[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Arlo previously]
Okay, let me be as clear as I can. _You_ may  be using the term "intelligent
design" in a way you may be able to convince me is appropriate, but those
arguing _for_ "intelligent design" are not interested in emergence, metaphor or
complexity theories. They are specifically arguing FOR an external, master
creator who plans, orders and designs the cosmos in predetermined,
preconceptualized ways... and they mean this _literally_.

[Ian]
All I was saying Arlo, that there are circles where the argument FROM (not FOR)
intelligent design is not this literal case .... but I guess I have to find
references to that if I wanted to "prove" a point, which I don't. (And of
course we'd end up in a "what does literal mean to a MoQ'er anyway" argument
.... )

[Arlo]
I know, and as I've said, its not the metaphor crowd that bothers me. You can
call Quality the Tao, or call it "intelligent design", or call it "White
Buffalo Calf Woman" for all I care. In each case, the appeal to metaphor, when
prominent, is just one more sign pointing towards that which only analogy and
metaphor can allude to. Indeed, I've said many times over the years that many
pagan and indigenous myths capture the "spirit" of Quality, in the same way as
does the Tao, and for that reason often use these stories in outside
discussions to "get at" Quality. The danger, as we've batted about over and
over, is in the literalization of these analogues. The end result is either a
Pope or a Chairman, people who have forgone analogy in favor of "literal
truths".

[Ian]
We understand each other.

[Arlo]
I never had a doubt.

[Ian]
As DMB says, there is a worthwhile spiritual angle to what this perennial
emerged metaphor means, if we could ever get away from the 2000 year old debate
of whether to throw Christians to the lions or not ... which only ever was the
point of me starting this Dawkins thread .... oh, look he's throwing more
Christian's to the lions .... how boring, yawn.

[Arlo]
Yeah, but you know I find the "oh poor persecuted me" Christian whine old as
well. The Christians have as much movement to undertake as those who condemn
their literalistic mindset. When you get to a point where "Christ" and "Kuan
Yin" are equal, situated, cultural metaphors, then we can talk. But I see as
little movement on their end as the ones they whine about persecuting them. I
have a friend who is a Presbyterian priest, and her and I have talked repeated
of "all this is just an analogy", and she "gets it"... but she also describes
the dangerous waters she treads when she attempts to bring this to the
congregation. It is often met with hostility, outrage and denial. So who is to
blame here? Those who see the "literal positions" as misguided, or those who
adhere to the "literal positions"? I'd say "both", and like you wish we could
forge a middle ground grounded in metaphor. But that takes both sides to move,
doesn't it?

On one hand, then, we should not throw out the metaphor because of the
literalists, but on the other we should not be forced to see "literal" as a
valid alternative to "metaphor". (I could hardly imagine Phaedrus saying to the
Chairman, "Well, your literal read is as valid, and we are both equally right."
No, he said firmly that the error in the Chairman's ways was his inability to
see that "all this is just an analogy". An error we should, rightly, point out
in others.