Richard Dawkins, obviously doesn't know anything about ....?

Question

Religion origins if he did he would know what the Gnostic's, Ebonites, Jewish mystics, and people of Platonic thought spoke about in regard to scripture. Why do many people penis ride him when he doesn't even know about the nature of the church pre-Nicene?

Why doesn't he know about the Ante-Nicene Library? Why doesn't he know about the function of Gnostic thought and Platonic thought in the church, and that Gnostic thought was merely the spiritual.mystical esoteric reality of the Church where they discussed the mysteries and true meaning of scriptures beyond the superficial entry level, and that it was levels of instruction until they pass the requirements to be initiated into mysteries? Why does Richard Dawkins talk about religion from a point of view that knows little to nothing about the history of it? Or his question about if scripture is metaphors which is true? That is utterly foolish and only a person that knows little about these movements would say something like that.

Why doesn’t Richard Dawkin’s know about the reformers, the history of the Gnostics and ebonites who suffered nearly complete genocide by the emperor’s order in his movements to make orthodox Christianity the state religion, orthodox which prior to this occurrence at Nicea was known as the baby level of Christianity milk-entry/elementary doctrine taught to the simpleminded that needed to reform their lives? Why doesn’t he know the systematic changes/reformations by Emperor Justinian and his prostitute wife Theodore, Martin Luther/Calvin?

And much of the church perception afterwards was perceived through St. Augustine’s original sin doctrine, where he went against his own understanding that scriptures were figurative. Why doesn’t he know anything about the higher esoteric level of movements, that even Plato would only discuss certain things to those who could receive it? Why is he found so lacking when it comes to this higher element of spiritual movements and philosophies?

Why do people take what he says on face value?

Because if he don't know then he should not open his mouth about things he doesn't understand at all. Makes him look foolish.

For the people that tend to not read what is questioned, my question wasn't about God, it is about mainly, why do people take what he says at face value about religion when he doesn't even know how it was supposed to have been perceived and practiced? Mostly his refutation of metaphors is devoid of any knowledge of how these movements operated.

Answer 1

I agree with you.

I think Dawkins is right about a whole lot of things, and is an excellent communicator about evolutionary theory. He provides a compelling explanation of why religious belief is so prevalent using conventional evolutionary theory, and I absolutely agree with him about how religion can be used to stifle thought and abuse the potential of children (and other humans).

However he is out of his depth tracing the history of the philosophy of Christianity, and is even more hamstrung on Islam.

He is a smart man, and has very important things to say, but like many similar people has overreached his expertise.

Answer 2

Those at this higher level of interpretation are (generally) not the problem in the never ending dogma wars, as they are aware that all religions are speaking metaphorically about roughly the same experiences. So even if Dawkins is aware of this interpretation, he need not address it to serve his overall purpose.

Even Plato and the Gnostics, however, make unfounded logical leaps. From certain classes of deep inward experience (i.e., the experience of 'pure consciousness', or what in Plato's Theory of Forms is called "the Good") they posit theistically charged metaphysics that are not (and cannot be) supported by the evidence. So, from a purely scientific perspective, Dawkins is correct in challenging these assumptions.

Answer 3

First, basically because some thing existed doesn't advise it really is a benefit with reference to evolution or some thing else. Is there an evolutionary reason for kid molestation? (Which occurs to correspond a great deal with maximum religions). second, searching at what's moral has little to do with evolution. it really is immoral to rigidity faith onto your little ones. it really is immoral to inform your little ones that a wrathful and loving being reads his options and if he thinks particular options then this omnipresent nightmare will torment them continually in a lake of hearth. technological information won't be able to clarify each little thing and that i doubt Dawkins has ever made that declare. good judgment precludes technological information. faith is via definition anti-rational and anti-empirical. If it were an answer to any questions none of it would want to could be taken on authority instead of completely on authority. if you're attempting to create an understanding then memorizing the end without or regardless of any technique then you definitely are literally not understanding some thing. it truly is what faith is. i do not consider each little thing Dawkin says both. i imagine he's too delicate on spiritualists and grants them too many premises. ordinary I relish him and his artwork although.

Answer 4

Why should he? Dawkins is a scientist, not a theologist. And he makes no claims to being a theology expert.

His argument is just that there is no rational basis for belief in God. You don't need to know scripture to say that with confidence.

To put it another way, do you need to know the Baghavad Ghita to know that you don't believe in Shiva?

Answer 5

He doesn't have to know everything about every religious sect in history to be able to refute the concept of God. If everyone had to with hold there opinion on everything in the world because they had to know everything about it, how could anybody ever say anything?

Answer 6

so your problem with Dawkins is that he doesn't know everything there is to know about religion?????
Do you?

As to your last question: why do you take the claims of the Bible at face value without questioning them?

As for your updated last point:"Because if he don't know then he should not open his mouth about things he doesn't understand at all. Makes him look foolish." THEN NO ONE SHOULD EVER TALK ABOUT GOD UNDER THIS LOGIC

Answer 7

Has anyone commented on Dawkins' Root of all evil programme?
I was less than impressed right at the start by his dismissive
insensitive comments about Lourdes pilgrims - hardly the objective
approach that is supposed to be the hallmark of genuine science.


He is just telling people what they want to hear, fulfilling 2Timothy4

and making alot of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ off the atheists

Answer 8

Why don't you ask him ... I always take people with a grain of salt anyway ...Like you for instance .....nobody knows all just as nobody is god .

Answer 9

Uh....... what? What's with the rant? Why would you say he doesn't know this?

>>WHY<< would you say he doesn't know these things? What leads you to believe he doesn't knoew these things?

Answer 10

Actually, given his education, he probably does...