Comments on: The God Delusion – Part 4 – Pick a Side, Einstein

By: winstoninabox

winstoninabox — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:12:03 +0000

Wikipedia may not “authorative”. How about from the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia (2007) then?

“Building on a version of the argument from design for the existence of God, proponents of intelligent design observed that the functional parts and systems of living organisms are “irreducibly complex” in the sense that none of their component parts can be removed without causing the whole system to cease functioning.”
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1B1-432604.html

“In the late 20th century many creationists advocated a view known as intelligent design, which was essentially a scientifically modern version of the argument from design for the existence of God as set forth in the late 18th century by the Anglican clergyman William Paley.”
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1B1-361850.html

If you don’t like those then I’m sure you could take the few minutes I did to find quotes that support your view.

“it is clear that the IDists put on a lousy case.” Clear? How so. This seems to be your opinion. “The Judge ruled from what was put in front of him, not the real world.” Yes, yes, of course he did. Silly old judge. How foolish to base a ruling on the evidence.

By: Alden

Alden — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:45:58 +0000

brtkrbzhnv, you quote Wikipedia and a Judge?? While I like Wikipedia, it is not authoritative. Re Judge Jones, from his opinion, it is clear that the IDists put on a lousy case. The Judge ruled from what was put in front of him, not the real world. IDists generally do not base their opinions on issues of faith, but on the evidence; Creationists generally argue from a theological position, but of course may refer to science. Then, there are IDists who do not accept any religious group’s creation account.

By: brtkrbzhnv

brtkrbzhnv — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 21:42:12 +0000

“Is that a fairly representative creed?”
It’s a creed of naturalism, not atheism. I’d assume that, at least in the Occident, most atheists are naturalists, but in the East and historically in the West there have been many non-naturalist atheists, who have believed in such things as souls, ghosts, karma and whatnot.

In my opinion, atheism is only important as part of what one might call the naturalist movement of the enlightenment, and one should always view it in this context. As an atheist and a naturalist, I feel a greater affinity with the deist Voltaire than with an atheist Buddhist monk gathering karma points for his next life; for the atheism is but a consequence of the main system of thought, not an important doctrine in and of itself. Theism is the main target of naturalists now simply because it’s seen as the most dangerous of present-day superstitions.

By: brtkrbzhnv

brtkrbzhnv — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:51:30 +0000

Alden: Intelligent Design is definitely creationism, or more specifically, neo-creationism, and this is not something Dawkins or some atheist conspiracy has made up but something you can read in a mainstream encyclopædia such as Wikipedia. This really shouldn't be a point of debate, and I'll end by quoting Judge Jones: "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." That's from the Dover trial ruling, which you can read more about on Wikipedia.

By: Alden

Alden — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:34:42 +0000

Michael, One example of “redefining terms …” is when Dawkins (as well as many others) defines Intelligent Design as Creationism. I haven’t kept track, but I’ll try to keep my eye out for other specific examples.

I still haven’t had time to read the book… perhaps this weekend.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:18:48 +0000

You’ve just been tagged with a blog meme: http://tinyurl.com/3dkf7g
Enjoy!

By: Michael Krahn

Michael Krahn — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:29:08 +0000

Worse yet is the new-ish sentiment that the ‘why’ questions aren’t really important, or that they might have more than one answer, or that if you think about them too much you’re not doing what’s REALLY important.

I won’t name any names here, but is any of this ringing a Bell? Or perhaps a McLaren?

;-)

By: R. Hoeppner

R. Hoeppner — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 02:44:56 +0000

I don’t know many Christians who can adaquately state why they believe what they believe. How many really ever contemplate the whys? What is a Christian? Why is it important that Jesus Christ was virgin born? Can one be a Christian and not believe in the virgin birth? Is there a genetic reason Christ had to be virgin born? Why would he die on a cross? Why was he born in Bethlehem of the tribe of Judah? These questions and more are simply accepted by faith without many really thinking these things through. There are answers to the whys, but many a Christian and atheist really contemplate them.

By: Michael Krahn

Michael Krahn — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:15:25 +0000

Alden,
The book is pretty good after you get through the opening chapters where Dawkins seems to be trying to scare off anyone with opposing views.

Can you give examples of “redefining terms to suit their purposes”?

By: Alden

Alden — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:34:43 +0000

Dawkins, I think, defines “philosophical naturalism” rather than “atheism,” which can mean “non-theism.” I hope to read Dawkins’ book over the next week; but from what I’ve read to date, he and his fellow “New Atheists” tend to redefine terms to suit their purposes.

Regarding Einstein, I would agree that it really doesn’t matter how you qualify him. I’ve seen a quote recently where he was upset that people called him an atheist, but he was definitely not a theist. Again, the argument is pointless, unless you buy the argument from authority that Einstein is right about whatever he says.