I didn't pick the article for statistical significance, but for the tenor of the remarks: — Wayfarer

I'm sorry, but this is just not true. Hardly three posts ago, you (again) linked to this article as evidence that "many scientists" believe that Dawkins misrepresents science (vis a vis its relationship to religion). And lo and behold, 38 scientists in the UK have made negative comments about Dawkins, in a survey which wasn't even about his views. If you agree with some of the criticisms of Dawkins (which, IMO are quite poor, and are just more of the special pleading afforded only to religious belief), that's fine, but please don't inaccurately represent this as some sort of representative sample of scientists (in the UK or certainly worldwide) who dislike Dawkins's work.

Well, I think Dawkins and his ilk are wrong in their approach, wrong in their understanding of the issues, and wrong in the remedy of them, as do the many scientists who say that Dawkins misrepresents science. — Wayfarer

Oh, please. I've already responded to this baloney (for your convenience, I repeat it, below, since you apparently didn't read it the first time, or just ignored it). Please at least do the intellectually honest thing and respond to my criticism instead of just repeating your confirmation bias error.

That summary is very misleading. From the article (bolding mine):

"The Religion Among Scientists in International Context (RASIC) study includes a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries.In the United Kingdom, 1,581 randomly sampled scientists participated in the survey, and 137 of them also participated in in-depth interviews.
Although the researchers did not ask questions about Dawkins, 48 scientists mentioned him during in-depth interviews without prompting, and nearly 80 percent of those scientists believe that he misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public engagements. This group included 23 nonreligious scientists and 15 religious scientists. Approximately 20 percent of scientists interviewed – 10 scientists all identifying as nonreligious – said that he plays an important role in asserting the cultural authority of science in the public sphere. One biologist surveyed said Dawkins has “quite an important place in society” in his criticism of creationism and intelligent design."

So, in other words, of 1,581 surveyed scientists (in the UK), 137 participated in in-depth interviews, 48 of whom mentioned Dawkins without prompting, 80% of whom held a negative view of him. So, of 1,581 surveyed UK scientists, <drum roll> a whopping 38 of them (15 of whom are religious themselves) badmouth Dawkins (for mostly spurious reasons, as judged by the article), and from this the authors of the study and the summary (and yourself) conclude that "Dawkins Misrepresents Science." Cherry-pick much?

"People believe what you want, so long as you're not doing XYZ harm," let alone advocate the respect and prominence that people like Wayfarer want to give to religious belief. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But they think that religious belief does cause harm (Hitchens rather stridently thought that "religion poisoned everything").

As for "respecting" religious beliefs, please spare me this baloney. Beliefs are not deserving of "respect" (assuming that they're even the sort of thing which can be "respected"). Beliefs are either believed for good reasons or for bad reasons, and every belief put forward in the public square is fair game for critique in an open society, religious beliefs included. Anyone who doesn't like that should go find a nice theocracy to move to.

But it is a fact that many Americans don't believe in evolution, and so arguing that 'science proves that God doesn't exist' is only going to be pouring fuel on the fire. — Wayfarer

But this is what Dawkins believes. What should he do: lie in order not to scare the rubes away? He's a scientist (or at least a science writer), not a politician. (By the way, you continually misrepresent Dawkins's view by saying he believes that science "proves" that God doesn't exist: for someone who's seemingly obsessed with his misrepresenting the notion of God and religious practice, you're notably sloppy in summarizing his positions.)

Except for this current article (31 Oct 2016) on how Richard Dawkins Misrepresents Science, according to British scientists. — Wayfarer

That summary is very misleading. From the article (bolding mine):

"The Religion Among Scientists in International Context (RASIC) study includes a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries. In the United Kingdom, 1,581 randomly sampled scientists participated in the survey, and 137 of them also participated in in-depth interviews.
Although the researchers did not ask questions about Dawkins, 48 scientists mentioned him during in-depth interviews without prompting, and nearly 80 percent of those scientists believe that he misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public engagements. This group included 23 nonreligious scientists and 15 religious scientists. Approximately 20 percent of scientists interviewed – 10 scientists all identifying as nonreligious – said that he plays an important role in asserting the cultural authority of science in the public sphere. One biologist surveyed said Dawkins has “quite an important place in society” in his criticism of creationism and intelligent design."

So, in other words, of 1,581 surveyed scientists (in the UK), 137 participated in in-depth interviews, 48 of whom mentioned Dawkins without prompting, 80% of whom held a negative view of him. So, of 1,581 surveyed UK scientists, <drum roll> a whopping 38 of them (15 of whom are religious themselves) badmouth Dawkins (for mostly spurious reasons, as judged by the article), and from this the authors of the study and the summary (and yourself) conclude that "Dawkins Misrepresents Science." Cherry-pick much?

The number of outspoken "New Atheists" can be counted on one hand. — Brainglitch

Someone else on this thread referred to what the New Atheists do as "persecution," to which I replied that that poster is either prone to extreme hyperbole, or doesn't know what "persecution" means.

As for the stable of "New Atheists," their enemies can take comfort in the fact that Hitchens is gone, and Sam Harris's recent concerns over religion seem to pertain exclusively to radical Islam (or Islam in general). So, their ranks are fairly depleted (and Dawkins' latest books were memoirs. For all of the near-hysterical vitriol levied against him in some quarters, relatively little of his writings are directly concerned with religious belief).

I doubt religious folks would object to saying that God must be complex, by the way. — Terrapin Station

Then you are apparently unacquainted with the notion of "divine simplicity..."

Ok, this doesn't sound any more sensible to me (it doesn't help that you claim to have shopped this idea around to the CEO of Google...), but, as I said, I'm out of my element here. Could you provide some links/references to what you're talking about?

EDIT: I see above that you claim that this information has been censored. Oh, my...

A ten year cross disciplinary study of the I-Ching concluded it was word perfect for introspective purposes making it ideal for AI and theoretical physics research. One of the few things you can learn online about fuzzy logic is that it is of intense interest in both fields. My own expertise is a mastery of the Tao Te Ching and, theoretically, a complete word perfect set of 430 poems extrapolated from the text can describe both how to build an AI and construct a theory of everything. Thus far, to the best of my knowledge people have only managed to write perhaps 150 or so that are word perfect and complete, but that's because nobody has the philosophy worked out yet and they don't comprehend the logical or mathematical foundations. — wuliheron

:-| Wuli, I admit that this isn't my field, but this really sounds to me like the ramblings of a person with mental illness. The Tao Te Ching theoretically contains instructions on how to build an AI and construct a TOE? Whaaa...

Yes, ID transparently is repackaged Creationism. — Brainglitch

I don't disagree, but I would question how many evangelicals subscribe to ID per se, which, as I pointed out, is largely shorn of theological doctrine. I think most evangelicals would as a group hold more of a literalistic "Goddidit" set of beliefs, with an explicit appeal to the Judeo-Christian-style creator of Genesis.

Young-Earth Creationism, for instance, is not really compatible with ID as most commonly presented (though, at least some proponents of ID, e.g. Paul Nelson, are YEC's).

In any case, evangelicals unanimously assert that the Bible is inerrant, and overwhelmingly subscribe to ID — Brainglitch

ID is a relatively theologically stripped-down version of creationism, at least with regard to its published theories. Though I don't have any polling data on this readily at hand, I would think that evangelicals lean more towards Young- or Old Earth Creationism than ID.

I might also disagree that fundamentalists are just a subset of evangelicals, especially if we broaden the scope to include non-Christians. Not all religions are inherently evangelical (e.g. Judaism), and yet some non-evangelical religions have followers who can reasonably be called fundamentalists (e.g. the Ultra-Orthodox Jews).

But this is not a case of 'no true scotsman'. It is a case of understanding the subject properly. — Wayfarer

You said such "divine watchmaker" notions of God "doesn't match any conception of deity found in any of the world's religious traditions." I pointed out that it does, for instance, in the tradition of natural theology. You then dismiss that by saying it's "a case of understanding the subject properly." So, yes, this is pretty much a textbook instance of No True Scotsman.

I think that the mainly American tendency that has now crystallised around the title of 'intelligent design' is an unfortunate development, in many respects, and is *not* characteristic of the broader Christian tradition. It is a matter of record that neither the Anglican, Catholic, nor Orthodox communions defend or advocate any kind of intelligent design theology. (Yet they do support theistic evolution and natural theology, which are different arguments.)

Again, No True Scotsman. Whether ID is "characteristic of the broader Christian traditions" is not really relevant, only that such notions do in fact have a longstanding history in religion. And what is theistic evolution but the belief that God somehow guided the evolutionary process? That's pretty close to executing a "design" as far as I'm concerned. And no less than the the head of the NIH (Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian) has expressed his belief that the human moral sense was instilled by God, which, again, sounds a lot like design to me (and the fact that such sentiments were expressed by the leader of one of the largest biomedical research centers and funders in the United States is worrying to me, as it should be to anyone who cares about scientific rationalism).

As you may recall, another of the books I often quote in this matter is Karen Armstrong's A Case for God which is much nearer to my understanding of the issue than either the ID camp or the evangatheists. She points out in that book how 'design arguments' grew out of the early modern conviction that natural laws 'shewed God's handiwork', not realising at the time that this argument could then be used against theology, as knowledge of 'God's handiwork' expanded.

HOWEVER, all of that said, I think the attempt to 'prove that God exists' with reference to empirical facts always amounts to a species of fundamentalism. But the attempt to prove that God doesn't exist, with reference to those same facts, is also a species of fundamentalism, and that on those grounds, Dawkins, et al, amount to a kind of 'secular fundamentalism'.

It's no wonder that you accuse Dawkins et al of grappling only with fundamentalism, given that you have such an overbroad definition of that term! I understand fundamentalism to be a literalistic or overly-strict adherence to the dogma, texts, or teachings of a particular religion, often accompanied by a desire to force such adherence upon others. Appealing to empiricism to demonstrate the existence of God doesn't fall into that camp, in my opinion.

However, you are aware that Dawkins has also criticized a priori arguments for the existence of God, such as the ontological argument? If so, do you maintain that he switches from criticizing mainstream theology when dealing with the OA to criticizing only fundamentalism when he turns his fire upon, say, the cosmological argument?

But one asymmetry in all of this is, that even the most bone-headed young-earth creationist is nevertheless supposed to be bound by a moral code, which requires that he or she tend to the sick, practice charity and mercy, and observe the other elements of Christian morality. Moreover their belief system situates them in a broader context both culturally and spiritually. Whereas, the diehard atheist inhabits a universe that is meaningless and purposeless by definition, where the only kind of purpose or meaning that is available is that generated by the ego, in a Camus-like act of defiance.

Dawkins actually bemoans the adoption of Darwinian principles as the basis for a moral philosophy, wiithout seeming to realise that he has spent the whole second part of his career dissolving the traditional alternative in the acid of 'Darwin's dangerous idea'. Which is one of the reasons he's considered such a klutz.

Even assuming any of this is true, it is yet another fallacious appeal to consequences on your part. As Sam Harris said, no society has ever suffered from being too rational. If you have a counter-example to this, I'd love to hear it.

Oh go on, A, what was it....? — Wayfarer

The New Agey book wasn't particularly philosophical, so don't worry. Beyond that, the less said about it, the better (though I will say that, beyond the ideas and purported phenomena being discussed, the writing style itself was absolutely atrocious, which added to my disgust).

Incidentally apropos of your comment on Krauss some pages back, herewith two critical reviews, one from a physicist, one from a philosophical theologian.

Yes, I've read the one by Albert. I haven't even read the Krauss book (as I pointed out), much less endorsed it. No doubt I could find laudatory reviews, as well. My point about his book A Universe from Nothing was only the sort of theistic arguments he was attempting to rebut (prime mover-style arguments, in this case). Whether he rebutted them successfully is immaterial here.

With proper philosophy, perhaps, but it seems you'd have thrown down a Summa Theologica or, let's say more contemporarily, any of the more religious works by Kierkegaard. — Heister Eggcart

I've never read any Kierkegaard (except for the occasional quotation referenced in secondary sources), so I can't comment on that. Though I should point out that I've actually thrown very few books, and only threw away one book out of disgust, to the best of my recollection (the less said about that, the better...I will say only that it was a New Agey-type book which I bought on a whim years ago, and turned out to be one of the worst things I'd ever read).

No, that sounds more like you. — Heister Eggcart

Really? You understand me well enough to engage in a relatively lucid (if somewhat acrimonious) exchange on this forum. Which post(s) of mine did you find difficult to understand (I think I actually speak with an absolute minimum of philosophical jargon or name-dropping, so your claim is quite perplexing to me)...

This isn't about one single thing, you've attempted to rub your boot in the face of all theology, categorizing some book reviews as if they represent anything more than a casual, opinionated response. I'm not going to read books for you. If you want to understand what you don't, read more about it yourself. — Heister Eggcart

More non-sequiturs. I haven't "attempted to rub my boot in the face of all theology." Have I denigrated, for instance, Augustine or Aquinas (yes, I know they were theologically-inclined philosophers rather than pure theologians). I've explicitly praised philosophers of religion such as Plantinga and Swinburne for at least being clear in their writing, and for offering actual arguments.

As for book reviews, whether or not they're "casual or opinionated," why am I not justified in taking a given person's review as representative of their writing style in general? If anything, I should expect a book review to be less technical than a given author's academic work.

And, I know this conversation isn't just about one thing, but it you could explain "ground of all being" for me, please do so. (I haven't asked you to read a book for me, but as you're apparently so well-read, please share your wealth of knowledge.)

More impatience. You haven't told me that you've read any theology, so how you know its nonsense without reading it is beyond me. — Heister Eggcart

Where did I say that? I said I haven't read "Sophisticated Theologians," who I'd define as a particular strand of early-modern, modern, or post-modern blowhards who espouse obscurantist verbiage (sometimes imported from Heidegger or elsewhere) in lieu of actual argumentation. And, again, insofar as the samples I have read (e.g. in response to The God Delusion) are not representative of a given author's writing in general, then I will restrict my criticism only to that review (though why they would write lucidly in their own works and yet employ word salad in reviewing others' works is beyond me).

Some say my point is still sailing over your head...

Perhaps I should learn how to fly so that I can retrieve it and try again, hummmmm... — Heister Eggcart

No, I think you're missing my point, actually. You assume that when I read something and encounter a term or 2 which I don't understand, that I thereby dismiss that work. But that's not so: I've encountered many technical (or otherwise unfamiliar) terms in the course of my reading, and either looked them up (if they weren't defined in the text), or tried to glean their meaning from context. When Descartes talked about a chiliagon in Meditations on First Philosophy, I didn't throw down the book in disgust: I simply looked it up.

However, while, for instance, quantum physics is difficult to understand (and chock-full of terms which I don't know), I have the impression that its proponents are writing in as clear and concise a manner as possible without sacrificing their point. I don't get that impression when I read samples of Sophisticated Theologians. I get the impression that they're employing obscurantism in order to mask that nothing of substance is being said.

Except those theologians you don't understand because you've not read them. Those guys are clearly wrong. "Just look at how little I've read them!" >:O — Heister Eggcart

As far as I can tell (and yes, I admittedly have read a limited amount of certain Sophisticated Theologians) they don't write in a manner in which they want or expect to be understood (which is why I called it "obscurantism"). As for them being "wrong," their claims don't even seem substantive enough to be wrong ("not even wrong" as some theories are described).

The chemist finds chemistry more simple to understand than the poet. yet does this mean the content of each profession is any easier to grasp? No. But you do have to do the work and delve into the language of the writing concerned if indeed you are interested in fully understanding what someone means. You, however, have shown to not at all be of such an interest, which is why I'm struggling to hold a conversation with you. — Heister Eggcart

How does your judgment follow from anything I've said? As I said, if you can give me a clear, concise definition of a term of art of Sophisticated Theologians such as "ground of all being," you would have my gratitude.

I mean, here we are, on a philosophy forum, a discussion board for a field study perhaps the most purposely verbose and nuanced of employers of the human language that there is, and you've not the patience to read some theology in order to understand what someone means.

Insofar as the samples of their work I've read is representative of their work in general, why would I read the obscurantist cant promulgated by Sophisticated Theologians? Piling more nonsense on top of nonsense doesn't yield sense. (Since you're so apparently well-read, again, please do me the favor of explaining what "ground of all being" means.)

I hope to God that you've not read Dawkins' biology papers, for I must only assume that you would find him entirely wrong because you don't understand the scientific uses of words in his field, >:O

Which "biology papers" of Dawkins' do you speak of? As far as I'm aware, it's been decades since he's done original work in biology (and little of it, at that).

So, again, you've only read rebuttals to a work you're already in agreement with...yipee... — Heister Eggcart

Not sure what you mean by "only read." I most definitely have read authors with whom I disagree, on matters of philosophy, politics, and religion.

Strange that you seem entirely disinterested in understanding the terminology theologians, and philosophers too, both employ in order to talk about such concepts as being or God. It really does strike me as bizarre as to why are you complaining about not understanding something, yet refuse to be curious enough to seek out the simple meanings of words in order to bring about the understanding you so obviously lack, by even your own admission.

If you have a "simple meaning" for "ground of all being," for instance, I'm all ears. One wonders why the authors who use such terms don't offer "simple meanings" of it. Perhaps because they're engaged in obscurantism?

I have read them in their responses to Dawkins and company (Dawkins seems to draw most of their ire, in my impression). No, I don't understand them, which is why I called it "word salad." As far as I can tell, they throw around meaningless, obscurantist buzzwords such as "ground of all being," and then call it a day, satisfied that they've thereby refuted the New Atheists' claims. I'll say this of theists like Swinburne or Plantinga: they at the very least offer copious, clear arguments for their views, agree or disagree with them.

To the extent that the sample of Sophisticated Theologians' work I've read (in rebutting Dawkins, for instance) is unrepresentative of their oeuvre, I am more than willing to restrict my criticism only to those attempted rebuttals.

What's depressing is the condescending manner in which you claim to be 'explaining' something that I understand perfectly well, as if your hard-boiled atheism actually amounts to a philosophy. There are many things you have 'explained' to me in those previous conversations, which I think you're completely incorrect about. — Wayfarer

I'm sorry you feel condescended to. But, I would question which one of us is not doing philosophy, as you never offer any arguments for your viewpoints, and instead only continue to flog the words of your preferred authors (Eagleton, Nagel, and the rest).

The depiction of God as a kind of super-human agent is not part of any legitimate theology. — Wayfarer

Not "legitimate theology," is it? Yes, like I said: a No True Scotsman fallacy. Whether it's "legitimate" or not is beside the point: these types of beliefs are real (whether you agree with them or not). To claim that a designer God has had no place in Christian thinking is simply untrue.

I don't think that Stephen Meyer or any of the ID proponents depict God as a super-human agency, and if they do, then I think they're falling into the same kind of error that Dawkins is; which is quite possible, because religious fundamentalism and scientific materialism have a lot in common, and is one of the reasons that Dawkins seems to think that all religion is fundamentalism. (It's significant that the protagonists on the Uncommon Design website often take issue with the theological philosophy of Ed Feser and David Bentley Hart, on account of the classical form of theology they write about, is often incompatible with their literalistic interpretation of Biblical texts.)

To depict God as a designer is most definitely to attribute agency to it (as a designer must have intentions, plans, intelligence, etc). You are free to lump Meyer and Dawkins into the bin of people whose arguments you dislike (and therefore ignore), but this smells like an outgroup homogeneity bias on your part: people with whom you disagree are all the same.

I fully realize that the absolute vast majority of "Christians" are dumber than rocks and hold such a superficial understanding of God as they think "him" to be, although I cannot necessarily blame them. Not everybody can be an Augustine through life. — Heister Eggcart

Why is it "superficial" to believe the holy texts of one's religion? I don't believe that the rarified air of "sophisticated theologians" is any more worth listening to than personal notions of God (and, again, if one is a Christian of any stripe or level of philosophical sophistication, one is seemingly necessarily committed to the Incarnation at the very least). Indeed, most rebuttals of Dawkins' and company's arguments seem to consist of saying "don't they realize..." and then unleashing a torrent of theological word salad, as if amazed that anyone could be ignorant of such things.

And with what darth was saying, it's the guys like Eckhart or, in some ways, Augustine as well, that do not see God in such a way as most modern "Christians" do. And it is the irony of many New Atheists that they are as superficially and nuance-blind as those they persecute so vehemently. This is why darth mentioned that they're being stupid for generalizing as if conquering the typical Baptist Christian's theology is a fully encompassing slaying of the Christian God. That isn't the case, which is I don the facepalm pose when I read or read about fellows like Dawkins.

If you consider what the New Atheists do to be persecution, I can only say that you either are prone to extreme hyperbole, or you don't know what "persecution" means.

True, but not everyone that describes God through personal terms is therefore suggesting that God is actually representative of those terms. — Heister Eggcart

Many people do, so it is perfectly legitimate to address those beliefs. And, again, Christians qua Christians would seemingly necessarily be committed to the veracity of the Incarnation (at a bare minimum), in which case God assumed human form for a time, and most definitely possessed a personality.

Do you think that Eckhart is saying that God has a penis and balls, and is just like "us" for possessing a supposed maleness? Not at all. He simply uses words like "His" as a way to talk about something words can't fully describe. — Heister Eggcart

God presumably did have a penis and balls for a time. (I actually do think most people think of God as a male, albeit not an anatomically correct one, presumably. If all of this gendered talk is mere allegory or a placeholder, one wonders why theists don't just say "it"?).

Alvin Plantinga is a theistic personalist, not a classical theist. — darthbarracuda

I'm beginning to think you have such a stringent notion of "classical theist" that only a very select few can qualify as one. If that's the case, then one can hardly complain if classical theism flies under the New Atheists' radar.

In any case these books by those pop-science superstars are not very well accepted in the philosophical community at large. Krauss's "nothing" is actually "something", despite his pretentious douchebaggery.

Well, the existence of God is also not widely accepted among the philosophical community. What of it? (And plenty of philosophers are pretentious douchebags: so, of this ad hom, I would also ask what of it?)

Hitchens and Harris attack straw-men. None of them seem capable, or willing, to understand religious belief, or theist belief for that matter. It's just a publicity stunt.

Nonsense. Again, simply because they attack beliefs which you don't hold, and which you consider to be shallow or puerile, it doesn't follow that they attack(ed) straw men. They may not attack your notion of theism, but that is a complaint about their interests, priorities, or agenda; it says nothing about the content of their arguments, which is what you purport to do when you claim that they strawman their opponents. Attacking beliefs which people around the world adhere to (as you yourself said) is not strawmanning.

Oh, sure, they can, I don't have a problem with them attacking organized religion. It's when they start claiming that their arguments address all conceptions of God that I have issues with them. That's when they become dogmatic themselves. — darthbarracuda

Different people have criticized different aspects of religious beliefs, some involving a more "hands-on" theistic conception of God, and others involving a deistic, "clockmaker" God. Lawrence Krauss's A Universe from Nothing, for instance, is more directed towards the latter type of "prime mover" God (so is my understanding of his thesis: I haven't read the book), and people like Hitchens and (Sam) Harris seem to grapple more with the perceived absurdity of more theistic-oriented beliefs. Dawkins has levied criticisms of both types of belief, as well (for whatever it's worth, Alvin Plantinga has asserted that God is a person, and he's no stranger to philosophical arguments for the existence of God).

Well, considering that we're discussing New Atheists, the only targets they go for are from the Old Testament, which by itself, is Jewish, and not Christian. — Heister Eggcart

This is not true. They criticize myriad aspects of the NT, as well (assuming that by the "New Atheists" we mutually understand that we're referring to Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, and company).

But, again, this is irrelevant: I was responding to the claim that it was a caricature of religious belief to describe God as having personality characteristics. This feature obtains whether one is considering the OT or the NT (albeit, as you say, they seem to have different characteristics in those two sections).

The new atheist critiques work well against the common conception of God as some kind of intervening sky father, touted around by evangelicals across the world. — darthbarracuda

Why shouldn't the New Atheists grapple with beliefs "touted around the world"? Because you find such beliefs to be shallow or puerile? Even if they are, that would seem to only make it that much more imperative that they be critiqued, wouldn't you say?

Bingo. Occam's Razor. (Though theists could perhaps argue that one or more features of the universe other than its mere existence require the intervention of God, e.g. the development of the human moral sense or the coming into being of the first organism.)

I don't think they "sound" the same, but Christians believe they are (no mainstream variety of Christianity with which I'm familiar asserts that the God of the OT and the NT are literally different Gods).

Regardless, none of this matters: my point is the that the God of the NT (i.e. Jesus) definitely does have personality characteristics, including emotions and preferences, contra Darthbarracuda's insinuation otherwise (by calling descriptions of such beliefs a caricature).

The very notion of a "theistic" God is one which interacts with its creation and takes some interest in human welfare or actions, as opposed to a deistic entity (which may be purely a "clockmaker"-style entity). The God of the Judeo-Christian tradition (a God in which the vast majority of the U.S. populaces professes to believe in some form) most definitely does have personality characteristics. Whether you find conflating the religious and the philosophical to be "shallow" or not, it's what people believe: saying otherwise isn't caricaturing said belief.

It's not "the narrative I would like to think": it's what the texts say. Again, God is not only a personal entity in the NT, God is a person!

Right, but the Prime Mover hypothesis was postulated before these religions took off. Aristotle wasn't a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, for example. — darthbarracuda

I understand, but you said "classical theistic God," not "the God of the philosophers" or something. Regardless, focusing only on the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is mostly definitely not a caricature to assert that Jews and Christians predicate certain personality characteristics of their God as judged from their holy scriptures (Christians in particular, insofar as Christians qua Christians are committed to the incarnation).

Not so much in the New Testament, which is the only non-Jewish collection of writings that make up the Christian Bible. — Heister Eggcart

You mean the part of the Bible where God assumes human form? That only serves to underscore my point, I should say.

It's a caricature to see the classical theistic God as akin to a mega-human with a personality, likes and dislikes, etc. — darthbarracuda

How so? At least in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Bible very clearly speaks of God having likes, dislikes, emotions, etc, and engaging with humans (e.g. Moses) in a personal manner.
Indeed, if the Christian story is to be believed, Jesus was God incarnate, and Jesus clearly had emotions, preferences, etc.

And claiming that certain institutions or actions are contrary to God's will (generally with regard to things which religious conservatives dislike, such as same sex marriage) is a depressingly common feature of political discourse in the U.S.

If this is a "caricature," then it is religionists who should be blamed for promulgating these notions.

I agree it's counter-intuitive, but there's no reason to expect our evolved intuitions to be a perfect (or even very reliable) guide to how nature operates at the most fundamental levels. And, again, I'm no expert, but my understanding of the current consensus among physicists is that there are genuinely random (i.e. indeterminate) events in nature, and that so-called "hidden variable" theories in QM have not gained widespread acceptance.

That the current universe can rest its existence upon an uncaused cause refutes the basic scientific principle that every event has a cause. — Hanover

I don't know that this is a "basic scientific principle" (indeed, it seems to have been more of a philosophical claim than anything else; I'm here thinking of Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason, and similar theses). My understanding of quantum mechanics (which admittedly is about as deep as a puddle) is that there are genuinely stochastic, indeterminate events in nature, i.e. uncaused causes.

So offer me your definition of "coincidental" since you're putting it in quotes like it's a special sort of term. — Hanover

I don't understand the term in a special light. I just don't see what's "coinciding" here.

No, it's really not. My point was to point out that it was entirely irrelevant to our conversation how deficient theists were. — Hanover

If it's not a non-sequitur, please show how my statements implies that I believe all theists to be stupid (my posting history certainly doesn't reflect that; I've even said on more than one occasion that under different historical circumstances I myself would likely be at least a deist).

I know. You were annoyed that a theist might be characterized in a positive light (to the extent humility is positive), so you wanted to be sure to point out that atheists were no less virtuous. That is, you personalized a discussion that was never intended that way because you seem to want to defend the goodness of atheists. My point remains that neither is better or worse per se, but both are equally lacking in support for their definitive statements. — Hanover

Again, a non-sequitur. I myself have painted some theists in a positive light, and nothing in my post says otherwise (sounds like you're the one getting personal here...) And defending the "goodness" of atheists per se is also something I certainly never did (there are plenty of virtuous theists and plenty of nonvirtuous atheists).

Everything coming together by happenstance, resulting in everything to rocks to consciousness. — Hanover

Again, what is "coincidental" about that?

Ok, religious people are stupid in your experience.

Non-sequitur.

How does this impact my conclusion that neither the atheists nor the theists have any inkling of the answer?

I didn't say it did. My response was geared towards your comment about some people "bowing down in humility."

Some bow down in humility to this fact and some boast that they know our existence is all just meaningless coincidence. — Hanover

A "coincidence" of what?

(In my experience, the people most ardently claiming for humility in the face of the universe are those with the least amount of epistemic humility: it is religious believers, not scientists, who claim to have all of the answers.)

You will find if you read The Blind Watchmaker that it contains a brief precursor to his main argument against God in The God Delusion, to whit: 'a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution ... must already have been vastly complex in the first place.'

But the point is, that doesn't match any conception of deity found in any of the world's religious traditions. Ergo it is a straw man argument, although in this case, probably better named a 'straw god argument'. — Wayfarer

This is not true. There is a long history of "natural theology" which purports to explain the complexity of nature (especially its biological complexity) by appeals to a designing entity. William Paley's Natural Theology (written in the early 19th century) is just such an example of this, now presented in a more technically savvy form by intelligent design creationists (e.g. Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell). You may not agree with these authors' conceptions of God, but they're out there nonetheless. So it's disingenous to claim that Dawkins and company are just strawmanning their opponents.

It's really depressing that I have to keep explaining this to you across multiple threads and multiple forums (PF and here): you just keep adamantly repeating these falsehoods over and over. Whether it's an example of a "No True Scotsman" fallacy or what, I don't know, but you can't just deny those religionists who say things you don't like, and then claim that Dawkins et al are philosophically naive for grappling with their arguments.

My favorite response to this charge was made by Craig Venter (or one of his associates): "We're not playing."

According to Pew according to Trump "millions of people are registered to vote who should not be" and also according to trump "Hillary's people are telling people to beat other people up" (not entirely clear what he meant). — VagabondSpectre

Don't worry: Trump's rational and highly-educated team of poll watchers will ensure a fair election takes place. I can't imagine that causing any problems.