[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Squonkriff at aol.com]

In a message dated 18/01/2007 23:29:20 GMT Standard Time,  
dmbuchanan at hotmail.com writes:

Squonkriff at aol.com said:
In fact, a little careful reading of the  moq can be used to support a  
version of emergent  intelligent

dmb says:
How so?



Mark: Hi dmb.
Please get me straight?
It is not my wish to such a thing.
But as i hoped, i think you know how sneaky theists can be?
I can give you one example straight off: Quantonics.
Doug Rensell, bless him, is in fact, if i am not very much mistaken, a  
Catholic priest?
Why is a Catholic priest mucking about with the moq?
My feeling is, and it was the feeling of many who attended Anthony's adult  
education class, that Doug may be out to subsume the moq to theism in some  way.
 
But I've not answered your question yet David, and i apologise. So here  goes 
(but please don't ascribe any of this to me - these are suggestions and not  
my opinion):
I respect your understanding of the moq David.
You are not one to be hoodwinked.
I am not here to try and hoodwink you.
I am here to show how i feel others may be hoodwinked, and intellectuals  may 
be messed with.
 
The first step is to suggest that DQ is a principle.
This as yet unspecified principle is at work in static evolution.
There are a number of metaphors utilised in Lila which may support the  
notion of DQ as a principle even though it is explicitly stated that DQ is  
undefined.
Notice that DQ has been described as, 'unspecified?' That's damn close to,  
'Undefined' isn't it?
 
The hoodwinking has begun.
I know you are not going to fall for it David, but having said that, it's  
not easy to distinguish 'unspecified' from 'undefined' perhaps. Something to  
think about maybe?
 
Once the unspecified has been introduced, it's not difficult to align the  
unspecified with
Nous.
Note: Nous is an ancient term, and difficult to define. It is in fact a  life 
principle.
However, here is were a bit of sneakiness comes in: Nous has resonance's  
with Intelligence.
Very sneaky.
So, Nous, which is hard to pin down, but has a flavour of Intelligence, is  
aligned with the unspecified nature of DQ. Before you know it, DQ has a 
nebulous  kind of intentionality directing static evolution.
 
The top level of static moq has been aligned with a super-intellect -  God.
This isn't a Christian God - this is a Christian thinkers God, or a  
theological God.
 
You retort: That's rubbish. Is that the best you can do? DQ is undefined,  
you can't call it any 'thing.'
Theist replies: We haven't specified any thing. The principle directs  
evolution because the principle is the teleological goal (as stated in Lila - we  
call DQ a principle that's all). Nothing has been specified but the  principle 
is good and we think, if you don't mind, that God is a good principle  of 
evolution.
 
Now comes the big move:
God as good principle of evolution directs subatomic particles and Science  
is an authority to appeal to here. Therefore, God has a Scientific basis.
So, God was in at the ground level and Nous has been emerging ever stronger  
ever since.
In the beginning God tweaked but as evolution progresses God gets a  grip.
 
And so Quality is subtly and, i have to say, underhandedly replaced by  God.
That's what you are up against David.
Love,
Mark