[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Ian]
Arlo, and you are absolutely right to be concerned. My point is, it is not the
word people use, but their actions and the way they use the words in real
dialogues and over longer periods. That's how you find out what these people
mean by the word, their intentions.

[Arlo]
I agree, Ian. But I do think we need to be careful with laden words. For
example, I have said, and would say again, that "God" (in the Occidental use)
could also be a useful, anthropological metaphor for discussing "emergence".
But if I said "Quality is God", and meant that in the analogous way Pirsig said
"Quality is the Tao", the chances for being misunderstood is quite significant
because most people do not use "God" as a metaphorical term.

Let's also recall that this started when _Platt_ advanced "intelligent design"
as an alternative to "emergence" (even though you and I would argue they are
not antonymical but mutually explanatory). It was Platt's specific history with
advancing "intelligent design" in precisely the way I've been arguing against
that prompted my response. Do you really think Platt sees "intelligent design"
as an "anthropological metaphor"? If he does, why does he believe "ID" and
"emergence" are opposing ideas? You see, Platt's history with the word is to
pander to Judeo-Christians who see "intelligent design" as proof of _their_
God. He reveals this every time he uses that "oops" portrayal. The only
alternative to his dismissive term is "pre-planned intent". We were "designed"
before we existed, which is exactly what emergence argues against. In
emergence, the design is what emerges out of collective activity. To oppose
this the design must have existed beforehand (literal God), or was deliberately
enacted as if a "cell inventor" came up with the idea for the human body one
day while lying near a pond. Now, I could be wrong. If so, perhaps Platt can
explain why intelligent design, as an anthropological metaphor is opposed to
emergence?

For point of discussion, I've had similar talks with people who see the
dinosaurs as a "planned creation" solely for the purpose of providing use with
oil in modern times. This is because any other "teleology" would have to see
the dinosaurs as an "oops", otherwise what was the "purpose" of inhabiting the
world with dinosaurs for millions and millions of years but not people? Its
either an "oops" or part of a master plan (oil). Now, of course, WE'D see the
third way out, that it was an "AHA!" (to use Case's words) that lasted so long
as was environmentally feasible, and when that collapsed a new direction
emerged as context and situation changed. And after who knows how many
dynamically inspired static evolutions, eventually "we" emerged (at the risk of
oversimplification). Neither "oops" nor "master plan". Emergence is always an
"AHA!", only the master planner's seek to diminish it as an "oops".

[Ian]
I do recoil slightly at the "these people" apparent generalisation, but you mean
the ones you have exprience of dealing with.

[Arlo]
Of course. And this is what drives my caution. The ID rank and file do not want
metaphor, they want backdoor theism. And as such I recoil from giving them
inadvertant fodder. 

[Ian]
Personally I like to give any new individual encounter the benefit of the doubt
with words used, until we have some transaction history .... Ah, right so
you're are that kind of ID person, now I know how to deal with you ... rather
than knee jerk reaction to the words.

[Arlo]
And again, my reply was specific to the word as brought into the dialogue by
Platt. So, in my defense, there is some substantiation to my particular
reaction.