Bad Theology : Good Theology :: Common inanity : rarefied insipidity.

[BurtWorm]

So says PZ Myers, reflecting on an interview with Elaine Pagels at salon.com:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/hiding_from_religious_reality.php

Certainly many people talk about God as an ineffable presence. But if you try to explain what transcendence is, can you put that into words and explain what it means?

People have put it into words, but the words are usually metaphors or poems or hymns. Even the word "God" is a metaphor, or "the son of God," or "Father." They're all simply images for some other order of reality.

Vacuous nonsense, air and fluff, excuses and evasions, nothing at all. Those seem to be our choices in this widely spread argument: the ridiculous anthropomorphic personal entity of the Rick Warren majority, or the etiolated and pointless vapor of the theological intellectuals. Common inanity vs. rarefied insipidity. The Lucky Charms leprechaun vs. invisible fairies in the garden.

I choose none of the above. The nonexistence of any of these idiotic fictions is the only choice that makes any sense.

[trotsky]

1. Great quote...

far from being a "village atheist", Dawkins seems to be far more aware of what people actually believe than a professional historian of Christianity.

(My emphasis added.)

[Kutjara]

2. Pagels' statement about Dawkins is of a type that...

...Dawkins himself demonstrates to be an empty strawman very early on in his book "The God Delusion." He demolishes it and many other common "arguments" by theologians in the space of half a chapter. To paraphrase him: "I'm not talking about a particular manifestation of God, I'm talking about the entire concept of a supreme being, however defined. It's not merely the idea of big daddy in the sky that's absurd, but the whole notion of any kind of creator intelligence."

This continual attempt to portray Dawkins' arguments as being about a particular manifestation of a particular deity (e.g., a white-bearded, robe-wearing father figure) is wrong. What's more, he clearly states in The God Delusion and his other writing that it's wrong, so either the theologians haven't read his work, or they're wilfully misrepresenting it.

[Evoman]

3. I like this comment:

"These two variants of religion need each other for mutual support. Theologians have created a god that is sufficiently vaporous to be non-dissprovable. If the average christian was presented with this image of god, they would reject it because it does not fulfill the emotional need.

But the average christian can profess their belief in a deeply personal god (continually tweaking the laws of physics for their personal benefit), and can avoid the atheist challenge by deferring to the theologians (Dawkins can be ignored because he's not attacking the 'real' christian god). The theologians, meanwhile, benefit from the kudos and deference received from the christian community at large (even though their beliefs are largely tangential)."

As if we don't come across that here. Here a piece of a post I made that I like to quote every now and then:

"Talking about god with a christian is like having a sword-fight. The christian starts of from a starting position of believing in Jesus, and God being a loving being who helps us out who is capable of making miracles. Then the atheist comes out with a few half-hearted swings. All of a sudden, the christian drops back to a deist fighting position, into a "Quantum Physics and Unknowable God" stance. The atheist stops gaining ground...after all, he does't know 100% that god doesn't exist, but keeps chipping off more armour, bit by bit, as the theist keeps sliding around avoiding straight questions, and answering in absurdly vague forms.

The atheist then says, out of breath and feeling pity for his opponent,..."fine, I will let you go. "....and the Christian goes RUNNING top speed to his original position and claims victory.""

[kiahzero]

4. "I don't like it, so it must be stupid!"

Whatever makes you happy. :shrug: