[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
Then why do you demean Christian believers as misguided?

[Arlo]
Don't you read my posts? 

[Arlo had asked]
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"!

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

[Arlo]
Why can't this apply to the natural world?

[Arlo had asked]
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?

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

[Arlo]
Quick recap.

You proposed "intelligent design" precisely because the complexity of life is
"too complex" to exist without an "intelligent design".

You've then postulated that this "intelligent designer" is a "transcendent
intelligence".

Why does the complexity of life require a "intelligent designer" but not the
complexity of the "transcendent intelligence"?

All you are doing is saying "God did it". Okay, that's been said before. You're
a theist. Fine. How do you reconcile that with Pirsig's notion that the MOQ is
"anti-theistic"? Was Pirsig wrong? Do you "need" a "God" to account for things?

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

[Arlo]
You are arguing from (surprise) a dichotomous position. Either a God did it, or
it was all an "oops". I've already offered a third. Design emerges from Quality
interactions. There are no turtles at all.

In the "God" teleology, the dinosaurs were either an "oops" or made just for us
to have oil. In the "oops" teleology, the cells accidentally made a dinosaur.
In the "AHA!" teleology, the cells, following DQ, collectivized into dinosaurs
by virtue of an environment and situatedness that made this "design" the best
one at the time. And it was incredibly successful. Dinosaurs lived for millions
of years. When conditions changed, and this "design" was unsuccessful, the
cells tried new ways, some failing, some succeeding, until the static latching
of a betterness produced new "organisms" that were successful. One of those
organisms was "man", who over time developed social patterns of behavior.

A "God" teleology says "we need social patterns so let's make a man". An "oops"
teleology does not take into account the evolutionary complexity of biological
organisms in their specific environmental and situated conditions. "AHA!" takes
this into account (AHA! is a moment of latching, as individual patterns follow
DQ) without the need to propose some preconceived "design" in the mind of a
"transcendental intelligence". 

[Arlo had said]
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.

[Platt]
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.

[Arlo]
Notice what I said... "But, like Pirsig, those who adhere to literalism will
either end up a Pope or a Chairman." I never said that coercion of others was a
sole facet of theism. But before you condemn "atheists", you better fess up to
the entirety of coercion forced on others by theists.. an ongoing force in this
country today. And I get the "idea" that you "force" your belief system on to
me every time you advance "Judeo-Christian morality" as a basis for law.

[Arlo previously]
"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.

[Platt]
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.) 

[Arlo]
So what you are saying is, it is better for religion to dominate society than
Intellect?