Larry Moran has weighed in on the question, raised in yesterday’s post, about whether it is fair to criticize Richard Dawkins for lacking the theological and philosophical chops to discuss the topics raised in The God Delusion. I especially like his closing paragraph:
The onus is on believers to convince us non-believers to adopt their faith. I’m not convinced, and I think my opinion about the existence of God is just as valid as that of C.S. Lewis, Ted Haggard, or Francis Collins. Instead of whining about whether Dawkins has mastered the subtlety of the Eucharist or the relationship of the Prophet Muhammad to God, why not concentrate on showing where Dawkins went wrong in his rejection of the arguments for the existence of God?
Mike Dunford has also weighed in with these worthy sentiments:
The question of whether or not god/s exist/s, however, is not the only question Dawkins discusses in The God Delusion. Dawkins also addresses other topics, such as the various arguments that have been advanced in favor of the existance of god. The arguments in favor of gods existance have been discussed for quite some time. Rivers of ink (and in some cases blood) have been spent going back and forth over the arguments. Here, a background in theology and/or philosophy would be helpful, if only because it would provide some familiarity with the ways in which theologans and/or philosophers have answered similar responses in the past. Here, I think Dawkins does lack expertise, and I think that the expertise is very helpful, if not strictly necessary, in addressing those questions.
Fair enough. I would only add in reply that Dawkins’ book was not meant as an exhaustive, academic treatment of the subject. Rather, it was meant as a readable, trenchant intorduction, and I think Dawkins succeeds nicely in what he set out to do.