====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:08:51 -0400 Shane Mage <shm...@pipeline.com> writes: > > > On Aug 13, 2010, at 7:37 PM, Joseph Catron wrote: > > > > ====================================================================== > > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a > message. > > > ====================================================================== > > > > > > The Times ran an interesting online essay along these lines > > Wednesday, which > > has caused me to partially rethink my own approach to Dawkins and > > > his ilk: > > > > "Religious believers often accuse argumentative atheists such as > > > Dawkins of > > being excessively rationalistic, demanding standards of logical > and > > evidential rigor that arent appropriate in matters of faith. My > > > criticism > > is just the opposite. Dawkins does not meet the standards of > > rationality > > that a topic as important as religion requires." > > You evidently didn't read far enough, because my comment posted in > > that thread completely refutes the author's criticism of Dawkins: > > "You are wrong to dispute Dawkins argument about complexity. The > creator of a complex system, to create it, must initially have that > > complexity in its consciousness (otherwise there would be something > in > that complex system which was not the work of that creator, and > therefore the system *as a whole* was not the work of that creator). > > So the complexity of creation must also be complexity within the > creator. Therefore either: the creator having something existent > about > it that is over and above the complexity of the creation is to that > > extent more complex than the creation; or: there is nothing about the > > creator that is not present in the creation (pantheism) and > therefore > a separate creator is otiose." Also note that the traditional theistic God is ususally conceived of as a being who interacts with His creation. He passes judgments on the actions of his creatures, hears their prayers, and is said to even respond to these pleas. He is also posited as a being who intervenes in the workings of nature and history. Such a being would have to be enormously complex, capable of processing vast amounts of information. The existence of such a being seems to be highly improbable. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant > > > Shane Mage > > "L'après-vie, c'est une auberge espagnole. L'on n'y trouve que ce > qu'on a apporté." > > Bardo Thodol > > > > > ________________________________________________ > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/farmelantj%40juno.com > > ____________________________________________________________ Penny Stock Jumping 2000% Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c65fa187357810f76em03vuc ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
