For how can one fully know or predict the end when he employs mind closed at recognizing paths that wind to a triumphant outcome.
As I see it with his tone of reactions on course placement, clearly, he hasn’t been properly acquainted to an in-depth assessment of theology or his limited former knowledge might have been brought across at the wrong approach so there is not a way he can be expected to entertain the course in the competitive framework of the academe. Because the formation of his argument lacks structure, rational profundity and barely sounds discerning, I am gradually convinced to disagree with his vie. I find it sufficient as well to disagree on the ground that due to reluctance, he has not at all considered looking over a few lessons which may yield to recognition of advantages other than academic. Mr. Dawkins’ position is weak, having sought no development from an educated process of arriving at a decision and I suppose that every person with similar influence is not likely to figure any relevance in a religious subject and would amount to the same set of reasons that draw support based on the common philosophic undertakings and working principle in which science, in the absence of God, lies at the core.
Theology, in its basic essence or with lengthy technical definition taken off, is by terms of origin, a word (logos) of god (theos) from which to explore limitless possibilities how it may be done so to obtain answers required upon discovery of innumerable questions with rising complexities, since no physical evidence is available to testify how or what spiritual entity and faith are in form. So then accordingly, one can at least claim that theology, as a study of god, proceeds to be identified as making an abstract concept raise to the level of tangibility, or reality, which we know must take a definitive form if individual truth allows its perceived