[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Squonkriff at aol.com]

Greetings Mark,

For me, DQ being 'undefined' translates to DQ is  'beyond definition' 
because the apparatus doing the defining would be a sq  process.  But 
I'm also curious how would this bit of cleverness (below)  effect your 
coherence/unity notion?

Marsha

H Marsha,
First of all, may i say that, in my experience, in theology may be found  
some of the most tortuous intellectual sneakiness in existence. There is masses  
of the stuff, and cutting through it requires precision in my view.
You have applied a degree of precision when you state: '...the apparatus  
doing the defining would be a sq process.'
You are applying the moq.
So, this will be a centre for attack by theologians i should imagine.
They may question: 'Definition is a matter of epistemology but faith comes  
from direct experience of God.'
 
You call it Quality, we call it God. Only when there are enough of 'You' as  
a social entity will the term God be replaced with Quality. It's not a matter 
of  Intellect but a matter of Social force. God is the ruling celebrity and 
until  this changes it will remain thus.
 
Re: Coherence.
Arguments for Quality against God are more coherent.
Love,
Mark