[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [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.

Then why do you demean Christian believers as misguided?

> 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"!

Why? Maybe it's transcendentally simple. Hasn't complexity theory shown that from
simple beginnings can come tremendously complex systems? (Butterfly effect.) 

> 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?

You assume transcendent intelligence was designed. Like turtles all the way down.

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

So? All you and Case do is say the turtles got lucky.  

> 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.

Where did you ever get the idea that I force your behavior to my belief system?
You seem to ignore atheists like you who have a history of forced behavior with
your big government schemes. 

> "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.

Keep in mind that everyone doesn't need to be socially-dominated by your ideas
of a better life imposed by government edicts that destroy Dynamic Quality. (See
Pirisg's comments about socialism -- the secular humanist's ideal.) 
 



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/