Disliking Dawkins' opinions regarding religion isn't proof of ignorance, he seems to be much more knowledgeable about the subject than many of his critics. Those same critics have tried to discredit him for years by claiming that he shouldn't discuss religion because he's not an 'expert' on theology.
There's actually a term that was coined in response to these attacks:
The Courtier's Reply is a term popularized by biologist/blogger PZ Myers to describe an informal logical fallacy that boils down to: "But you haven't read enough on it!"
His answer to the fallacy is to say that telling a non-believer that he should study theology before he can properly discuss whether a god exists is like telling the child in the fable to study haute couture before he can properly discuss whether the Emperor is naked.
Essentially, it's a particularly ham-handed argument from authority where the position's proponent attempts to bury the opponent under a pile of detail which is largely irrelevant to the opponent's argument.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier's_ReplyHere's the original essay:
There’s a common refrain in the criticisms of Dawkins’ The God Delusion that I’ve taken to categorizing with my own private title—it’s so common, to the point of near-unanimous universality, that I’ve decided to share it with you all, along with a little backstory that will help you to understand the name.
I call it the Courtier’s Reply. It refers to the aftermath of a fable.
I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor’s taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply/I see no evidence that Dawkins is "ignorant" about religion, in fact he seems to have studied it at length. I think his criticism irritates religious apologists so they resort to using ad hominems because they can't refute what he says. Fortunately their attempts to discredit him have failed.
And "bad news"? What's that about?
What an odd way to describe a science lecture, in my opinion this can only considered 'bad news' if one is anti-science.
= new reply since forum marked as read
