John Lynch Has an Opinion

 
John Lynch has re-opened a debate about whether Dawkins' opinion on religion is valid [Weinberg on expertise]. The discussion was prompted by PZ's review of Weinberg's review of The God Delusion [I am so happy that Steven Weinberg is on our side].

Here's what John says,

Many of us involved with fighting creationism have argued for years that expertise is important in scientific matters. That's why lawyers like Phil Johnson need to demonstrate their knowledge of evolution before they are taken seriously. Any one can express an opinion, but to be taken seriously on a scientific issue, one must have engaged in serious study of the matter at hand. This, of course, also holds for non-scientific areas of study.

Weinberg is attempting to argue that Dawkins is entitled to voicing his opinion about religious matters, and indeed he is, just as I'm entitled to express my opinion about any matter. Unless Dawkin's has demonstrated his knowledge of the subject at hand, one could argue that his opinion on religion is as valid as Johnson's on evolution or mine on bridge building.

The analogy is interesting but I think the logic is facile. Let me try and show why the argument fails in the case of an atheist arguing against religion.

I am an atheist. I have listened to many of the arguments for the existence of God and I am not convinced by any of them. Like Dawkins, I can give you my explanations for why I reject these arguments. They appear very rational to me and I have several decades of experience defending them against all comers. So does Dawkins, he's no spring chicken. (Dawkins is way older than me!)

It seems very disingenuous for religious people to dismiss my atheistic stance on the grounds that I'm not an expert on religion. They rarely criticize believers for being non-experts in religion so, in addition to being disingenuous, it's also hypocritical.

How much religion do I have to study before my rejection of it becomes credible? Is five years in a Buddhist monastery enough to prepare me to reject Buddhism? Is that what the average Christian has done before deciding that Buddhism just isn't for them?

Do I have to become a Jesuit priest before I can reject Roman Catholicism? Is that what John Lynch has done, or is his religious position not valid?

There are even more extreme reductio ad absurdum's. Do we not have a valid opinion about astrology until we've become experts at casting horoscopes? How about my rejection of fascism? I'm not an expert—I haven't read all of the works of the leading fascists—does that mean my opinion isn't valid?

Finally I'd like to ask John what he thinks of the Pope, or Billy Graham, or Ted Haggard, or even Francis Collins. All of them reject atheism. Are they expects on atheism? Is their opinion valid? Do you criticize them for offering just an opinion?

This issue isn't as simple as John makes out. Even if we concede that Dawkins isn't an expert on all religions that's no reason to discredit his defense of atheism. It's not the same as Johnson's ignorance about evolution because evolution isn't about opinions and superstitions. Religion is. It's more like astrology.

The onus is on believers to convince us non-believers to adopt their faith. I'm not convinced, and I think my opinion about the existence of God is just as valid as that of C.S. Lewis, Ted Haggard, or Francis Collins. Instead of whining about whether Dawkins has mastered the subtlety of the Eucharist or the relationship of the Prophet Muhammad to God, why not concentrate on showing where Dawkins went wrong in his rejection of the arguments for the existence of God?