[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
How is "Aha" more substantial than God must've done it, or Quality must have
done it, or Consciousness must have done it? (Other than the superior feeling
you get from demeaning those who believe otherwise?)   

[Arlo]
If there is anyone "feeling superior" it is you with your God-induced
specialness. I just feel "lucky" to be here. No more, no less.

By the way, you never answered. If you propose a "transcendent intelligence"
because life is so complex, then that must be one hell of a complex
"transcendent intelligence"! How could that possibly exist with a "designer"? I
mean, if a CELL is so complicated as to require a designer, how on earth could
the designer exist with its OWN designer?

As Case had said a while back, all you are doing is pushing the stack of turtles
down one.

And finally, by the way, I see you either missed my remarks about mythology, the
importance of its inherent metaphors, and the respect I have for them. But,
like Pirsig, those who adhere to literalism will either end up a Pope or a
Chairman. Trapped and condescending to anyone who follows a different metaphor.
Pirsig was smart enough to see past the straightjacket of literalism. His
triumphant remark, "All this is just an analogy", is in many ways Phaedrus'
ultimate victory.

Intellect is rooted in the mythos. This is repeated in LILA. Our intellectual
description of things, whether "scientific" or "theistic", is always culturally
rooted. You can "believe" in the Judeo-Christian myth if it brings clarity and
meaning to your life, Platt (or anyone else). But when you, or anyone else,
forgets that that system of belief, like mine and every other, is just an
analogy for considering the unknowable, and force MY behavior to conform to
YOUR belief system, based on the argument that YOUR metahpor is NOT metaphor
BUT TRUTH, then yes indeed, Platt, I will not respect you any longer. Sorry
about that.

"Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as the
rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of Dynamic Quality, a sign-post
which allows socially pattern-dominated people to see Dynamic Quality. The
danger has always been that the rituals, the static patterns, are mistaken for
what they merely represent and are allowed to destroy the Dynamic Quality they
were originally intended to preserve."

If you are one of those socially-dominated people who need this sign-post,
Platt, who am I to argue against it? Just keep in mind that (1) its just a
sign-post and (2) not everyone needs it as you do.