False Argument #26: The Emptiness Of Theology
Posted in Atheism, False Arguments, Logic, Quickies, Religion, Skepticism, Thinking Critically on | 2 minutes | 10 Comments →
I will soon develop this into a detailed, point-by-point response to the source material, but for now, I would simply like to thank Professor Dawkins for providing me with the most easily refuted false argument in this series to date.
In a discussion concerning the "reconciliation" of science and theology, the following atheist sermon was ironically published in Free Inquiry Magazine, Volume 18, #2:
A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent
recently asked for a reconciliation between science and "theology." It
remarked that 'People want to know as much as possible about their
origins.' I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think
that theology has anything useful to say on the subject? …[T]he achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect
anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology"
is a subject at all?
–Richard Dawkins
The first sentence is Dawkins' subjective opinion entirely, and by implying that theology is not a subject in his second sentence, the Professor reasons in a circle. If our definition of subject is the study of an actual phenomena, that theology is not a subject begins with assumptions about the very questions at hand. As someone keenly points out in the thread, even if God is not real, theology can still be reasonably considered a subject – as much a subject as art or creative writing or music.
What do you think?
Lifeguard
says...My present verdict on Dawkins is that he is a great science writer who has done a lot to popularize humanism and encourage closeted atheists to see that being open about atheism or “coming out” atheist is a constructive and even responsible thing to do if you take life seriously. All good things. I find some of his “atheist writing,” however, a lot like a good sermon– rousing and encouraging, but not necessarily likely to convince someone who doesn’t already believe. In fact, “The Selfish Gene” did more to move me towards atheism than anything else I’d read at the time.
alzz
says...If our definition of subject is the study of an actual phenomena, that theology is not a subject begins with assumptions about the very questions at hand.
Emprically is there anything to study? No, so no assumptions, just reality.
As someone keenly points out in the thread, even if God is not real, theology can still be reasonably considered a subject – as much a subject as art or creative writing or music.
If theology was the study of myth, instead of a bunch of people pretended to know the mind of something that most likely doesn’t exist you would have a point. If theology studied the gods of other religions, or better the gods of Pratchett or Gaiman then you could make this point. Yet theology is not the study of art, human expression, human works, your argument is completely disingenuous.
The difference between philosophy and theology is the same difference between cryptozoology and zoology, alchemy and chemistry, astrology and astronomy.
cl
says...Lifeguard,
Encouraging the downtrodden certainly seems noble, but if I were an atheist, I doubt I’d be able to overlook Dawkins’ blunders in spite of his noble aim. I find most of his atheist writing to be exactly like a sermon – thus hypocritical.
alzz,
You say there’s nothing empirical to study, but that’s the same circular argument the Professor makes.
You say that theology is not the study of art, human expression or human works, but again you reason in a circle just like the Professor – if God is not real – then theology is all of these things, and more.
Come by anytime, but know I want proofs – not preaching.
alzz
says...Theologians do not attempt to empirically study anything. It’s not a circular argument you just didn’t understand what the Professor was saying.
How is theology the study of these things when it is the “study” of God? If you want to define theology as something else then this is semantics and I am not interested. Subjects already exist that study the creation of gods by man, and they are not theology.
The trick to counter-argument is addressing the actual arguments you mean to.
cl
says...The bad ones do, and Dawkins didn’t make that claim. Are you implying that the Professor misspoke?
I don’t define theology as anything other than the study of God, and I never said theology is the study of those things. I said if God exists, theology is the study of God; if God does not exist, theology amounts to those things – and that would be true.
cl
says...The bad ones do, and Dawkins didn’t make that claim. Are you implying that the Professor misspoke?
I don’t define theology as anything other than the study of God, and I never said theology is the study of those things. I said if God exists, theology is the study of God; if God does not exist, theology amounts to those things – and that would be true.
alzz
says...Theology doesn’t involve empirical study, also the study of the celestial teapot and the invisible pink unicorn also do not.
Dawkins was making that claim, I’m implying you have no idea what he was saying. He was also saying theology can’t reliably predict anything, but that is of course in relation to my previous point.
Theology is not the study of man’s creation of gods, or the gods that man creates. Whether God exists or not does not change what theology is doing. Theology is the creation of gods and other myths. The study of mythology investigates man’s creation of gods.
cl
says...Isn’t the study of “man’s creation of gods” essentially the same as the study of “the gods that man creates?”
Correct, but the accuracy could be improved. Whether God exists or not does not change what theologians are doing.
Brad
says...I agree that Dawkins’ was an atheist sermon. But on the topic.
I think Dawkins was utilizing the definition of subject as study of actual phenomena only to rhetorically frame his arguments. People do that a lot, presume definitions and assumptions for the sole purpose of framing an idea in a linguistically pleasing fashion – even if they don’t actually support those definitions or assumptions. (Dawkins has pretty much already assumed not-theism in this entry, but I doubt he’d unilaterally use that definition of subject.)
cl
says...I agree. Of late, rhetorical arguments have really been bothering me. After Mills’ book, I was planning on maybe making The God Delusion the next book review post series. What do you think? I could see it being productive; I could also see it becoming redundant. Are there any books you would suggest to me for a book review post series?