Anti-theistic strawmen?

One Man's Real... You: Krishna is real
Me: Krishna is not real
Devout Hindu: Krishna is realIf one looked only at the words here, one might think that you and the devout Hindu agree. But I think the devout Hindu might consider your 'Krishna is real' to be closer to my 'Krisha is not real' then to his own 'Krishna is real'.Now I know that ambiguity is sometimes useful for getting across complex ideas, but don't you think this is rather confusing?Competing explanations of the world The analogy with art doesn't really help. Art and science aren't at odds because art doesn't make claims about the physical world, whereas religion does. And as if to prove the point, look what happened last month in India when engineers proposed to build a canal through the geological formation known as Lord Ram's bridge:BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Hindu groups oppose canal projectEdited by JavaMan, : Typo

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

Krishna (Gita): I am real. I am just not literal.
Me: Krishna is real. He is just not literal.
Traditional Hindu belief: Krishna is real. He is just not literal.Some believers: Literal means real, because thinking any other way confuses me. Therefore Krishna is literal.
Some unbelievers: Literal means real, because thinking any other way confuses me. Therefore Krishna is not real.This is why we go to fully developed statements of ideas when we best intend to understand them. Reality exists. Reality can be expressed in literal terms or symbolic terms. Reality remains real regardless of the mode of expression.What's ambiguous?Confusion comes in when 'reality' is assumed to be synonymous with one mode of expressing it. The most common mistake is to think of 'true' and 'literal' as synonyms. That will mess you up.It's confusing to stand in front of a Chagall with a calculator, seeking 'values' in the picture one can enter on the keypad. But the confusion is not Chagall's.That's the kind of confusion the Gita addresses. Not an analogy. Religion is art.Religion is literature. It is pictures. It is architecture. And it is the ideas these things convey.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Then atheism is a form of theism.

Theism
1. pantheism
2. polytheism
3. monotheism
4. atheism

All are beliefs about gods.Against all varieties of theism one has agnosticism, which is lack of belief about gods.Two groups.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Let's take the example of the Ram Setu (Rama's bridge). There's a bunch of rocks there in the sea. That's an observed reality.According to geological models the bunch of rocks is a natural formation that once linked Sri Lanka to the mainland. According to Hindu activists, the bunch of rocks is the remains of the causeway that Rama built to rescue Sita.There is a conflict here between the scientific interpretation of reality, and a literalist interpretation of the Ramayana, and the resolution of the conflict will determine whether a canal gets built in the straits between Southern India and Sri Lanka.Now don't you thing it's very odd that this kind of thing happens so regularly with religious stories? If they're intended to be symbolic, why do people so often mistake them as literal historical accounts? I mean, nobody objects to construction work in Nuneaton on the grounds that Dorothea Brooke once built a cottage there. People understand that a novel like Middlemarch is a made-up story, however symbolically meaningful. Why don't they understand religious stories in the same way?It couldn't be that religious communities have an interest in insisting on the literal interpretation, could it? Nor mine, nor Richard Dawkins. This is a strawman. (Heh, we're back on topic ). The problem comes when religion claims to be part of calculator-world, by making potentially verifiable claims about the natural world, as though Chagall were to come to us and say, 'I'm not really interested in your symbolic understanding of my painting. I want to insist that brides really can fly.' In The God Delusion (somewhere - I'm useless at finding quotations ), Dawkins says something to the effect that if, by the word 'religious', people mean the feeling they get from looking out across a mountain landscape or listening to a sublime piece of music, then he's a religious man. Is that what you mean?

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

Atheism is the lack of belief about God, or the position that there isn't a God.Agnosticism is atheism without courage, and the word literally means "no knowledge." See? It's right there in the middle - A + gnosis.My point is that you can't hand me your recipe for granola bars and tell me that it's your "theology", because that's not what it is at all. You can't hand me your thoughts on art and poetry and tell me that it constitutes a theology, because then everything is a theology, and therefore nothing is.It just goes to show the intellectual bankruptcy that underpins all theology, regardless of how "mature" (read: vapid) the theology is supposed to be. I think it's long past time that theology's defenders met a burden of proof that there's actually any content in what they study. Otherwise theology is about as relevant as a degree in Dungeons and Dragons.

Theism is belief in a God or Gods, not about.You're using simple definitions of atheism and agnosticism here, while insisting on the inclusion of broad and complex definitions of God elsewhere on the thread.Babies, agnostics and pantheists are all weak atheists. So is someone who's grown up in a culture that has no concept of a God or Gods, and has never heard of such ideas.Strong agnostics do have beliefs about Gods (to further complicate things!).On the topic, Dawkins is not describing people who use the word God to denote something that does not literally exist as being delusional. Neither is he describing those who use the word God as a three letter abbreviation for "the universe" as delusional.He's talking about the majority of theists.As he makes this clear, and he is definitely in tune with the most common usage of the word God, then I don't think he's arguing against a strawman version of religion. "God" is an intelligent, existent entity in his book's title.From what I can guess about your beliefs, reading this thread, I'm sure Dawkins wouldn't consider you delusional in relation to God.

Thank you for making my point. The 'simple definition' of theism was not my invention. As you surely noticed, I quoted a definition supplied by Crashfrog.I showed our colleague that his definition of 'theism' would necessarily include atheism. Then I followed the matter to its logical conclusion.Doing so demonstrates what I have been saying: philosophical matters are often more complex than people realize when they get in the habit of attaching hasty labels.It thus causes me no difficulty to concede that Crashfrog's definitions are likely too simple, as you say. If you have a more accurate definition to propose, feel free to discuss it with him.I'm satisfied to observe only that this situation further supports my own argument: the need for accuracy. In the case of philosophical ideas, this means factoring in a considerable amount of complexity and even paradox.______Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

You supplied a definition of "a theology" by Crashfrog. ("a theology is a belief about Gods"). No you didn't. You brought in the word theism, which, in a brief Crashfrog style definition, would be "a belief in Gods or a God", not about them. The need for accuracy, indeed. Shouldn't someone putting forward the idea that there are such things as "adult" religious views or beliefs know the difference between "a theology" and "theism"?

I wasn't attempting to define the word, but simply to make a point that you've completely ignored - calling a recipe for ham salad a "theology" doesn't make it one.The statement "I like art" isn't theology. "Some symbols are meaningful to me" is not a theology. Almost nothing that you offered as an example of theology actually is one, which means that the much-bally-hooed "mature theology", supposedly the unassailable Holy Grail of religious defense, has yet to be presented.

Here, you recommend the dictionary for the purposes of this thread.So, the Online Dictionary gives us:re·li·gion /rld’n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
”Idiom9. get religion, Informal. a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.Then, in the post I'm replying to:

quote:

---

JavaMan: The analogy with art doesn't really help.

---

That's nowhere near any of the definitions above. But Crashfrog could fairly easily argue for Marxism to be included under definition 2.On the topic: If critics are going to argue that Dawkins is attacking a strawman version of religion by substituting things like literature, pictures, architecture, and the ideas these things convey for the common use of the word religion, then I think that the "strawman" accusation should really be going the other way.Religions use all the arts of course, as they use other things, like ritual.But "religion is art"? No. Not by any definition.I'd recommend that "adult theologians" should stick to your own advice, and go by the dictionary. It can save confusion.