Reply #132: You're not even trying to understand, are you?

[Euromutt]

The "Courtier's Reply" (note: courtier, as in "one who attends the court of a monarch") was coined specifically in response to critiques of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. The cardinal (no pun intended) point of these critiques came down to that Dawkins is insufficiently versed in the finer points of theology to be able to deliver an informed opinion concerning theistic religion. But this argument is a red herring for the very simple reason that theology fails to provide any evidence for its fundamental premise, namely that God exists in the first place. Or, to paraphrase Myers' analogy, "I don't need to know the difference between a gusset, a Godet, and a gathering to point out the Emperor is naked" (it occurs to me Myers might as readily have titled it "the Couturier's Reply").

There's nothing dishonest or stupid in pointing out that the existence of lengthy speculation about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin does not constitute evidence of the existence of angels as such.