Comments on: Tending to the Sophomoric

By: John Armstrong

John Armstrong — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:16:18 +0000

Lucky getting read by Paulos.. he couldn’t even come across town to see me talk at UPenn yesterday :P

Oh, it’s all good, you know it.

By: Blake Stacey

Blake Stacey — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:44:12 +0000

You’re very welcome! :-)

By: John Allen Paulos

John Allen Paulos — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:34:16 +0000

Needless to say, I found Holt’s review of my book, Irreligion, wanting (to use a mild word). My response to it in the NYT letters section is relevant: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/books/review/Letters-t-003.html?_r=1&ref=review&oref=slogin
Thanks.

By: miller

miller — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:15:39 +0000

I was brought up into liberal Catholicism, so I sort of understand what the Courtier’s reply is getting at. Most atheist criticisms are simply directed at something other than what I was brought up with. It’s almost like they’re attacking a straw man. The difference being, of course, that there are real people inside that straw man.

But Holt’s review is just ridiculous. He says so himself that theologians scorn these classical arguments. So I have difficulty discerning what his problem is.

By: Pseudonym

Pseudonym — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:03:57 +0000

Corey:

I never understand the argument that Dawkins doesnâ€™t understand theology. Just because he disagrees with it?

I don’t speak for Jim Holt, because he’s an idiot, but the proof that Dawkins doesn’t understand theology is that’s what he says. He refers to things that “moderate” theologians say as gibberish (probably not an exact quote), indicating that he can’t make any sense of it.

I’m not saying he should. Hell, I understand precious little political science, and am not certain that political scientists study anything of value to me, and am probably not losing anything by not investigating further myself. I can hardly fault that in others.

Incidentally, I’m kinda sick of the Courtier’s Reply, too. I just don’t see what’s wrong with consensual public nudity.

By: Blake Stacey

Blake Stacey — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:08:15 +0000

A noble and a worthy goal!

By: Corey

Corey — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:59:49 +0000

Hear hear.
I never understand the argument that Dawkins doesn’t understand theology. Just because he disagrees with it?
Everything of his that I’ve read seems fair (although I’ll admit I haven’t gotten to the God Delusion yet).
“He doesn’t answer every single argument I’ve ever read in favour of religion in his book” isn’t a very strong point against him, is it.
I hope one day my tone can be as sophomoric as these fellows are purported to be.