Dear Gas:Quote:Science doesn't prove God's existence, but in fact God's existence is compatible with scientific claims in quantum physics. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe in God.This is a non-sequitor, and it's not what Miller argues.Quote:The fact that he has no solid reasons for believing in these beings is what makes his belief unreasonable!What do you know of Miller's reasons for believing in God? In fact, you haven't read the book so the only thing you know about it are the three paragraphs I posted above, which you haven't even read carefully. Yet this has not prevented you from leaping to all sorts of conclusions about Miller's arguments.It seems to me that you're not interested in listening to and understanding what other people are trying to say about theism because you've already made up your mind on the subject.Fiske

I think my perception of what's going on in this chapter is different than some of the others. Dawkins describes the god hypothesis as the proposition that "there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us." He goes on to write, "This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution." Since, according to Dawkins, creative intelligences arrive late in the evolutionary process and are, thus, a relatively recent feature of the universe, a creative intelligence cannot be responsible for designing the universe. Thus, "God," in the sense defined, is a delusion. At least, that's the author's contention.Dawkins states the god hypothesis and then offers an alternative to it that he thinks has more value and that he proposes to defend in his book. The first statement is what will be discussed in this chapter. The second statement is a position that will be defended throughout the bookAfter stating the god hypothesis, Dawkins considers various approaches that have been made to it. He writes briefly about polytheism, including in that discussion some comments about the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the Catholic pantheon (yes, I know Catholics don't consider them gods

DH: Being unable/unwilling to make the distinction between Bull Connor's God of White Supremacy and Dr. King's God of Agapic Revolution should disqualify anyone from making any meaningful comments on the matterAs I said, to Dawkins, myself and many others, making a distinction between your two versions of god is useless. It's like making a distinction between the comic book and movie versions of Superman (or Storm in the X-Men who I think was seriously misinterpreted in the films) within a real world context. Just because you believe god exists, doesn't mean that Dawkins has to tread lightly in making sure he doesn't insult your particular delusion. His conclusion is outside the interpretation of gods, it is directed at all gods, good or bad. I am not going to comment further, for fear of indulging your mushroomesque posts (you're not a member of UDV are you?), which could result in steering the discussion away from the book. There's already a thread largely dedicated to Dawkins' tone, use that to vent. Niall:...religion is used to justify anything and everything, both positive and negative, in a religious country.That's exactly my point. Religion, or god, didn't do these things (good or bad), despite the attempt to attribute causality to religion or god. People, not god, are responsible for their actions.If you want to look at how religion was used to justify slavery I suggest you look up When Slavery was Called Freedom: Evangelicalism, Proslavery, and the Causes of the Civil War (Religion in the South) by John Patrick Daly. This book develops the idea that both pro and anti slavery views developed from the same religious perceptions of "freedom." I, however, can't actually recommend the book; I haven't yet read it through, merely put it on my "to-be-considered" reading list. I also did a quick search on James Henley Thornwell (actually I was looking for some of his quotes) and found this article: "The US Civil War as a Theological War: Confederate Christian Nationalism and the League of the South." Its works cited list, I think, would give you ample of reading material to further investigate, if you wish.

irishrose: His conclusion is outside the interpretation of gods, it is directed at all gods, good or bad.Which is the key, crucial, vital flaw in his argument.

Thanks Irish, might try looking into some of those. Full of Porn*http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com

Quote:So because the existence of God doesn't explain how the natural world operates, God can't exist? Does this seem convincing to you?That is not what I have said. I have said that God is posited to explain something about the natural world. However, it turns out that God is NOT an explanation for the thing in question. Therefore, we have no reason to believe in God.

Quote:What do you know of Miller's reasons for believing in God? In fact, you haven't read the book so the only thing you know about it are the three paragraphs I posted above, which you haven't even read carefully. Yet this has not prevented you from leaping to all sorts of conclusions about Miller's arguments.I know of Miller's arguments the bits you have posted, which show that he has not given a reason to believe in God. Earlier, you said that Miller's arguments made it "reasonable" to believe in God, but so far, the only "reasons" you have offered by quoting Miller are God of the gaps arguments: "God is compatible with quantum physics", etc.Compatibility doesn't make a belief reasonable.If Miller makes a legitimate argument for belief in God based upon some sort of evidence or reason, then by all means, post it. All I'm saying is that the excerpts you've posted here don't give anyone a reason to believe in God at all.

Dear Irish:mushroomesque -- very apt! Fiske

Dear Saint:Quote:I have said that God is posited to explain something about the natural world.But all theists do not posit God to explain something about the natural world. In fact, some theists (like Einstein) argue that the natural world explains something about God. Fiske

Dear Gas:Quote:If Miller makes a legitimate argument for belief in God based upon some sort of evidence or reason, then by all means, post it. All I'm saying is that the excerpts you've posted here don't give anyone a reason to believe in God at all.All I'm saying is that your characterization of Miller's arguments is inaccurate. If you are interested, read the book for yourself. There is no way I can read it for you.FiskePS: Don't take this as an unfriendly put down -- I'm simply not qualified to make Miller's arguments. Moreover, whatever you think regarding Miller's Christianity, his critique of Intelligent Design is absolutely devastating and something any atheist interested in the matter would benefit from reading.