This link has been bookmarked by 1 people . It was first bookmarked on 10 Oct 2008, by Clay Burell.
"The Courtier's Reply" reminds me of my own use of Occam's Razor against...Occam's religion. Annotated link http://www.diigo.com/bookmark/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daylightatheism.org%2F2008%2F09%2Fon-expertise.html
One of the most common complaints leveled against Richard Dawkins (and other atheist writers) is that his understanding of religion isn't sufficiently sophisticated - that he dismisses religion without delving into all its intricacies of doctrine. For instance, Terry Eagleton:
What, one wonders, are Dawkins's views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them?
What any of this has to do with the basic question of whether God exists is left unexplained. So common is this attack that P.Z. Myers gave it its own, very appropriate name - The Courtier's Reply - a reference to the famous fable of the Emperor's New Clothes. The analogy behind the Courtier's Reply is that no one has the right to claim the Emperor is naked unless they've first engaged in a detailed study of all the latest fashions in imaginary fabrics.
The use of this argument shows how religious apologists set the bar at a different height for atheists than they do for their own fellow believers. Why is it that that atheists are expected to be fluent in every last detail and nuance of theology, while no similar qualifications are needed to be a churchgoer?
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.