what do the theologians know? that's pretty much it.

Thanks, but I choose not to go off-topic.

Are there experts in atheism?

In other words, do not let the anti-authority of the speaker move you, but consider what is said, not who says it.

I'm glad to hear this bell struck again. What are missing are notes that show understanding of why the problem occurs and how to practically achieve the goal. I'll quote a unusually excellent series of blog posts that strives to do exactly that. Early on it gives a good starting point of what's wrong:

"Arguments are soldiers. Once you know which side you're on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it's like stabbing your soldiers in the back."

So the first step in fixing the problem is to refuse to view the argument as conflict. We don't need to support all arguments that go our way or oppose all arguments that go the other way.

Instead, view debate and discussion as cooperation. We're trying to scale a cliff to the truth, so you bring your pitons of evidence and I'll bring mine, and we'll combine them to try to make a route upward that anyone with the right experience can follow. And of course we'll examine the pitons carefully for defects in their construction or unsuitability for the hardness of the rock and throw out any we aren't sure we can rely on. If we keep our curiosity and go exploring, we may find some anti-authorities have build routes to lead us to some fascinating places!

There's actually a lot of great ideas from neuroscience, psychology, decision theory, and epistemology in that linked list of blog posts. The main thing I like about it is that it's very accessible; you'll physically feel the important bits enlightening you, even while you itch to argue with the author about his personal conclusions. :D

When I took an introductory course in ethics in college, the first thing the professor told us (and I am sure this happens in every introductory course on ethics) was that we weren't going to learn to tell right from wrong. We were going to learn the various philosophical approaches that philosophers had proposed over the ages for telling right from wrong. This is what I would expect someone with a degree in moral philosophy or ethics to have "expertise" in—e.g., someone with an advanced degree should be able to define normative ethics vs. descriptive ethics, deontology vs. utilitarianism, and so on. They should be able to tell you what Kant's Categorical Imperative is. In other words, they should have an overview (even if they are Catholic and themselves, because of their faith, believe that the Church is the definitive authority of what is right and wrong) of moral philosophy from the Greeks to the present. They would not be experts in telling you what you ought to do in a particular situation. Rather, they would be knowledgeable about all the various different (and possibly conflicting) theories that have been put forward by philosophers over the centuries about theories of right and wrong.

If you really need to know what to do in a specific situation, you must write to The Ethicist at the New York Times. :P

It might be of some use to consider how courts of law rely on expert evidence, Courts cannot defer to any experts on legal issues (the judges themselves are the experts in to field and must make the legal decisions themselves), but they do recognize that in some areas they do not possess the necessary skills, experience and knowledge to make certain findings of fact.

Take the example of a person claiming damages for a destruction of cabinet they claim to be a 16th century antique, whereas the defendant admits to destroying it but claims it was a worthless replica. It is reasonable for the court to defer to the expertise of persons with the knowledge in antiques to rule on the age of the piece These experts may be able to explain why they reach their conclusions, and there may be competing experts. But it is reasonable for the judge to defer to the experts on these questions, and there are ways to judge which expert it is more reasonable to defer to.

Again, I would not defer to any authority on morality, why would I? A degree in moral theology is still a theology degree.

I think of it this way say the majority of people with PhDs in moral philosophy conclude that corporal punishment of children is "morally acceptable" I do not think you or I would accept that conclusion without actually understanding the basis for it. We would not defer to them because they have the skills, knowledge and experience in this field and start switching our kids.

By contrast, if you are recovering from surgery in hospital and your last dose of dilaudid had worn off and you think you should double the dosage, you should defer to the physician who refuses to do so. They could explain it to you, but it might take several hours for you to understand the physiology, issues

These are credentials in a field of study, but I think this is simply not a field of study in which we ever need to defer to authority.

Brandon, this was an example, I was not trying to prove a point about cosmology. I will accept what the majority of well-respected physicists and cosmologists say about it, because it is beyond my skill and education to understand it myself.

For the same reason, I think there is no such thing as expertise in morality requiring our trust in authority.

Having a free will allows you to express a disagreement, regardless of whether you agree or disagree. I don't see how it would allow you to disagree if you actually agreed. But, as a thought experiment, could you, as an act of will, choose to agree with him right now, just like that?

Go ahead -- agree with him for a few days. Be utterly convinced that he's dead-on right. Give it a try and let us all know the results.