401. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28290 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Yeay! I'm so proud lol! As for the knighthood/peerage i think the establishment is still too anglican to give baubles to a vocal atheist. Besides I consider Dawkins a man of the people and don't want him to become Lord or Sir.

402. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28254 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Katherine, he is, click here to see!

403. Neil Peart cites The God Delusion in new album's liner notes

Comment #28251 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Even as a Canadian, the only theory I'd advance, in respect to music talent, is that countries with liberal democracies tend to foster the creative arts better than repressive states.

404. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28245 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 1:43 pm

nworbynot I also recall, and my memory was confirmed here that they only educate their children to age 13, because too much education can lead to pride. Also wikipedia details claims of child abuse inside amish communities.

So it's not all forgiveness and horsecarts.

405. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28197 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 10:03 am

Indeed Rtambree it is a very big question, and even if there is an answer it may be that we will never know what it is.

But a few thoughts that encourage me to the position I've outlined are first of all, evolution:

So long as you have
1.Replication
2.Variation
3.Selection pressure

In the absence of any impediment imposed from outside you will see in such a scenario a darwinian process emerge. And that is true even if as it happens God did create the world in six days. The necessity of it is the same as the necessity of 2+2 equaling 4. So there we see one route out of this world into the world of necessary platonic existence.

Secondly it is not obvious to me that the notion of absolute nothing, which I can't conceive of, though I can conceive of conceiving of it so to speak, assumes less than any other basic concept we might rely on. It may be that simply an information free chaotic state can be assumed. And that there is a route for this to progress to a more ordered state (perhaps through a darwinian process?).

Of course this is entirely speculative, but I ask critics to offer even some more plausible speculations about the what-ultimately-is questions.

Concerning Augustine it's interesting to note he said God created the world in 6 days because six is a perfect number. i.e. 1+2+3=6 and 1*2*3=6. The number was perfect first and god acted accordingly, not the other way round.

406. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28188 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 9:20 am

To hammer my point out at too much length let me just also say, regarding the relevance of this to God: Even if there is an omnipotent, omniscient being, it couldn't make 2+2=5, or create a square circle. Contrary to the suggestion of the title of a recent book edited by Hawking
God did not create the integers, they exist in virtue of their own definition!

Of course if we wish to ground physics in thus such a simple foundation it is possible an omnipotent being might be what foots the bill. But since attempts to demonstrate god enjoys such existence, like the ontological argument, have failed I don't think we'll find this to be the case.

407. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28184 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 9:09 am

i.e. I would agree with Rtambree that mathematical concepts have an uncaused platonic existence. What is needed is a rigorously defined physical concept that has just such the same existence, and can be said to have given rise to the more contingent things we now observe (like the laws of physics).

People who think this is ridiculously ambitious might want to observe how through an at heart very simple process all of life came to be from simple pre-existing elements. Essentially we need an even more radical account along the same lines.

408. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28182 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 9:02 am

And what is Hawking's definition of "nothing", then?

409. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28174 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 7:49 am

The best bit was when McGrath was asked about the ressurection and the virgin birth. He seemed to suggest the ressurection is not forbidden by the laws of physics, just supremely improbable, like all the air in a room gathering in the corners (except more improbable than that!) Well that's a complete dodge, a gloriously massive dodge in fact!

He could claim it simply was a complete coincidence that despite the massive improbablity all the atoms happened to rearrange themselves such that a crucified man came back to life. But in that case, amazing as it is, it's just a coincidence and not something of religious significance.

More likely he thinks god twiddled the odds, like the improbability drive in hitchhikers guide! But in that case it's no different from a good old fashioned meddling in the laws of physics miracle, and he isn't off the hook.

As for the virgin birth I think he actually admitted that was a problem, but speculated oneday science will find a way how it really might have happened.

Well I suppose it's possible, I'm not betting though.

410. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28135 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 5:46 am

Perhaps all climate change reports should end with Revelation 22:18-19.

then again perhaps not . . .

411. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28132 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 5:37 am

McGrath dropped his "collapse of the enlightenment way of thinking" line in the last four minutes. I'd like to give him the oppurtunity to expand on that at length just so we'd no precisely what he's on about.

In his defence that guy in the audience who jumped on him for being modest about his knowledge of other faiths, and the generalised it into a grand insult of oxford university and whichever college (is it wadham) he is at can fuck off. He's a christian, that's his franchise big deal. I was glad dawkins interjected to say so as well.

412. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #28124 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 5:08 am

Rightwing3r The Pope is elected by the Cardinals (who number approximately 120). Cardinals are appointed by the pope and draw their numbers from the bishops (not necessarily so though, in past centuries there have been cardinals who weren't priests, and there could in principle be women cardinals! try flying that one past pope benedict!). Bishops are appointed by the Pope, I understand from lists of candidates drawn up by senior bishops (the "papal nuncios I think) who are themselves appointed by the pope. Bishops were first priests who had to apply to their bishops (who were appointed by the pope) when they wanted to become priests!

This is how the Catholic Church has resisted even the reforms many of its own members have been calling for, for so long.

Interestingly Swiss Catholics do elect their own bishops (and in the early church bishops, including the bishop of rome were elected by the christian people). But John Paul II managed to by-pass this and parachute his own candidates in, leading to protests and in at least one case the boycotting of a bishop that forced the pope to stand down and find a way around the problem.

413. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28120 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 4:47 am

Just listened to part-1. Dawkins said if everyone religious was very good natured and moral it wouldn't make the slightest difference to him because he's concerned about whether religion is true.

Agreed, I might just niggle that if there really was vast evidence religion consistently made its adherents better people that might just suggest there was some kind of divine grace operating to produce the effect? So it would have some bearing on the truth claim.

Of course I wouldn't be convinced even in that scenario (which certainly doesn't exist anyway!) that divine grace is the answer. I would think a psychological explanation would be more probable. It might be that they enjoyed higher levels of "religious" experience which dissipated ill motives etc at the heart of wrongdoing. Or perhaps the belief in heaven really did make them wish to be good in this life (far from the case as it happens!).

But in effect I agree. And now . . .Part 2!

414. The Only One in Step

Comment #28008 by BaronOchs on March 27, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Just a quick response to your last post Gimli. Yes I suppose you have a point I was presenting a rather liberal view of evolution. I can tighten it up a little by pointing out evolution will probably do things the easiest way it can. In other words adaptations that will lead to greater expense in energy or potential survival disadvantages will be negatively selcted for if easier paths are available. Like adapting the lungs instead of evolving gills. So I can say there was probably a positive reason this route was taken by the land-mammals-that-became-whales (no rhetorical sleights of hand here!).

So what about the eye being evolved independently so many times or the stick insects evolving wings again? In those cases I might suggest that not much else will really deliver the benefits you get from an eye, and if flight is the most beneficial adaptation an organism will have to evolve wings, there are no easier routes here like with the lungs/gills thing.

As for the fish I've no doubt a satisfactorily non-malleable account can be offered. I just have to say I don't know much about these fish! I expect detailed accounts of what pressures led to them lying on the seafloor, and the necessary changes that led to them evolving into there present form can be provided. I'll just have to read more about it as soon as I have time.

415. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27911 by BaronOchs on March 27, 2007 at 7:51 am

Ha, advice taken. . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0mOCCkjKRQ

416. Across the Universe: A Guide to the Past, Present and Future of the Cosmos

Comment #27795 by BaronOchs on March 26, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Bacteria have been found surviving in even the most inhospitable parts of the earth, prompting me to think it's quite probable there may at least be single-celled life forms on other planets. Another momentous thing to hope for is observing life originate again in a laboratory, which might tell us how likely life is to come into being on planets other than our own, as well as being yet another vindication of evolution.

Another place in our solar system where they might just possibly be life is underneath the ice on Jupiter's moon Europa, if it isn't too cold. I recall research on Lake Vostok underneath the Antarctic Ice should offer clues about that.

Apparently though Ladbrokes et al have taken so many bets that there is life on mars that if it is discovered they risk going into receivership!

417. Send The God Delusion to your MP

Comment #27781 by BaronOchs on March 26, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Yeay! So what will happen with the excess pledges?

Anyhow I hope I can look forward to hearing about this in the news.

418. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #27724 by BaronOchs on March 26, 2007 at 10:43 am

The best way I've heard the Monty Hall problem elucidated is imagine there were 10 doors instead of just 3. The car is behind one of them and goats behind the other nine. If you pick one it's most likely (9/10 chance) you've got a goat. So when Monty Hall opens 8 of the remaining 9 doors the one remaining has a 9/10 chance of being the car!

If you imagine it with just 3 doors the effect is less dramatic but it's still there, by switching you get a 2/3 rather than a 1/3 chance of winning.

419. Happy 66th Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #27712 by BaronOchs on March 26, 2007 at 9:32 am

Nothing wrong with crying once in a while!

Happy Birthday! And keep up the good work, the world needs a few sane voices!

420. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27630 by BaronOchs on March 25, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Gimli several of the points in your last post (111) are repeated verbatim from your post 245 on The only one in step. To which I made my own humble response. The proper thing to do is adequately reply to that before simply repeating the same comments. and necessary if there's to be any point discussing at all.

421. Sex in the 1700s

Comment #27615 by BaronOchs on March 25, 2007 at 4:45 pm

mjwemdee I understand this site to be about not just atheism but promoting knowledge and understanding in general. So why not an article about C18th erotic literature?! The format of this site is very accessible so I say the more that is made of it the better. I hope in time the totally or pretty much empty categories on the menu at the top (Maths and Tech/Economics/Law etc)will fill up with interesting material.

422. God and His Gays

Comment #27610 by BaronOchs on March 25, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Indeed if you break it down homophobia would literally mean "fear of the same". i.e. homo(same)phobia(fear of).

I concur . . .

423. Mormons miffed over coffee-swilling angel image

Comment #27596 by BaronOchs on March 25, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Yet the Christian churches continue to peddle this stuff, esp at Christmas time.

336 From its beginning until death, human life is surrounded by their watchful care and intercession. "Beside each believer stands an angel as protector and shepherd leading him to life."Already here on earth the Christian life shares by faith in the blessed company of angels and men united in God.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

424. God and His Gays

Comment #27584 by BaronOchs on March 25, 2007 at 12:56 pm

DavidJMH your argument seems to be the more gay people there are the less children we will beget which could lead to the human race dying out.

What do you say to the women and men who remain spinsters or batchelors and don't have any children? Are they indulgent, cowardly and immature?

There are many ways in which individuals can contribute to civilisation not just by having children, and great contributions to the arts and sciences (not to mention the day by day running of society) have been made by gay people.

You seem motivated by the assumption that once it's accepted soon we'll all end up gay. An assumption with no grounds.

425. God and His Gays

Comment #27573 by BaronOchs on March 25, 2007 at 10:39 am

David Robertson, Hello. Further to the points already made I'd say racist attitudes were prevalent and often uncritically accepted in the C19th and much of the C20th, indeed racism is still a big problem in the world today.

I'm not convinced science has ever provided a basis for racism, but I'm not surprised there have been plenty of people able to allow to allow an uncritical reading of it to support their pre-existing racist beliefs. The lesson here is to be more rigorously scientific and critical in our thinking, not less.

But if you want any examples of racism look at the harmful and insulting attitude of C19th missionaries towards the "savages" they sought to convert. For an example of intolerance just look how J.W.Colenso was treated just for being more respectful than his missionary colleagues.

William Wilberforce is to be commended for not drawing his morals from the bible, which as scottishgeologist points out condones slavery (just as it condones polygamy).

The more people who do likewise the better I think.

426. God and His Gays

Comment #27548 by BaronOchs on March 25, 2007 at 8:47 am

It goes well with ham.

427. God and His Gays

Comment #27547 by BaronOchs on March 25, 2007 at 8:47 am

Hey I love mustard! Have some more tolerance for my way of life!

428. Mormons miffed over coffee-swilling angel image

Comment #27534 by BaronOchs on March 25, 2007 at 7:39 am

So a fundamentalist woman can't wear anything remotely resembling "men's apparel" on the one hand or anything remotely sexy on the other. Doesn't leave them many dress options really does it?

429. The many forms of fundamentalism

Comment #27473 by BaronOchs on March 24, 2007 at 7:06 pm

I think the "Enlightenment criticising itself" bit is a reference to postmodernism. Regarding which I'm perfectly willing to listen to anyone who can actually explain me what it's about.

What I do know about postmodernism is it has provided a nice fig-leaf for backward thinking "radical orthodoxy" theologians. Not what the postmods intended I'm sure but there you are.

430. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27464 by BaronOchs on March 24, 2007 at 6:10 pm

If you force humanism into RE classes then you best be willing to admit CS in to the science class room.

431. Mormons miffed over coffee-swilling angel image

Comment #27456 by BaronOchs on March 24, 2007 at 5:53 pm

So Bach wrote most of his cantatas in praise of god, at least he wrote one in praise of coffee!

432. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27452 by BaronOchs on March 24, 2007 at 5:42 pm

Well Blacknad you seem a nice bloke who enjoys churchgoing and having his balls stroked. So I'm interested to know, do you believe christianity is true and other religions are false? Or do you believe all religions express the same basic truths? What about Heaven and Hell? do you believe someone's fate after death depends on their acceptance of some specific metaphysical claims?

433. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27443 by BaronOchs on March 24, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Yorker I agree young people can often be less dogmatic than adults, and a section aimed at younger readers on this site might not be a bad idea. Have you any ideas as to what form it might take?

434. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27413 by BaronOchs on March 24, 2007 at 12:57 pm

I had a search for his moniker in the Elder and Prose Eddas but I couldn't find anything that matched exactly, though there are things that come close. I wondered whether he was a secret Odin worshipper.

435. The Only One in Step

Comment #27391 by BaronOchs on March 24, 2007 at 11:00 am

Gimli you claim Dawkins uses rhetoric. Yes he does use some rhetoric I'll agree with you so far. You claim however that his ideas are so absurd a good dose of rhetorical sugar is needed to help the evolutionary medicine down. Here we disagree.

It is the idea land mammals may have become Whales and Dugongs that you claim is self-evidently absurd.

You ask why didn't they re-evolve gills?
There's no reason why they couldn't have it's just not that probable. The jump from gills to lungs in the first place was no doubt improbable, but not impossible. The fact is it only had to happen once. (Consider the mudskipper or the climbing perch for examples of fish who have managed to re-adapt to land.)

In which case it's not very likely to happen the other way or happen again. It could do though and if you want an example of a difficult trick pulled off more than once take the stick insects that re-evolved wings.

So I maintain the-land-mammals-that-evolved-into-whales could have re-evolved gills, it just wasn't very likely. It was far easier for them to make do with the respiratory system they had and get used to holding their breath.

This isn't ridiculous at all, just think Penguins dwell on land but can stay under water for 22 minutes. If the necessary evolutionary pressure was applied why couldn't they increase by small increments the amount of time they do spend under water until they end up spending no time on land?
at the same time it's not hard to see how any respectable duck could become like to a penguin if under the necessary pressures. Neither is it hard to envisage a crow say becoming ducklike. Thus you can see a nice line of stepping stones from a creature that doesn't dwell in water at all to one that does. And why couldn't some land mammals some time in history do the same and end up becoming whales?

As for the fish laying down on one side the benefits of doing so must have outweighed the adverse effects enough for it to be workable in the first place. From that point on those slightly better adapted, i.e. withs eyes slightly (it only need be ever so slightly)to one side were more likely to survive, wind the clock on and you've got flounders etc as they are today. As for the eyes evolvoing to one side not the other it only needs a trend towards a particular side to emerge in the first place and one thing will lead to another.

I hope that goes some way to answering your points.

436. The Only One in Step

Comment #27287 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 6:30 pm

But at least on the evidence of this quote he doesn't explain how Darwinism "illuminates" nor as to how its illumination contrasts with the Design Argument.
One doesn't need Darwinism to do such illuminating and on the evidence of Richard dawkins attempts in Climbing Mt Improbable it singularly fails.

437. The Only One in Step

Comment #27286 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Regarding the comment I quoted regarding "the next few turns in the plot of cosmic history" I see now this is ambiguous language. All that is meant is Science can actually predict the fate of the universe and elements within it. For instance we can make detailed models about the life-cycles of stars or predict the fact that the Andromeda galaxy will eventually collide with the Milky Way.

Equally evolution would allow you to make predictions as to what will occur in given scenarios. You can also identify recurrent themes, things that because of their usefulness can be expected to be stumbled upon again and again. Daniel Dennett calls these "Good Tricks"

But these are just series of events resulting from the interaction of natural forces, there is no plot or meaning to it, and sorry if the language used suggested otherwise.

438. The Only One in Step

Comment #27281 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Once again thankyou for your response Gimli. The recurring theme here seems to concern the falsifiability, or otherwise of evolution.

Talk origins have this little piece going over the basics but their article needs expanding on so I will do so here.

Evolution postulates the common ancestry of all organisms. If any organisms are said to share common ancestry it would follow that they would share similarities in their DNA sequence. Not only that, you'd expect evidence of this in quite idiosyncratic non-consequential parts of the sequence. In other words you'd expect some similarity in junk DNA. As it happens this is the case. This diagram shows shared elements of junk dna between organisms sharing common ancestry.

I just made a falsifiable evolutionary claim which hasn't been falsified.

Now I'm not sure how i'm supposed to demonstrate that the reason creationism doesn't make scientific journals is because it just doesn't cut it, not because of some materialist conspiracy. At any rate I can point out the claims of creationists and IDers have been taken seriously by scientists and answered in books like this.

439. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27260 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Sorry Corylus, the vegetables are out of favour at the moment!

440. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27252 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 4:22 pm

gimli thankyou for your feedback.

Since I do not have a degree in physics it is risky for me to rush off a response to your questions. But I will outline what springs to mind. Whereas in classical physics Vacuum was understood to be quite simply complete emptiness. I understand in contemporary physics it is basically understood as a sea of particles with negative energy (in plain language they don't exist). They can however exploit the uncertainty principle and jump into positive energy levels for extremely short moments, without violating conservation of energy. None of this is assumption but observable phenomena in particle physics.

Now there are possible ways in which a universe or multiple universes can emerge from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum. Theories can be made which explain how this would happen and if you explain the existence of our universe with such a theory it will have definite implications concerning the nature of our universe, which can be put to observation. And all that is being done is piecing together connections in what we have already observed.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge will elaborate or correct any misunderstandings I have made. As a result of this exchange I will familiarise myself further with these matters, so thankyou for inspiring me thus.

441. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27228 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Corylus Yes it's an aubergine . . .someone mentioned eggplants in a debate on one thread and it went there as a joke, uhh yeah well like you say I think it's replacement is required!

442. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27220 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Interesting thoughts gimli. Is postulating -even infinitely many- other universes as big a leap as postulating a divine being?

Hardly I think. Universes are things we know a little about, thanks to centuries of enquiry. We know they can exist and we know more than a little about how they do so. On the other hand we have no clue as to how an omnipotent-omniscient-eternal-being might exist, and as I have remarked in another post, we cannot in principle understand.

The bottom line is when cosmologists talk about a multiverse or other universe than our own, these are not just speculations but parts of theories than can ultimately offer testable predictions, even if we can't do so at this stage in science. That is more than can be said for any belief in a designer.

443. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27209 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 2:39 pm

I recall reading an article a few years back about the growing intelligent design movement in US colleges. Which basically argued students who had been brought up on creationism were going off to do Biology degrees, which made it very difficult to believe in creationism, so intelligent design offered an acceptable escape from the cognitive dissonance.

I don't know whether the Salem hypothesis boils down to anything, to do so I'd need to see some accurate statistics. But given the above, if all it's saying is that on the whole someone who has been indoctrinated all their life will probably be able to survive an engineering degree with those beliefs intact it doesn't surprise me, and it isn't a slight to engineers.

444. Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce

Comment #27155 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 9:56 am

nickthelight The middle ages are generally regarded as beginning in about the C5th and ending in the C16th. You might say beginning with the ascendancy of the catholic worldview and ending with the great questioning of it at the reformation.

Hence Catholics were persecuted in England after the middle ages not during it.

Also it's difficult to make judgements on the beliefs of people in previous ages, when science was still very much in its infancy for instance. Even David Hume called himself a deist rather than an atheist, at least initially.

In the C16th and C17th the old world, populated by spirits and demons and gods was on the wane, but it was still credible so personally I'm not going to castigate recusant catholics for not doing the sensible thing and adopting an anything goes vicar-of-brayism.

445. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #27117 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 7:45 am

Thanks hightrekker.

I did know there was an often quite fierce debate between Dawkins and Gould and their allies and it helps to understand Orr's animosity that this is a continuation of that controversy.

Perhaps I ought to look at the features of that debate. I know there is plenty of information from the Dawkins point of view on the other Dawkins website.

446. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27100 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 6:21 am

^Three cheers for Engineers!^

447. Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce

Comment #27066 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 4:16 am

I read this article in a state of sheer disbelief. If there's any consolation at least it exposes the deeply misogynistic nature of Islam.

Isn't that what you sign upto when you join one of those cults?

448. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #26990 by BaronOchs on March 22, 2007 at 6:35 pm

John P I recall a few things Wittgenstein said on religion such as:

"The religion of the future will have to be very ascetic, and that doesn't just mean going without food and drink"

i.e. religion will have to not rely on unfounded metaphysical claims. His thought on religion is not atheist in a straightforward sense whilst hardly offering much hope to the orthodox either.

Various philosophers of religion have developed approaches based on Wittgenstein (D.Z. Philips and Don Cupitt come to mind). Much of which would probably be acceptable to anyone who accepts Dawkins' Einsteinian religion.

H. Allen Orr shouldn't treat Wittgenstein and William James (his Varieties of Religious Experience is very worth reading) like magic words that need simply be spoken as a knock-down point in a debate. If he wants to rest his case on them he ought to develop the implications of their thought and ask himself honestly if the churches etc will ever be willing to accept those implications.

449. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #26989 by BaronOchs on March 22, 2007 at 6:11 pm

When I first encountered Dawkins' argument that God is an unsatisfactory explanation because he would be at least as complex and improbable as that which he is supposed to explain it did niggle at me that Aquinas and co describe God as simple.

Q: How does God manage to be omnipotent and omniscient etc but also not just quite simple but perfectly simple?

A: We were not intended to understand such mysteries now get on and say your prayers.

Essentially I smell a move from something very difficult to understand, the universe, to something that is in principle beyond our understanding, God. This should be regarded as a travesty to anyone who wants real understanding and this whole complex/simple argument is not worth the time of day.

450. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #26981 by BaronOchs on March 22, 2007 at 5:41 pm

From Wikipedia:

"He has published 66 Scientific Papers (including 2 in Nature, 1 in Science and 2 in PNAS)"

When you've had two papers published in Nature you tend to be called a Scientist MIND_REBEL.