Re: The Lisp Curse

On 2011-04-27 16:45:33 -0400, Jim Burton said:

It copes well with the soft target of fundamentalism but
lacks any of the philosophical subtlety needed to engage with reasonable
adults whose views differ from his own.

On the contrary, Dawkins' Occam's razor arguments in _The God Delusion_ apply just as well to the supposed "reasonable adults" who are multiplying entities beyond necessity too. It just isn't as obvious because the "adults" are not making goofy observable claims that are as easily disproven.

But the "adults" are making claims after all; if they make no claims whatsoever then their God is just an empty label with no content. They're making the claim for an impersonal God who creates the universe, sets it in motion as it were, and then no longer intervenes. However, such a God is an added entity of greater complexity than the thing we're trying to explain itself! After all, this supposed God is so complex, he can create whole universes! But this entity of unfathomable complexity adds zero additional explanatory power. Since he doesn't intervene in the universe, there is no conceiveable experiment that could show evidence of him, and hence, his presence in the theory cannot possibly add any explanatory power.

By Occam's razor, we're better off with the exact same scientific universe without adding the additional, hugely complex entity with zero observable effect. Dawkins is not just taking down the straw man of fundamentalism; he's systematically disproving every argument for God, even those for a weak, impersonal God. If we apply the same standards of evidence and logic to these "adult" characterizations of God that we apply in scientific enquiry, we find that there is no support for these supposedly more sophisticated "adult" conceptions of God either.

warmest regards,


Raffael Cavallaro