helpful comparison between deontological ethical systems and consequentialist systems. Instead, Dawkins strongly insinuates that those working from a deontological system will simply detonate abortion clinics.  Yet perhaps the most potent example of Dawkins’ tendency to incorrectly describe opponents is found in his definition of substance dualism. Dawkins states that substance dualists “…personify inanimate physical objects at the slightest opportunity, seeing spirits and demons even in waterfalls and clouds.”   Theologians and philosophers are certainly right to criticize Dawkins of a straw man argument when he attempts to equate substance dualism with the personification of rainbows.

Intolerant Rhetoric

      The Journal of American Culture reviewed The God Delusion and offered a favorable review. Yet the reviewer then went on to state, “Reading several hundred pages of Dawkins, however, is like being flogged spiritually and then whipped into submission, rather like (one imagines) being brainwashed in North Korea.”  It is correct that Dawkins does certainly use very strong and intolerant rhetoric. Faith is labeled a virus (obviously imagery chosen to deliberately call to mind danger and disease) and all scientists who oppose a harsh rejection of religion are compared to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Adolf Hitler.
Perhaps the most stunning display of Dawkins’ rhetoric appeared after the original publication of The God Delusion.  The God Delusion has now entered publication in a paperback edition in the United Kingdom, though such an edition is not yet available in the United States. This new paperback edition contains a new preface in which Dawkins responds to his critics. There, Dawkins freely admits that print reviews of his book have been less than stellar. He then proceeds to explain that while most of the reviewers of his book were atheists, these atheistic reviewers simply disliked his book because they were secretly ‘second-order-faith-heads.’   That is, though they were not religious themselves, they were simply to sympathetic to religion to be understand his message. Dawkins goes on to tell us that these ‘second-order faith-heads’ are just as dangerous as religious people. Apparently Dawkins cannot take criticism, even from fellow atheists. It is clear that the message Dawkins preaches is not one of tolerance or honest study of evidence. Like a fundamentalist preacher, Dawkins has a ‘with us’ or ‘against us’ mentality and divides the world according to these lines. All who agree with Dawkins are deemed intelligent, while any who disagree (theist of atheist) are quickly labeled with words such as dangerous, appeaser, unintelligent, or sympathizer.
      Dawkins has not always been guilty of such harsh rhetoric.  A book entitled Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think contains essays praising Dawkins for his contributions to science. One contributor analyzes Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene by stating, “Dawkins sentences had such rhythm, his words had such precision and his thoughts had such order that his book was tasty literature as well as nourishing argument.”  Certainly whether one agrees with Dawkins or not, any reader of The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker will be impressed with Dawkins’ ability to make complex issues simple in such a poetic and often humorous way.  However, this truth helps to demonstrate that Dawkins has now slipped into ‘Darwinian fundamentalism.’ Upon reading The God Delusion one finds Dawkins’ usual intelligent style is replaced with a simple rant, filled with ad hominem attacks on people of faith. Apparently, when Dawkins turns to the issue of religion he is suddenly unable to be his articulate and scientific self.

Is Dawkins a Fundamentalist?

     Tina Beattie wrote, “I found myself thinking that if he [Dawkins] ever becomes religious, he might be the very kind of believer he himself sets out to attack-bigoted, ill-informed, and totally dismissive of any evidence that might call into question his certainties about the Word.”  Such seems to be the case with Richard Dawkins. Rather than a book of science, The God Delusion is simply a polemical propaganda piece that espouses Dawkins’ clarion call to diminish religion. Philosophy of religion professor Michael Ruse has correctly noticed that if one follows Dawkins’ conclusions seriously then it could be legitimately argued that Darwinism should no longer be taught in American public schools due to a violation of church and state.  This is because Ruse feels Dawkins has crossed the scientific boundary line and now simply promotes ideologies not connected to his work in the sciences. It does appear that Dawkins has much in common with what is normally associated with a stereotype of a religious fundamentalist: lack of interaction with opposition, mishandling of evidence, use of straw man argumentation, and the preaching of intolerance.

[drat16]

           It is this author’s opinion that the God delusion can only be popular in a society that is ignorant of theology, and philosophy. Dawkins simply makes too many mistakes for the book to be credible. Dawkins is wrong and offers little evidence, yet the book continues to sell because of the present and pervasive ignorance of these disciplines. While certainly ignorance in and of itself is dangerous (and perhaps another link to fundamentalism), here it will be noted that there is another darker danger perhaps lurking under the surface of Dawkins’ thesis.
   Dawkins’ thesis is that faith is irrational and therefore it has the capacity to become dangerous. Dawkins wishes to replace religion with his view of humanism and atheism in an effort to preserve world peace. However, it is here that Dawkins makes a rather naïve mistake. Any ideology held irrationally, including atheism, has the potential to become dangerous. Dawkins understandably brushes over the atrocities committed in Russia and China because in those locations millions were killed due to an atheistic outlook that stemmed from Marxism. In fact, though Dawkins asserts that no atheist would bulldoze a church or murder, the acts committed against Christians in the former Soviet Union offer a different story. It is apparent that both theism and atheism have the capacity to be dangerous if held fanatically.
   Dawkins’ rhetoric helps lend itself to a fanatical interpretation of an atheistic position. Dawkins states that ‘faith heads’ carry a virus, insinuates that they lack intelligence, considers them dangerous to the progress of the world, and labels them as a threat to world peace. A careful reader should simply substitute the word ‘Jew’ for ‘faith head’ and notice the eerie similarity between this rhetoric and Hitler’s ‘final solution.’ The British publication The Tablet has written:
"There are some deplorable historical precedents for comparing groups of religionists with disease carriers. In the 1920s and 1930s the metaphor was used in Germany to suggest that Judaism threatened the healthy body of society. The notion of quarantine and purges soon followed. Professor Dawkins does not subscribe to such solutions for religion, but the influence of his views on less-well-meaning groups cannot be discounted." 
      Dawkins’ solution is not one of tolerance or peaceful coexistence. It is rather an intolerant solution where only one opinion is acceptable. In this way, how is this not different from the more intolerant streams of religion or fanaticism? In Dawkins’ world, religion does not receive equal treatment  and believers simply receive ad hominem attacks. Dawkins is a on a crusade against religion and even the non-religious who respect religion are considered appeasers in the like of Neville Chamberlin. While Dawkins himself obviously has no violent tendencies, his fundamentalism is just as conducive to a violent interpretation as any other fundamentalist message would be. 

Conclusion

     Dawkins hides behind the veil of a scientist, yet science did not lead him to these conclusions. The London Telegraph noticed the humorous similarity between Dawkins’ proposal and a song by John Lennon. The Lennon song was entitled "Imagine" and listeners were asked to imagine to possibility of a wonderful world without religion. The Telegraph wrote, “But treat with extreme caution the pronouncements of anyone who takes his political cue from an ex-Beatle.”  Indeed, at the present time this position is somewhat humorous, but the telegraph was perhaps prophetic to point out that we should also exercise ‘extreme caution.’

[Gabe]

The guy has hit a wall of confusion. He can't go any further with his belief in the evolution theory, but plays the ignorant card on the God "as Creator" issue. In the Expelled movie he admits that there could be intelligent design, rejects God being the designer although He can't put his finger on any proof against it. Pretty amusing I think.......but I'll keep praying.

[JDBLACK]

I don't think there is anything "amusing" to Dawkin's comments, Gabe, if you understand where he's coming from.  He is insightful and logical to a degree that most people cannot comprehend.  He is unyielding when it comes to evidence, and that fact alone precludes him from any potential for religious conversion.  But his arguments and ideas are logically airtight.  I don't understand the point of posting reviews (knocks) on his work.  Why not just read one of his books and decide for yourself?  You might actually agree with some of his arguments while not totally rejecting your own spirituality.  This is called being open minded and it should be part of anyone's spiritual growth.

[drat16]

Yes, all people should read Dawkins' book and come to their own conclusions and I have personally attempted to do that.

However, Dawkins, while a brilliant scientist,  is no philosopher and when he enters this realm his logic is anything but airtight. I'm not saying that because I am a theist, I am saying that because it is true. Here are three examples from atheists who reviewed Dawkins book: Ruse- a philosopher who is an evolutionist and atheist and who is on Dawkins' side of opposing ID and creationism- stated bluntly that Dawkins is simply in way too deep over his head to even be coherent logically. I agree with that assessment. The New York Times review of Dawkins' book stated that the logic was slippery and that Dawkins' treatment of philosophy made the book "an incredibly intellectually frustrating read" (direct quote). They concluded that he simply does not understand the issues he is dealing with. Prospect magazine, who named Dawkins one of the world's top intellectuals before The God Delusion was published, actually attacked him upon the God Delusion publication for being so logically sloppy in this work and labeled him 'a dogmatist' rather than a scientist. Such have been the reviews of Dawkins book thus far by many intelligent atheists.

Here is an example of a Dawkinsian blunder- Dawkins admits that intelligent design could be possible and that he has no cosmology to put forward that explains the origins of life, etc. but the only reason he rejects theistic answers for origins of life is because of his argument of infinite regress. The philosophy professor at Notre Dame stated that he would call Dawkins' treatment of this issue sophomoric at best, but then stated that it would be an insult to sophomores in college if did said so. I'm not insulting Dawkins, but I am demonstrating that his logic has been considered anything but airtight and he has been rightly attacked for this by people as diverse as the NY Times and atheists philosophers such as Ruse.
Why is his infinite regress argument wrong? Dawkins says if God made the world, this creates a regress as we must now explain who made God, etc. He says something eternal (like God) cannot exist as you must always have an explanation for where something comes from. Basically, God cannot  exist as we must answer who made God. However, Dawkins himself believes in the eternality of matter . Yet he never states that one must explain where matter came from. It is clear that SOMETHING is eternal- either matter or personhood, and the argument that Dawkins uses can also be used on his own belief in eternal matter. Ultimately, it is just a foolish argument that he has not thought through.  Causality will eventually terminate somewhere to an uncaused cause- something eternal- and it is either God or matter. Dawkins simply misunderstands this and rants against theists ignorantly. Everyone believes in something eternal, just consider Carl Sagan (whom Dawkins cites frequently and agrees with). Dawkins attacks eternality, but that is not the issue- the issue is concerned with eternality existing as personhood.  The point he should have raised is that eternality does not reside in personhood but instead resides in matter. Arguing this simple infinite regress shows him guilty of not seeing the big picture as one could flip it around on him rather easily.

 The NY Times stated it correctly when they wrote, "There is lots of good, hard hitting stuff about the imbecilites of religious fanatics and frauds of all stripes[notice- religious fanatics], but the tone is smug and the logic occasionally sloppy." They later wrote, "Dawkins' avowed hostility can make for scattershot reasoning as well as for rhetorical excess." The atheist reviewer who wrote that is correct in my estimation. On these matters, Dawkins is anything but an intellectual and simply turns into a ranting fanatic. That is why Stephen Jay Gould,  a man who really contributed to evolutionary theory- himself an atheist- labeled Dawkins a dangerous Darwinian fundamentalist over ten years ago. One wonders if ten years later the reason Dawkins attacks the now deceased Gould in 'The God Delusion' is simply because he wants to get back at him.

Here is a short critique from Alvin Plantinga, the respected philosophy professor at Notre Dame (and one of my heroes), and his review Dawkin's logic. Christianity today posted the critique for free on their site and I am going to offer that link to it so no one will have to pay for it. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html

[JDBLACK]

However, Dawkins, while a brilliant scientist, is no philosopher...

In my opinion, that is the biggest compliment you could have offered Dawkins!

And I don't disagree that he may be misappllying philosophy, as if that makes any difference.  The point I think Dawkins makes is geared more to the common Christian, and you can hardly argue that the average Christian is remotely knowledgable about the metaphysics of god.  The average Christian can't even spell metaphysics!  Dawkins objects to the indoctrinated Christian, not the existential Christian, which is rare.  I've seen him have amicable conversations with existential Christians who do not reject science and one cannot detect any hint of disdain.  But put him in a room with a Baptist preacher and the sparks will fly.

I'm curious, Gabe, about the sudden interest in Dawkins.  Have you recently attended a bible study group on Dawkins or something similar?  I can only imagine what that was like.

[JDBLACK]

The thing I just don't get with you guys is this:  anyone who rejects the existence of supernatural gods, for any reason, gets your scorn.  If, as you people claim, god is real and Jesus truly wants us to know him, then should there be something recognizable and unmistakable that we unbelievers should experience?  Right?  People like Dawkins are simply defending science, something that is built upon objective evidence and open-minded investigation.  No evolution-supporting scientist was converted during one seminar or one reading of a book, or through some traumatic experience, as many Christians claim to be.  It takes years to fully absorb and appreciate the accomplishments and methodologies of evolution.  It is not an activity for the closed minded.  Many of us came from religious backgrounds that did teach us to keep our mind closed, to reject information that did not come from the bible, that there is only one accurate source of knowledge.  The fact that we did not reject scientific evidence when it was clear that it was valid is proof that we defeated this closed-mindedness.  All we ask regarding supernatural entities is that we should have something fairly unmistakable to base our belief on.  But all we are told is that we should interpret things in a different way.  We are constantly told by Christians that our way of interpreting the world is wrong and that we should just ignore what we know and accept as valid facts and go with the Christian flow.  That is what I consider a closed-minded automaton.

[drat16]

Yea JD, I never beat up on Dawkins so I don't know why you are upset. I stated that his ideas are dangerous in my first post, and I honestly feel they are. I also stated that he committed some mistakes in his philosophy and you yourself agreed. Yet, these are not personal attacks, but are simply critiques. The newspapers and such that reviewed his book were a lot harsher than I was.

Yet, make no mistake about it, Dawkins is doing more than simply defending science. That would be great if that was all he was doing. But remember the hypothesis of his book- God does not exist and religion is dangerous. So, The God Delusion is not a science book (he does not do experiments, etc.) but is rather more of a philosophical book. He offers philosophical arguments why God cannot exist (his famous 747 argument- what I called here the infinite regress argument). When Dawkins enters into the realm of philosophy, people have a right to read it with an open mind and then offer a critique if he has missed a step.

Here's the thing about Dawkins, and I think this will surprise you me saying this- much of it I can agree with. I agree there should be separation of church and state (and he bemoans the fact there is virtually none in America), I agree that faith that is blind can be dangerous, I agree that blowing up abortion clinics is bad, etc. This is what he rails against for well over 300 pages. Yet, after doing all that he never proved his thesis- that God does not exist and that religion is dangerous. He demonstrated, at best, that streams of fanatical religion and blind faith have the potential to be dangerous and I would agree with him (though I would say he is naive to think it is just religion, I think it is anything held blindly or fanatically- political views, even atheism, etc.). Yet, he never successfully demonstrated that the God hypothesis is false.

So, does God exist? Well Dawkins has not disproved it, I will put it that way. He is right to critique several of the problems today  (though I wish he was a little less abrasive in his language- calling people carriers of a virus basically because they believe in God is a little over the top I think). Yet, I was not paying him a compliment by saying he was a good scientist but not a good philosopher. It is never a compliment when someone states that a person's major premise in the book is fallacious. Dawkins entered the world of philosophy, and was hammered by virtually everyone. The only philosopher that I personally know of who found his argument against God convincing (out of either atheists or Christian philosophers) was an Australian philosopher, who already agreed strongly with Dawkins anyway. The infinite regress argument, or as he calls it- the ultimate 747 argument- is simply fallacious. That was all my point was, that he is not airtight in his logic as you suggested to Gabe previously.

As far as your desire to have something fairly unmistakable to believe on, remember that I argue for reasonable faith and so I would share your concern. If God's existence were not probable, then I would not believe it. Perhaps several today present Christianity as a blind faith, but that is not what it has been historically. Dawkins, and yourself, are dead wrong when you assert that faith must be blind blind.  I have no doubt that you have seen such things in the deep south, and I am sympathetic for your concerns. However, the biblical record and also church history both bear out the concept of reasonable faith- faith due to evidence. There has never been an orthodox confession of faith that asserted blind faith, but there have been many in the 2,000 year history of the church that asserted faith due to evidence.
Christians, particularly ones in the deep south, began resting on blind faith due to: 1) the backlash from the conservative-liberal crises in the early 1900s where they became wrongly became afraid that scholarship  would make a person liberal. Basically, this 'blind faith' is a new phenomenon and is not the historic position of the church for nearly 20 centuries. It certainly is not the position of the Bible. Remember in 1 Cor., Paul states bluntly that if Christ did not rise then our faith would be in vain. So, he offers evidence for Christ resurrection- eyewitnesses, etc. in that chapter. It seems Paul was not 'blind faith' Christian. Neither was John (read the first part of 1 John- 'that which we have seen'- we declare to you). Regardless of whether you find Paul and John truthful, you have to admit they were advocated faith based on evidence (in the two examples I gave here- eyewitnesses as evidence) and were not telling people to 'just believe.'  2) the fact that the south is unfortunately not academic anyway. The Christians are ignorant there because they are part of a general populace that is, by and large, ignorant. I am not attempting to sound condescending when I say this (and I once lived in the deepest parts of the south) but I think you would agree. You are right to point out that most Christians cannot spell metaphysical, yet this is became most people there cannot spell metaphysical and therefore the christians are unfortunately just representing the population.

Here is what I would suggest, if you reject blind faith then do so- I reject it myself. But if you are going to reject Christianity, then at least have answers for the classical arguments for God's existence (as Dawkins does not) and solid answers against the resurrection and textual reliability. There is plenty of evidence for Christianity, and to reject that evidence one must at least first weigh it carefully and then have reasons for not believing it.
Unfortunately, many people today who are atheist reject the blind faith or the ignorance so prevalent and think they have dismantled Christianity (Dawkins thinks this it appears), yet to quote one newspaper review of Dawkins' book: “The religion that Dawkins demolishes, like the God he imagines as enthroned in its midst, deserves (and staggers under) practically all the blows he launches at it; but there’s a whole other world that he scarcely lays a glove on.” Dawkins is right to destroy the crazies, but needs to offer something with more substantial if he wants to disprove God and historic christianity.

[JDBLACK]

Dawkins’s primary message is about science, not anti-theism.  It is because of the intrusion of theism into science that he is forced to deal with it.  And I disagree that his message is at all dangerous.  You, yourself seem to agree with his rejection of fanaticism.  If his message inspires people to be more critical of their world, then I fail to see how that is dangerous.

Here's the thing about Dawkins, and I think this will surprise you me saying this- much of it I can agree with. I agree there should be separation of church and state (and he bemoans the fact there is virtually none in America), I agree that faith that is blind can be dangerous, I agree that blowing up abortion clinics is bad, etc. This is what he rails against for well over 300 pages. Yet, after doing all that he never proved his thesis- that God does not exist and that religion is dangerous. He demonstrated, at best, that streams of fanatical religion and blind faith have the potential to be dangerous and I would agree with him (though I would say he is naive to think it is just religion, I think it is anything held blindly or fanatically- political views, even atheism, etc.). Yet, he never successfully demonstrated that the God hypothesis is false.

So, you agree with him, but you dismiss his message?  That doesn't make much sense.  And sure, many other ideas or movements are equally dangerous to society, but none of those others are encroaching on science the way religion is.  That is why he singles out religion.  Organzied crime is even more dangerous than religion, but it has little to do with science, so it's not something Dawkins will publicly tackle.

Why would you expect Dawkins to be successful in "proving" that god does not exist?  I don’t think Dawkins himself believes this to be possible.  At the end of the day, he casts enough doubt on it to justify reasoned skepticism of religion.  As I said before, the more fanatical theists are the one's that have inspired people like Dawkins to spend time writing about god delusions.  So, my advice to you is to join him in his quest to see the end of such fanaticism.

So, does God exist? Well Dawkins has not disproved it, I will put it that way. He is right to critique several of the problems today  (though I wish he was a little less abrasive in his language- calling people carriers of a virus basically because they believe in God is a little over the top I think). Yet, I was not paying him a compliment by saying he was a good scientist but not a good philosopher. It is never a compliment when someone states that a person's major premise in the book is fallacious. Dawkins entered the world of philosophy, and was hammered by virtually everyone. The only philosopher that I personally know of who found his argument against God convincing (out of either atheists or Christian philosophers) was an Australian philosopher, who already agreed strongly with Dawkins anyway. The infinite regress argument, or as he calls it- the ultimate 747 argument- is simply fallacious. That was all my point was, that he is not airtight in his logic as you suggested to Gabe previously.

Dawkins’s premise is not fallacious.  His argument is sound.  By the way the vast majority claims belief, they are in fact delusional and it is quite appropriate to refer to their condition as viral.  You simply give them far more credit than they deserve.  Practically speaking, people just don’t become Christians for philosophical reasons, or even because they think about it and decide that it makes sense.  They do it for mostly the wrong reasons; their parents did it and they don't want to be social outcasts or they are sure they believe it even when they know they haven't had these amazing personal experiences everybody seems to talk about.  When the most fundamental Christian sects engender philosophical reasoning for being a Christian and reject the traditional mythological trappings, I’ll agree with you, but not until then.  You have essentially more enemies in your own camp than without.  By the statistics, there are far more fundamental Christians (read: blind faith) than there are atheists in America.  So, you have your work cut out for you.

As far as your desire to have something fairly unmistakable to believe on, remember that I argue for reasonable faith and so I would share your concern. If God's existence were not probable, then I would not believe it. Perhaps several today present Christianity as a blind faith, but that is not what it has been historically. Dawkins, and yourself, are dead wrong when you assert that faith must be blind blind.  I have no doubt that you have seen such things in the deep south, and I am sympathetic for your concerns. However, the biblical record and also church history both bear out the concept of reasonable faith- faith due to evidence. There has never been an orthodox confession of faith that asserted blind faith, but there have been many in the 2,000 year history of the church that asserted faith due to evidence.

And as I’ve said numerously, I’ll be glad to evaluate such evidence if it ever surfaces.  Again, EMPRICAL EVIDENCE, not philosophical arguments and something far more substantial than historical documents that cannot be corroborated.  While philosophical arguments may be intriguing, they are hardly convincing.  And asserting belief in the Holy Spirit is blind faith.  I don’t see how it could be anything more since there is no evidence of such an entity and no philosophical arguments can prove its existence; it is blind faith, or in Dawkins’s words, a delusion.

Christians, particularly ones in the deep south, began resting on blind faith due to: 1) the backlash from the conservative-liberal crises in the early 1900s where they became wrongly became afraid that scholarship  would make a person liberal. Basically, this 'blind faith' is a new phenomenon and is not the historic position of the church for nearly 20 centuries. It certainly is not the position of the Bible. Remember in 1 Cor., Paul states bluntly that if Christ did not rise then our faith would be in vain. So, he offers evidence for Christ resurrection- eyewitnesses, etc. in that chapter. It seems Paul was not 'blind faith' Christian. Neither was John (read the first part of 1 John- 'that which we have seen'- we declare to you). Regardless of whether you find Paul and John truthful, you have to admit they were advocated faith based on evidence (in the two examples I gave here- eyewitnesses as evidence) and were not telling people to 'just believe.' 

Drat, I believe you need to hone your religious history a little.  The first "Great Awakening" in the U.S. occurred way back in the 18th century and repeated itself in waves over time.  It was certainly a backlash against intellectualism and enlightenment, but also against religious totalitarianism.  Freedom of religious ideas was often at its center and these often took the form of more fundamental sects branching off from more traditional established religions, often for the cause of getting closer to god and thus ensuring a more righteous society.  Another central theme was the desire to reshape the political landscape of the country.

And the very fact that these awakenings occurred begs an important question.  If the majority of Christians were as intellectual as you suggest, why then wer they inspired to turn to the dark side of religion and go blind?  Where was the motivation?  There was certainly no grand atheism movement in the 18th century to blame.

The Paul argument might be fine if we had any reasonable justification to believe the story of Paul was real and not fabricated, or that Paul believed what is written about him.  The writings suggest he believed it, but that is not much to go on.  We know of plenty of believers in modern times following more outrageous things than resurrection and their claims are discounted as delusion or hoaxes.  So there's no reason to put the biblical stories above any others.  Corroborating 2,000 year old folk tales is just too difficult to do.

2) the fact that the south is unfortunately not academic anyway. The Christians are ignorant there because they are part of a general populace that is, by and large, ignorant. I am not attempting to sound condescending when I say this (and I once lived in the deepest parts of the south) but I think you would agree. You are right to point out that most Christians cannot spell metaphysical, yet this is became most people there cannot spell metaphysical and therefore the christians are unfortunately just representing the population.

Now you are beginning to see the real picture.  Ignorance begets ignorance.  You can’t ask a generally ignorant population to understand subtle nuances of philosophy, but they will respond to simple, mythological directives.  You can’t expect them to disregard family traditions in lieu of a more intellectual approach to universal questions.  At least you are finally admitting that a large swath of Christianity is not intellectual about it and are in fact, purveyors of blind faith.  But it goes deeper than that.  Even the educated public is smitten with this meme, largely because of traditions and cultural reinforcement.  And this is exactly what Dawkins argues against.  There is a deeply held sense of reverence for our religions in this country.  Our populace considers religion to be largely above reproach.  This is ridiculous.  Our religions have failed us as completely as our government has failed us.  They have used their power to divide and condemn, not to unite and uplift.  Often they’ve even been used to swindle.  Yet our people refuse to hold religion accountable.  In the eyes of the congregation, only Satan can be responsible for things that go badly and only god can be the source of good things.  This kind of idiot thinking has to end.  And yet I have read the works of non-theists who are far more spiritual than the bible thumper on my TV screen.

Here is what I would suggest, if you reject blind faith then do so- I reject it myself. But if you are going to reject Christianity, then at least have answers for the classical arguments for God's existence (as Dawkins does not) and solid answers against the resurrection and textual reliability. There is plenty of evidence for Christianity, and to reject that evidence one must at least first weigh it carefully and then have reasons for not believing it.
Unfortunately, many people today who are atheist reject the blind faith or the ignorance so prevalent and think they have dismantled Christianity (Dawkins thinks this it appears), yet to quote one newspaper review of Dawkins' book: “The religion that Dawkins demolishes, like the God he imagines as enthroned in its midst, deserves (and staggers under) practically all the blows he launches at it; but there’s a whole other world that he scarcely lays a glove on.” Dawkins is right to destroy the crazies, but needs to offer something with more substantial if he wants to disprove God and historic christianity.

I have done so, but you must also admit that your version of Christianity owes much of itself to the blind, fanatical faith that you claim distance from.  In almost every forum, book and interview, I have seen people make the same claims you have.  But on more careful analysis, virtually every point of their religion is derived directly from the most fundamental versions of Christianity.  IOW, most of you who claim to not be fundamentalists are exactly that, you just don’t like the sound of it so you find intellectual ways to distance yourself from it and speak with a softer voice.  My suggestion to you is to continue to question why you really believe in Jesus and magic.

[Stephen Taylor]

Hi Guys

You know, it's interesting that the subject of Richard Dawkins has come up again - his latest series "Attack on Reason" (I thinks that's what it's called) was on the teev last night.  In it, he was highlighting the scientific difficulties of alternative medicines.  He certainly makes a very good argument based on reason and evidence as to why we should be very skeptical of claims made by alternative medicine practitioners, and how properly-conducted, controlled research needs to be done to combat the many "snake-oil" salesmen peddling their wares.  Interestingly, he recognised the placebo effect in himself when undergoing some alternative medicinal procedures, and therefore could not dismiss it 100%.

I would agree that RD runs perilously close to dogmatism when it comes to science and reason - to the point where he risks his very reputation as a scientist.  I think drat's analysis highlights this very well.  RD takes it all too personally sometimes ..... and therein lies the problem.

[JDBLACK]

Hi Guys

You know, it's interesting that the subject of Richard Dawkins has come up again - his latest series "Attack on Reason" (I thinks that's what it's called) was on the teev last night.  In it, he was highlighting the scientific difficulties of alternative medicines.  He certainly makes a very good argument based on reason and evidence as to why we should be very skeptical of claims made by alternative medicine practitioners, and how properly-conducted, controlled research needs to be done to combat the many "snake-oil" salesmen peddling their wares.  Interestingly, he recognised the placebo effect in himself when undergoing some alternative medicinal procedures, and therefore could not dismiss it 100%.

Stephen, are you saying that the placebo effect is a form of alternative medicine?  Or that Dawkins acknowledges that the placebo effect is a real contributor to a person's perception of medical treatment?  Note that the placebo effect cannot produce real physiological change, just perceived changes.  A person may report that acupuncture helped their bad back feel better, but they could have received a placebo form of acupuncture or the real thing and would not know the difference.  Thus, scientists conclude that the act of treating some patients produces a perceived improvement in their condition even if no real treatment has occurred.  But placebo cannot stabilize a diabetes patient's blood sugar.

I would agree that RD runs perilously close to dogmatism when it comes to science and reason - to the point where he risks his very reputation as a scientist.  I think drat's analysis highlights this very well.  RD takes it all too personally sometimes ..... and therein lies the problem.

I suppose this is a opinion thing and you have a right to it, but I truly challenge anyone that Dawkins is really dogmatic.  What appears to be dogmatic to most theists is actually a profound knowledge of science and a disrespect for anything supernatural.  To the average skeptic, this is not dogmatism any more than the Pope is considered to be dogmatically Catholic.  IF Dawkins is too personal, it may indicate something, but not dogmatism.

[Stephen Taylor]

JD, not saying one thing or another about the placebo effect, just that Dawkins recognised it during a session he underwent for the program.  Re acupuncture, I believe (without citing any research here) that it is capable of releasing endorphins, and therefore may have therapeutic value in that sense.  Whether or not it is curative, or works along what the Chinese refer to as "chi", well that's a different proposition.  I'm sure there's research been done somewhere, but really I'm not that motivated to look for it - maybe another day.

To the average skeptic, this is not dogmatism any more than the Pope is considered to be dogmatically Catholic.

I think that's the nub of what I'm saying.  In that context, to the average joe on the street, both would be considered dogmatic, depending on their own personal views.  It's about relativity (and I'm not talking Einstein here).

[JDBLACK]

JD, not saying one thing or another about the placebo effect, just that Dawkins recognised it during a session he underwent for the program.  Re acupuncture, I believe (without citing any research here) that it is capable of releasing endorphins, and therefore may have therapeutic value in that sense.  Whether or not it is curative, or works along what the Chinese refer to as "chi", well that's a different proposition.  I'm sure there's research been done somewhere, but really I'm not that motivated to look for it - maybe another day.

To my knowledge, there are no studies that confirm the efficacy of acupuncture, but there are studies that show that it produces no more effect than placebo.  There is, in fact, a study using techniques to fool the acupuncture patient into believing they have had genuine acupuncture.  Thus the placebo affect was confirmed.  There is also no known mechanism for acupuncture to work.  It doesn't claim to release endorphins.  The "Chi" claims have never been validated, and the placebo tests confirm that it is no more effective than placebo.

To the average skeptic, this is not dogmatism any more than the Pope is considered to be dogmatically Catholic.

I think that's the nub of what I'm saying.  In that context, to the average joe on the street, both would be considered dogmatic, depending on their own personal views.  It's about relativity (and I'm not talking Einstein here).

I see.  I guess I had a slightly different definition of "dogmatic". 

I got this definition from encarta online:  expressing rigid opinions: prone to expressing strongly held beliefs and opinions  Actually, I have to say that this applies to atheists, evolutionists, scientists, theists, just about anyone who's firmly decided on an issue.  In this sense, it's not much of an insult but more of a definition of a person's status on an issue.  Are they relatively undecided or firmly decided.  Dogmatic would suggest they are firmly decided. 

Urban dictionary defines it this way:  An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.   This is probably much closer to my own usage of the word, wich suggests that a person considers some concept to be absolutely true and authoritative.  I certainly don't consider this definition to accurately describe Dawkins's position on evolution.  Given adequate evidence, Dawkins would change his mind.  The Pope, OTOH, is not going to change his mind about god no matter what happens.   

Maybe I'll have to adjust my own usage of this word, as I don't think I'm so dogmatic on what I consider "dogmatic" to mean anymore.   

[drat16]

Given adequate evidence, Dawkins would change his mind.  The Pope, OTOH, is not going to change his mind about god no matter what happens.

What we can do is analyze how a person handles evidence, especially evidence that is contradictory to their system, to determine if they are truly 'following all available evidence' or if they just have an ax to grind and are in fact dogmatic (in the strong sense of the word). Everyone will claim to be open, but we know not everyone is. Dawkins claims he will change his mind if competing evidence is sufficient. I wouldn't call him a liar, but what I can do is demonstrate that he is not particularly fair in how he handles evidence-and so he appears to be not as open as he claims. Notice what I have posted in the first post- I offered examples where he frequently uses straw man attacks, questionable sources, and where has completely ignored the opposing side's actual position to advance his claims. Given this, one is within reason to at least doubt his claims to unbiased following all evidence. I think it would be helpful here, given that you claim Dawkins is open, if you interact with some of the points that I have raised. What about his straw man attacks, his mistreatment of Aquinas, or his absolute lie concerning the earliest date for the gospels, etc.?   I think I am in good company in concluding he is a dogmatist as  Stephen Jay Gould,  Prospect, and the New York Times all labeled him this, Propsect even going as far as calling him dangerous. Dawkins' writing appeals to a certain segment, but if you think he is considered 'open' in  academia, you are being naive. I'm not some great academic, but I try to read those who are and this is the apparent consensus. For example, the respected Michael Ruse (an atheist, evolutionist who strongly opposes creationism in schools, etc.) recently said Dawkins is actually a danger, not a help, to science because of his 'dogmatism.' I could go on and give more examples but there would be no point.  In short, Dawkins has become the sort of dogmatist that he opposes. You really need to give us evidence why he is open and deal with those charges that he is not.
Concerning the pope-I think if you read  Ratzinger’s books you would be pleasantly surprised. I'm not catholic, but he is a very good theologian. He strongly espouses reasonable faith and advocates the role of evidence for belief in God. Now, you may disagree on the conclusions he has drawn, but you cannot accuse him of advocating some sort of 'against all evidence' type of faith  The irony: I posted a long  post demonstrating why I think Dawkins is a dogmatist, you disagree to this claim but offer no evidence for your reply and just parrot Dawkins’ own claims to openness. Then, you claim the pope is dogmatic and offer no quotes or evidence to support that claim, while I would  simply say read any number of the books he published. He's a good writer and, as an aside as does not pertain to this discussion, Without Roots is one of my favorites and he actually co-authored that one with an atheist.

So, you agree with him, but you dismiss his message?  That doesn't make much sense.

Yea I think you should just read my original post JD. Attacking irrational faith is great and I agree to that part, but my thesis was that Dawkins ends up becoming like the fundamentalists that he so despises in the end. That's dangerous, and he hides it under the guise of being a scientist.

Why would you expect Dawkins to be successful in "proving" that god does not exist?  I don’t think Dawkins himself believes this to be possible.

The name of his book is in fact  The God Delusion. Remember his thesis is that belief in God is irrational and dangerous, that belief in God is a delusion as it is not true.  Why is he attempting (unsuccessfully) to attack the traditional arguments for God's existence or to argue against the 'fine tuning' principle if he is not attempting to demonstrate that God does not exist?? Now, 'prove' is a loaded word here- and as I suggest in other places probability is all that is required in order for someone to be within their epistemic rights to claim knowledge of something. Dawkins himself, argues this way and that is what is meant by ‘prove.’
Remember in the preface (maybe it was first chapter I can't remember) he wrote, "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheist when they put it down."  Sounds to me he appears to be pretty confident in his assertions that God does not exist and also confident in his arguments presented in the book that try to ‘prove’ that God does not exist. So, yes Dawkins, using probability, is certainly attempting to demonstrate or 'prove' that God does not exist in this book.  I think you should take him at his word. This is not a philosophy of science book JD, he attempts to demonstrate that God does not exist and then tries to show how religion is evil. There is more here than just a concern to protect science from the supposed danger of religion.

Dawkins’s premise is not fallacious.  His argument is sound.

Okay, you can't make that statement without offering evidence as to why you think he is sound. The biggest concern I have raised was that his '747' argument was absolutely atrocious and misguided. At least interact with it and show this is not so before you claim his argument is sound. Remember the 747 argument is central to his argument against the 'fine tuning' principle, and it is a central argument in his book.
Most of the people that I read on Dawkins, from literary reviews to philosophy journals, blasted him for this one and found it to be fallacious (and yes, they were atheists).
I gave a short paragraph that outlined why I felt this argument was fallacious in a previous post. I think Plantiga (I gave a link to his article in a previous post as well) gave the best treatment of Dawkins argument here. At least interact with what Plantiga has said and some of my concerns here before you claim he is sound. The London Telegraph stated, “So great is his loathing for religion that it sometimes overwhelms his reasoned argument.”
Prospect (ironically they named Dawkins one of the world’s leading intellectuals BEFORE the God Delusion came out) said, the God Delusion was “incurious, dogmatic, rambling, and self-contradictory.” I’m not saying that simply because these people wrote this that it must be true, but I am saying that if you are going to argue that his argumentation is sound then you will have to convince a lot of us (including many atheists- who wrote both of these reviews).

Again, EMPRICAL EVIDENCE

There we go again, let's not get into it though. LOL 

Drat, I believe you need to hone your religious history a little.  The first "Great Awakening" in the U.S. occurred way back in the 18th century and repeated itself in waves over time.  It was certainly a backlash against intellectualism and enlightenment, but also against religious totalitarianism.

I have no idea what you are talking about here JD I guess I am confused as to what you mean. Here is why- I never mentioned the first Great Awakening because it did not advocate irrational faith. The fundamentalist- modernist controversy in the 1900s is when irrational faith hit US Christianity big time.
Why are you saying that the first great awaking did this? Certainly it broke away some of the power from the traditional religious establishment (a good thing in many cases) but that did not mean they believed Christianity was not hope against all evidence or faith with no evidence. Also, simply because they were emotional and revivalistic did not mean they were irrational. Remember, Edwards wrote Religious Affections in order to allow people to be rational WITH their emotions during that awakening.
I think we could cite many of the leaders of the first great awakening as evidence that they did not believe in irrational faith, and perhaps the best is Edwards himself. A predominate leader of the first great awaking, and also a president of Princeton University, Edwards wrote that reason is "the highest faculty we have."  He told Christians to use reason in their faith by "reading and other proper means, a good rational knowledge of the things of divinity." Follis wrote this about Edwards view: "before one can know God, one has to know rationally about God." 
I guess I don't understand who it is you are reading when you claim the Great Awakening was irrational. Most of the older, respected universities in this country came from Christian people who started colleges after various revivals occurred-  from Harvard, University of Chicago, Yale, Columbia, etc.- this list could go for a long time. Certainly these were revivals, yet a revival in learning came a long as well as young people needed a place to learn after they accepted Christ.  Irrational faith does not start colleges to educate people.  Read "Christianity on Trial" by Carroll and Shiflett for a good perspective, they deal with all of the colleges that were founded after the awakenings.

The Paul argument might be fine if we had any reasonable justification to believe the story of Paul was real and not fabricated, or that Paul believed what is written about him.

However, remember the point is that the Bible teaches that faith should be rational. You are arguing that Paul may or may not have believed this. That’s fine but the heart of the argument is that  Christian cannon espouses rational faith and puts it in the mouth of Paul. Even if Paul did not write this (I think he did) the point is that the Bible is still espousing reasonable faith here and putting it in the mouth of Christianity's biggest theologian. (see text criticism for concerns over bible reliability and accuracy)

Ignorance begets ignorance.

Yes that is certainly true. However, simply because there is ignorance in many subjects these days in American life does not necessarily mean that Christianity is false. There is no logical entailment here. You can't do what Dawkins does here- he points to the worst offenders, claims that faith is blind, that they represent Christianity in totality, and then moves on.  Are their people who don’t know Christina theology who are Christians? Certainly, but this does not mean that Christian theology teaches blind faith. 

There is a funny story here- McGrath (an expert on historical theology at Oxford) was giving a lecture. A student during the Q and A time stated that he would never become a Christian because they believe in blind faith. McGrath stated emphatically that Christianity does not teach that. The student protested again (ironically telling this scholar in Christian theology and church  history what Christians believe) that Christianity is blind. McGrath took him through a tour of church history and Bible texts that appeal to reasonable faith for evidence. The student simply offered this as evidence for his claim, "Well. Richard Dawkins says you do!" That probably best summarize many of the discussions going on so far. Regardless of all competing evidence Dawkins claims that ALL religion is blind. This very incorrect straw man argument has caused some to ignorantly paint Christianity with the wrong brush. It has gotten to the point that the atheists are trying to tell us what our theology is, instead of actually listening to us explain Christian doctrine and then entering into a healthy discussion with us.
 Here is a brief example to help you understand our frustration on this subject. If you asked most people in the US if evolution takes place due to blind chance, they would probably say yes. However, they being speaking out of ignorance of science for Darwinian evolution is more than blind chance for Darwin provided a mechanism- survival of the fittest, etc. Can I now attack evolution for being based on blind chance? Not if I want to be credible. If I simply said that the normal person says so, you would respond that the normal person has not been trained in science and it is illegitimate to quote them as an authority on this matter. You would be right in pointing this out because the man on the street is speaking out of ignorance,  I should deal with what the scientist really say when discussing evolution. The same is true for theology- Christianity never teaches blind faith. Some do but that is because they do not know historic Christian theology. You can't find the untrained church person, beat them up for being irrational, and then propose that it applies to all of Christianity. It simply doesn't wash. I admit we must do a better job of teaching our churches what we truly believe, but this is being done- it just takes a while. However,  if you want to go after Christianity, go after what the theologians and philosophers have always understood it to be, and what the Bible claims it is, and not just find a person who does not know and then paint us all with that brush. In the end, there is more heat than light and historic Christianity is left standing.

I have done so, but you must also admit that your version of Christianity owes much of itself to the blind, fanatical faith that you claim distance from.

 I believe in the resurrection and offered an argument for it, my belief in that is simply not "God said it, I believe it." You offered no counter argument per se but instead simply  stated that you distrust all historical documents (an unfruitful position I think.) I believe in the reliability of the Bible and have offered numerous discussions on that topic. You discount Biblical reliability but have offered no arguments for your position at all. You never give evidence that any of the texts that I cite are unreliable, you just discount them out of hand because they are not historical.  If they are unreliable, at least give evidence for your position.  I believe in progressive creationism and offered reasons that keep me from being an evolutionist. You simply called me a fundamentalist an left the discussion without even dealing with some of the concerns. You also incorrectly lumped Dembski and Behe in with the nuts which is not fair either.  When I offered critical realism as a healthy alternative, not only did you disagree but you refused to even learn about it. Here is what I am suggesting- with every position I have offered I have at least offered an argument for it. If you reject the reasons I give that is in your right and I am certainly not the most knowledgeable person in these fields anyway. However, everything that I hold to is because there are reasons, not blind faith.  I wish you would start offering more evidence and not simply using ad hominem attacks or bombastic language. 
Case in point- simply because I believe in the resurrection and a person with no theological training also holds to the resurrection does not entail that there is some secret fundamentalism lurking behind the scenes and that I am only pretending to have a desire to be rational. You really can’t argue this, one does not entail the other.

Anyway, I hope you have a good weekend. I enjoy our talks and hope you do as well. God’s richest blessings. I'll respond to some of our other topics either today or tomorrow, they're all great discussions.

[Stephen Taylor]

To my knowledge, there are no studies that confirm the efficacy of acupuncture, but there are studies that show that it produces no more effect than placebo.  There is, in fact, a study using techniques to fool the acupuncture patient into believing they have had genuine acupuncture.  Thus the placebo affect was confirmed.  There is also no known mechanism for acupuncture to work.  It doesn't claim to release endorphins.  The "Chi" claims have never been validated, and the placebo tests confirm that it is no more effective than placebo.

JD, honestly I have no idea about the specific claims of acupuncture other than pain relief and feelings of "wellness" (whatever that is).  I don't know if acupuncture itself claims to release endorphins, however an MD friend of mine mentioned some years ago about studies reported in The Lancet that this is what happens when an acupuncture needle enters the skin (I'm seriously paraphrasing here, and really not that concerned about what is or isn't said about this form of alternative "medicine").  My point was about Dawkin's own recognition placebo effects he experienced.

And I take your point on the word "dogmatic" ....  good job!